Interesting article from the President of Environmental Progress:
The decision to get rid of nuclear before getting rid of coal was a major environmental mistake.
You linked to the guy’s twitter account instead of the article.
I assume you meant this one: The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To
Yes, sorry about that. Rushing a bit this morning and I neglected to make sure I had the right link. Thanks for posting the correct one.
Definitely. WRT OP, and this is just from memory, but Germans pay more than any other Europeans for electricity. This mainly has to do with their programs to put in renewable energy systems while dismantling their nuclear power generation and trying (and failing) to really limit their use of fossil fuels, especially coal, for power generation. So, in real world terms, they have to use biomass and coal and buy their electricity from neighboring nations (at a premium) to make up the gaps.
IOW, it’s not going that well, though there are all sorts of excuses for why this is. It’s a similar story in Japan, who also decided to give up their nuclear (though they have walked that back afterwards…Germany hasn’t).
The thing is, where renewable technology is today, it can’t…not won’t, but CAN’T…be the major energy provider on the grid. It’s great as a niche provider, giving extra energy when the wind is blowing and the sun is out, but you need a stable baseline which wind and solar can’t do. If you take away nuclear, and you try and heavily limit coal or other fossil fuel use, then you are going to have to have something to do that stable baseline. Which, in Germany’s case (excluding the fact that they ARE still having to use coal, natural gas and biomass) means they need to buy energy from other neighboring countries.
To really make wind and solar work as folks seem to want it too, you are going to have to first off build a hell of a lot more of it than you need. Then you are going to need to do some sort of energy storage system. This is going to drive up the costs and complexity a lot more than most folks advocating for this seem to realize, or at least to say when they are pushing for it.
I agree with the Past Tense about the Nuclear issue, but there is a lot being missed on that article that looks to support an agenda.
That article lost me when I saw this:
Because that is not the whole history:
Renewables Generated a Record 65 Percent of Germany’s Electricity Last Week
So “flatlined”? and the opposition Der Spiegel is referring to is actually the far-right Germany party directing its unscientific claims at global warming activists.
So, after looking at the flaws, then one has to look at the one making the article for Forbes that ignores those caveats and other sources.
Oh, that is a guy from the Breakthrough Institute:
I know enough of the history of this issue and I can report that both Der Spiegel and Forbes are sources that one has to check their reporting on a case by case, I see most reporting on this issue as schizophrenic.
Well, describing the current conditions just ignores what can be done and what is coming.
Note how the article heading uses the word ‘can’…“Renewable Energy Can Provide 80 Percent of U.S. Electricity by 2050”. I agree, we ‘can’ have that, in theory…in 30 years. I disagree that we can do it with existing technology, as the article states, but I know you buy that claim so I’m not going to bother going over that again. As I’ve said in the past, show me the money. Who IS doing this, today. I mean, today’s technology is here already. The only places I’ve seen using such high levels of renewables have specific, usually geographic or population density concentration reasons they can do it, and they are usually small.
Why isn’t Germany doing it? Are they not using the correct ‘today’s technology’? What about Japan? Why aren’t other non-US countries doing it? Why isn’t China? I mean, it’s in their best interest to do so, after all, and if it’s so do-able, the technology being available today and all, and them not having Republicans or Trump, why aren’t they?
Myself, I think that the very push for this stuff before we have the actual technology to take advantage of it, such as energy storage systems that can be deployed on the scales we are talking about, is going to hurt renewable energy iniatives…as is already the case. I know you just blew off the OPs link, but Germany does seem to be having issues with this. Their power does seem to cost a lot more than the rest of Europe…which is more than the US generally pays. So…why aren’t they already there? They are all so far ahead of us, no? And they don’t have Republicans or Trump, as noted…nor our weird political system. And they DO have citizens willing to pay more for the common good.
Me, I’m in a wait and see mode on this. As I said in the last thread (or the one before that…there are so many), we’ll see where we are in 10 years. Maybe you and the Union of Concerned Scientists are right, and the breakout moment for renewables to become the cornerstone of the grid is upon us, and 30 years from now we’ll have 80% renewables…or, perhaps it will be Europe and China and everyone BUT the US, just like with healthcare (well…leave China out of that, as their healthcare is actually worse). I’m skeptical we can get there without nuclear, but Germany is the perfect case study for your argument, so let’s see how great they do going forward, right?
[/snip]
The first post I made shows that that is what is going on, the article from Forbes is in the form of what many deniers are turning now, lukewarmers that in the end just propose almost as much inaction as the deniers did before. Only that from the “too difficult” side of things… while others are doing it.
Oh good…then we should be seeing substantial progress towards that 80% target in non-US countries over the next 5-10 years. Excellent! See, you will be completely vindicated, and my skepticism will be for naught!
Never will I be so happy to have been skeptical about something and been proven that my skepticism was for nothing. Though, I still have to question why we moved away from nuclear so quickly BEFORE this great renewable revolution was ready, in 2019, to really take charge. I mean, we COULD have been doing nuclear for the last 30 years, and now been in the position where getting rid of the things wouldn’t hurt. Of course, since you and your article say it’s happening already, and we can expect large gains now outside of the US wrt total renewables in use (and probably substantial savings on the price of energy too), I’m sure that Germany and Japan ramping down nuclear won’t mean anything anyway. Probably why France is doing the same thing.
Even more 
Because I’m in favor of nuclear power and I already did say that Germany should be doing better if they had not closed most of their nuclear plants.
I mean, how hard is to admit that you missed a lot of what I posted early?