Besides blocking traffic, windmills also does not release CO2 into the atmosphere, neither do they spew mercury - both wonderful, integral parts of coal-driven plants. So wind farms cannot ever replace those beautiful fossil fuels. Not even infinite windmills would suffice... (sarcasm included)
Didn't need the lecture: I used to work in coal as a media guy. Know everything there is to about air and water pollution; saw the inside of the hell that a typical Donbas mine is. Live in a green pioneer country. Notwithstanding, TODAY's renewables are just unsustainable so far💔 Watch DW "Planet A"
It seems to me that both sun and wind is working pretty well. I am not an expert on the finances but we have a discussion in Denmark about nuclear as well, and the general argument against is that it is too expensive and that other renewables are cheaper.
They're NOT working well as they need gigantic subsidies to replace the fossil fuels. Solar today is completely dependent on China-made panels. I suggest you watch everything in this DW channel. Journos are biased pro-renewables but don't censor out their downsides. www.youtube.com/@DWPlanetA
I suggest you read every paper and article ever written on renewables and fossil fuel, think about it for ten years and then write your next reply.
Yes, but building new nuclear power plants would also require subsidies. I just looked a bit into the numbers, and at least this research paper finds that it's much cheaper for Denmark to continue building wind and solar farms. vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfil...
* your research paper probably forgot to mention two herds of elephants in the room: - China controls world market of solar panels and can destroy it by cutting its subsidized export - Denmark / EU simply don't have money or labor for costly expansion of the "Green Energy" (not with Russia's war).
Hence the painful need to keep fossil fuels electricity generation (even building new plants in some cases)💔
Fossil fuels are only affordable if we don't count the bill to deal with the pollution and climate change. From a societal point of view, it is a ridiculous business case.
It's about societal survival, not business( Fossils and nuclear are online now and people's lives depend on their electricity output. Pollution and climate are, sadly, MUCH less important. Switching fossils / nukes off will require a mammoth centralized investment, and a DEEP sociopolitical reform.
That is not the case in this part of Europe. I fully understand that green transition is not a priority in Ukraine right now, but here there is still bandwidth for it and it is even seen as a security priority. In fact, just yesterday the government moved forward on a new giant wind farm.
🤦♂️ What "bandwidth"?? You of all people should've noticed Rutte's mention of the need to "scale up NATO air defense by 400%". Or the fact that EU doesn't have a single weapon with 1000 km range (let alone a supersonic one). There's no bandwidth for ANY feel-good causes in the West anymore.
Don't make it personal. I understand how frustrating it is to watch, but the reality is that defense even with all these increases is still only a small part of the budget here.
Economy of scale, if there is no market then it is more expensive.
There IS no market physically for the expensive renewable energy. Commercial consumers will just offshore their operations (a key reason why EU can't scale up weapons manufacturing) and home consumers will just flee the inaffordable housing: abroad, to homelessness, to the grave.