• poVoqA
    link
    11 year ago

    I very specifically stated electricity production. Full replacement is sadly not possible as long as the structure of society is as it is. Please learn to read :p

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      You do realize that industry relies on electricity production. In fact, industry tends to account for far higher electricity consumption than domestic use.

      • poVoqA
        link
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes and Germany is already able to cover 100% electricity needs (including industry) with renewables on windy and sunny days, despite the massive lack of storage and political sabotage of new installations and transfer capacity.

        The industries with some problems right now are those that need fossil fuels either directly as inputs or because it was cheaper than electricity to heat with it and thus their existing large scale equipment doesn’t work with electricity.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Like I said, let’s see the actual lifecycle numbers that include the total energy consumption per year, the energy costs of producing and maintaining the renewables, as well as the cost of energy storage for days when it’s not sunny or windy. The compare these totals with the renewable infrastructure outputs. You’re doing a lot of hand waving here.

          • poVoqA
            link
            11 year ago

            No, you are trying to change the topic and arguing against a strawman again. Please try for once to read and understand what others are writing :(

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              I’m not changing any topics here. Let me try use simpler language to help you understand what’s being said. I challenge your claim that renewables alone are able to match Germany’s electricity production coming from fossil fuels today when you look at the totality of electricity consumption, the operating cost of renewable infrastructure, and the cost of energy storage.

              I asked you to provide supporting sources for that claims you’re making. Now you’re weaseling as you always do. Please try for once to read and understand what others are writing :(

              • poVoqA
                link
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It truly pointless discussing with you if you do not even try to read what others are saying. I didn’t say anything of what you claim I did. I understand perfectly well what you are saying, but you are responding to things I never claimed, so how am I supposed to react to that?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  0
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Let’s look back at what you actually said then:

                  This conveniently leaves out that the former & regional governments have been intentionally sabotaging wind and solar energy installations (and energy transfer capacity) on a massive scale in the last 15+ years.

                  The implication you’re making here is that the actual reason coal mines are being reopened is due to sabotage of wind and solar energy installations. Then you proceed to argue the following:

                  In the early 2000 they were on a good track to replace a large percentage of the coal electricity production with solar and wind energy, but then the new conservative government under Merkel took power and deliberately killed that off to please their big business energy producers.

                  And this is where I’m asking you to provide hard numbers for the claim that the plans from 2000, that Merkel derailed, would actually produce sustainable renewable infrastructure that would replace large percentage of fossils. I’m not sure why you keep weaseling here instead of actually substantiating your claims.