612
Germany begins dismantling wind farm for coal (euobserver.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
282 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

German energy giant RWE has begun dismantling a wind farm to make way for a further expansion of an open-pit lignite coal mine in the western region of North Rhine Westphalia.

I thought renewables were cheaper than coal. How is this possible?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 3 years ago (10 children)

If you care about energy density, nuclear is the best solution, not coal. I guess Germans don't care though

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Germans literally shut down all thier nuclear power in favour for coal power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    It was meant to be replaced by renewables but our minister of economics dumped the whole solar and wind turbine industry. Additionally his party made up bullshit rules about a minimum distance for turbines to households, which was apparently 10x of the reasonable distance and which made it very hard to find spots in densely populated Germany. And to this day, the federations with a renewable energy surplus have to pay more for electricity than those who give a shit about renewables. -it is discussed to be changed now but idk

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I didn't say density is the paramount parameter. Also, once you optimize one drawback, it generally gets less important.

    I just wanted to put the image into context, and show that it isn't a big step backwards, just sideways perhaps. Or in other words, a sigle wind farm isn't relevant, the sum is

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    That's true, although I think they decided on coal since it's cheaper financially (not ecologically and healthwise of course).

    It would make sense to just simply move them but the fact that they want to burn coal is just weird.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    So that means it will not be cheaper in the medium to long term. Since they will have to deal with the burden on their healthcare system, especially among their ageing population. Plus the scummy carbon offset trades that they have to wiggle themselves into.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •