Random fact of the day: For more than 12 years I've been a customer of a supplier of electric energy that produces 100% renewable energy.
No regrets. I'm very happy that my money did not (and will not in the future) help to finance fossil fuel or nuclear energy companies.
In my specific case the "mix" is 100% local (i.e., in my country) hydroelectric power plants, though other companies also have wind, solar, geothermal energy and such.
@uwehermann of course you still use the fossil- and nuclear-generated energy, you just help pay for getting the renewable stuff to a better place financially (which is great, of course)
What do you have against nuclear energy?I think we should invest massively in the newer-gen nuclear reactors, they have much less problems and are very efficient. And it's much better to have nuclear waste that may cause some problems later(much later probably)when technology will be better than get more CO2 imo
@Matter Not sure I understand. This specific company is not one of those that deal in both fossil/nuclear *and* renewable, they *only* do 100% renewable.
Details here (apply translation as needed, text is in German):
As for nuclear, I'm personally not a fan for at least two specific reasons: (1) the nuclear waste problems and (2) the risk (think Chernobyl, Fukushima, and various other "smaller" incidents that happened over the years).
@uwehermann Well, they pay for that electricity to those generating it in a renewable way alright, but you still use the same grid as everyone else (so in the end most of the electrons going through your wires were set in motion by fossil fuels anyway). Not really important, but still.
@uwehermann About the nuclear waste: there's no problem if the process gets enough funding(and the newer reactors make almost none of it, especially thorium ones)For the incidents:they have a lot less impact than what coal has every day and I think Germany made a mistake getting out of nuclear energy generation.All the big incidents were in some way related to lack of funding and operating old reactors
Nuclear power is simply the cleanest option we have,especially with short-term climate change
@Matter I agree with you that nuclear is much better than fossil, but renewables produce neither CO2 nor nuclear waste, so they're still superior to nuclear.
Nuclear is certainly a better go-between before we can go 100% renewable than coal, though.
Unfortunately most of those who fight against fossil fuels are also dead-set against nuclear, however, so they won't support that path.
@colomar @Matter @uwehermann Sadly renewables are not w/out problems, which people are not talking about (and I'm quite for renewables). I don't know anywhere there is solely renewable, partially b/w it works best as a supplemental form. It also creates the problem of storage. Even very windy/sunny places have considerable intensity modulation--which means batteries. As far as I know batteries are neither renewable, nor green, often requiring exotic metals. What needs changing is lifestyle.
@hrthu @colomar @uwehermann while I do think we can eventually go full renewables, I think we need to use nuclear in the short and mid term as baseline and supplement it with stored renewable energy (not necessarily all in chemical batteries, gravitational potential energy like dams or those concrete towers could be great too)
@hrthu Batteries are not the only way to store energy. Power-to-gas is currently the most promising way to store surplus renewable energy, and then as @Matter said there are also other ways such as dams.
I just recently listened to a professor of engineering who showed that technically, 100% renewable is already possible, it just needs the will to do it.
@colomar @Matter @uwehermann My understanding of current non-chemical batteries are that they are rather inefficient. I haven't seen studies on it, but I imagine it will be a long time before solar is able to move enough water uphill in order to fill a damn large enough to power a small city. I'd love to be wrong.
Is that professor watchable online?
@hrthu @colomar @uwehermann actually the mechanical solutions are very close or better than chemical ones, and much more scalable. There are already a lot of dams and artificial lakes set up for pumping water when supply is high and then getting it back down when demand is high, so it's not a theoretical thing. Recently something with concrete that's built into a tower was announced, very interesting since you don't need the specific conditions required for a dam and such
One advantage of power-to-gas is that gas can be stored in large quantities underground without really affecting the landscape. Which way of storage is preferable depends in the geographical and geological conditions in the end.
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.