this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
225 points (94.5% liked)
Green Energy
2201 readers
148 users here now
Everything about energy production and storage.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Some countries have sun, some don't. They might need nuclear. That is the reality.
Which countries? The UK is famous for its cloudy weather, yet solar is feasible there. Finland and Sweden are building more and more solar. Not sure where you're talking about.
UK has wind.
I'm taking east Europe for instance.
FWIW, Baltic countries are going hard for solar, see https://lemmy.world/post/17098210
Baltics powered by Finnish and Swedish nuclear.
Well, that's a bald-faced lie. Maybe if we were only talking about Lithuania, which does import big chunk of its energy budget from Sweden, but Estonia and Latvia generate most of their energy on their own - and according to the linked article, plan to generate even more in near future.
Context is everyting. Here's some cold hard facts for you:
As of 00:00 on 19/07/2024:
| Country | From | % | MW | |--------------| -------- |
| ---- | | Estonia | Finland | 37% | 358 | | Latvia | Estonia | 33% | 325 | | Lithuania | Sweden | 40% | 733 |
% being the overall percentage of electricity consumption.
So >1GW imported from SE/FI out of ~4GW total in the Baltics is imported from countries with 40-50% nuclear baseload.
Everyone is or at least tries to portray they are. Your article could be written for almost any country in the world.
But that doesn't mean a country can be run on solar alone.
Who is suggesting solar alone?
Many people seem to think that's the idea. I don't know about you, but when you frame the discussion as solar vs nuclear, that is what you are suggesting.
I mean, it's fair to compare the two techs but that's different from suggesting that you need a single approach to generation. No one is seriously suggesting that only solar for generation is sensible
I'm not sure if this is your first conversation on the topic but the debate is almost entirely on renewables vs nuclear.
There are many other types of renewables than just solar.
Really? Wow! Thanks!
You are not arguing in good faith if you use exclusively solar in one sentence and then make sweeping generalisations about renewables in another. And yes, consider this a final warning from a mod of this community.
I mean, you can ban me for a sarcastic post on your dumb one, sure go ahead if that flicks your switch I guess.
I am arguing in good faith. I live in a country where there isn't enough good areas for wind and the weakness of the distribution network and other factors like amount of sun prevent quick installations of significant amount of solar. We already have nuclear, the knowhow and place the build more.
So you and everyone else can try to convince me that I don't live where I do, I will still live where I live.
Now ban me and show me what a big man you are.
Did you notice yourself using the word "solar" in this conversation rather than "renewables"?
Yes. I used renewables. But I used solar before because that was specifically the conversation. What a funny and irrelevant question.
FFS if you can't see that changing the topic of conversation effects the meaning of people's responses then I don't know what to tell you. I'm done here
Woosh....
Moves goalposts. Gets called on it. Acts like a dick. What a waste of space.
Oh. You are back! I thought you said you were done? But you decided try with insults again?
How cute. But you failed the first time, now it's just cringe 😂.
Too cringe for me I'm afraid. Bye.
No, the article definitely could not be written for any country in the world, because it lists concrete actions, numbers for past few years, and concrete plans for next few years.
But judging from your comments here and elsewhere in the thread, you do not care about discussion, and will move goalposts whenever it suits you. You are not a nice person. So, PLONK.
Not true. You don't seem to know much about energy policies in EU.
But well... Bye
Why does eastern Europe get less sunlight?
It’s like 3 am there
Less than Spain. There is a winter. Geography and suitable areas less common. Distribution network made for power plants.
Nuclear plants can be a better cost effective fit.
Darkovia has zero sun
Until a weather event blocks out most of the sunlight. An extreme scenario would be what happened to the dinosaurs, however smaller scale versions or that, such as large volcano eruptions, seem entirely possible and could heavily restrict the amount of sunlight you have access to for long periods of time.
Portugal lies in Southern Europe, we get plenty of sun, and we make heavy use of solar, but that still isn't enough sometimes, and I'm pretty sure we sometimes get our energy from Spain, who themselves use nuclear.