Archived link

Laying out key priorities for the EU’s upcoming Clean Industrial Deal, German Economy State Secretary Sven Giegold said on Monday (30 September) he wants the Commission to prioritise renewable energy, taking a tough line on nuclear power and France’s renewable targets.

Alongside a quicker roll-out of renewable energy facilitated by “further exemptions from [environmental impact] assessments,” Giegold outlined several other German priorities for the EU’s upcoming strategy.

Based on the 2030 renewable energy targets, the EU should also set up a 2040 framework, complemented by new, more ambitious targets for energy efficiency, he said.

“It should include new heating standards, a heat pump action plan and a renovation initiative,” he explained, noting a heat pump action plan was last shelved in 2023.

Hydrogen, made from renewables, should be governed by a “a pragmatic framework,” the German politician stressed, reiterating calls from his boss, Economy Minister Robert Habeck (Greens), to delay strict production rules into the late 2030s.

  • daddy32@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    You make it sound like the completely predictable power output of nuclear is a problem and unpredictable variation in output of the wind/solar is great.

    • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s totally not what they said. Nuclear is very slow to change power output slower than demands fluctuate.

    • federal reverse@feddit.orgM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      You make it sound like the completely predictable power output of nuclear is a problem

      That is a challenge, because it means you need a flat consumption curve as well – which in reality you don’t see often. I.e. you either need to waste or cheaply export energy, especially at night and over the weekend to make sure your grid doesn’t crash.

      and unpredictable variation in output of the wind/solar is great.

      The point is that augmenting solar/wind with (plain) nuclear doesn’t work well.

      But the variability of solar/wind are a challenge as well, especially given the at times negative energy prices. Fossil, biomass, battery, pumped hydro, and H2-based power production have a huge advantage there.

      • daddy32@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well there’s a base load of the grid that can be effectively served by the non-variable power plants - or is this outdated approach?

        • federal reverse@feddit.orgM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          For every country that is moving to a solar/wind-dominated future, “base load” definitely is outdated. “Base load” was always artificially propped up economically through night-time power tariffs, and propped up practically through night shifts in factories (thus continually running processes) and things like night storage heaters.

          You certainly don’t need base load to keep the grid stable, you just need to be able to quickly match production and consumption.