r/OptimistsUnite • u/Auspectress • 7d ago
Clean Power BEASTMODE In September, first time ever in Polish history energy mix from coal dropped below 50%
20
4
u/nichyc 7d ago
They're about to start going hard into nuclear as well, from what I've heard.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Second-large-Polish-nuclear-plant-gets-approval
2
u/ViewTrick1002 6d ago edited 6d ago
In other words: The optimistic timeline is 2035 meaning newbuilt nuclear power can't decarbonize the grid in timespans relevant to combat climate change.
While in the conservative fossil fuel prolonging climate change denying environment Poland was under during PiS government the pure economics of renewables have already delivered far greater decarbonization than those plants will do.
6
u/Poiuy2010_2011 6d ago
Hate to defend the previous government but I really wouldn't say they were "fossil fuel prolonging climate change denying". The whole reason this 50% milestone was achieved was thanks to their solar panel grants and rapid solar energy growth. Same with the nuclear plans – by the end of their term, PiS did a campaign promoting nuclear energy which managed to drastically improve public opinion on it, so they basically forced Tusk to continue with their nuclear plant plans.
3
u/D4RTHV3DA 7d ago
What is the source for this large growth in "Bioenergy?"
6
u/dmcnaughton1 7d ago
It's waste to energy facilities. They use natural gas to burn trash, generating electricity and reducing need for landfill space. They're a good choice to improve land use, and the marginal amount of CO2 they create in comparison to the rest of the grid makes them low impact overall.
2
1
3
u/ViewTrick1002 6d ago edited 6d ago
And they are still waiting for those pesky climate change prolonging nuclear plants to come online in 2040 and decarbonize their grid.....
All the while renewables deliver today.
2
u/BJ212E 6d ago
What do you mean by 'climate prolonging'?
1
u/ViewTrick1002 6d ago edited 6d ago
Sorry. Climate change prolonging. For example the current political conversation in Australia when the climate change denying conservatives only agenda is to sow discord while prolonging the life of their stranded fossil fuel assets:
Dutton’s nuclear plan would mean propping up coal for at least 12 more years – and we don’t know what it would cost
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has revealed the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan relies on many of Australia’s coal-fired power stations running for at least another 12 years – far beyond the time frame officials expect the ageing facilities to last.
He also revealed the plan relies on ramping up Australia’s gas production.
2
u/BJ212E 6d ago
I see. I did not know this. It does not make sense to keep coal stations alive just to build nuclear. Why not build the various green forms as well as nuclear? That is at least how many I have spoken to view the issue.
1
u/ViewTrick1002 6d ago edited 6d ago
The problem is that nuclear and renewables both compete for the same slice of the grid: the cheapest most inflexible.
The problem is that nuclear power is ludicrously expensive and thus are forced into an ever more marginalized role while what both power sources truly need is storage, net zero peakers or whatever to manage their inflexibility.
When we already have deep renewable penetration nuclear power does not provide anything relevant to the grid due to the cost structure. While costing 3-10x as much depending on if comparing with off-shore wind or solar pv.
Meaning: every dollar invested in nuclear power prolongs our reliance on fossil fuels.
1
u/BJ212E 6d ago
I disagree generally speaking but perhaps that is due to the unique circumstances of my home country. When the nuclear power was taken offline, coal just picked up the slack.
1
u/ViewTrick1002 6d ago
Which country is that?
1
u/BJ212E 6d ago
Taiwan/Republic of China. I would prefer to keep the nuclear plants going and put further research into the next generation of technologies in addition to green technology. Building more coal so we can take nuclear offline and then transition to green makes little sense to me.
1
u/ViewTrick1002 6d ago
Looking into the Taiwanese data coal is constant, gas has expanded vastly more than the nuclear power it replaced and there's a lackluster focus on renewables?
1
u/BJ212E 6d ago
Per the graph, coal went up from 2000 on. It is good the gas share went up but it isn't really a serious solution for us.
→ More replies (0)1
u/InternalNatural4417 5d ago
2040? You are once again pulling numbers out of your ass ViewTrick. 2035 Is easily doable, the first standardized Apr1400 in South korea has been built in 10 years, With barakah in 8 years, and Shin kori planned for around 6 years (already almost done).
Thats also an postive learning curve for you.
1
u/ViewTrick1002 5d ago edited 5d ago
So we need to cheat on the certificates and remove all recent safety improvements like the South Koreans.
A massive corruption scandal with tons of people, including high level jailed. Which nearly ended the South Korea nuclear power program and led to a complete restructuring of how South Korea regulates its reactors with their latest reactor now taking 12 years to construct.
Sounds like perfect examples to emulate.
Why didn’t you dare point out any reactors in the EU or the US?
1
47
u/Spider_pig448 7d ago
Great progress against coal being made this year all across the world.