this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
2924 points (98.4% liked)

World News

39102 readers
3562 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You misunderstand. I'm saying the end user energy company justifies being on the more expensive side by advertising that they use renewables, but actually when they buy electricity renewables is cheaper for them. So they're paying less but charging the end user more.

The cost saving of renewables is rarely passed on to the consumer.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah ok, NOW I see what you're getting at! That IS pretty scummy!

Still not as scummy as still relying on fossil fuel now that there's literally no good reason to, though..

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean there is some reason not to, at least until proper alternatives are set up. I work in the HV industry, and in my opinion we've rushed to close larger, relatively efficient coal plants and replace them with smaller, far less efficient diesel and gas generators that can be hidden behind tall fences in industrial estates. These pollute far more per MW than coal plants, but they're out of sight, out of mind.

We definitely should be going hard into current renewable technology to fill out demand. That's the fastest way to net zero in many regions. There is something to be said for big rotating generators though, ie large turbines, as these provide voltage and frequency stability - renewables are often inverter driven, even wind turbines, so these are always following the grid and can destabilise if voltage or frequency goes. Meanwhile, a large machine has inertia so it will want to keep spinning and maintain the same output when large loads switch in and out. This sort of thing can be provided by nuclear power. So if we build lots of renewables now to get clean, then build nuclear to fill out, that might be the best solution.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I could go into detail about the many ways in which you're wrong, but it's frankly not worth the time and effort, especially with the detailed back and forth that would inevitably follow, so I'll just cut to the chase and summarise:

NO

[–] VOwOxel@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I want to embrace discussion here. Please specify these "many ways".

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

There's difference between "embracing" and "forcing". I already said I didn't want to and why.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I mean, most of what I said is backed up by a Future Energies Study, that went into far more depth than you or I are aware of, but you go ahead and think you know better.