• cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    100% renew

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production

    All the countries that manage 100% renewable power use high levels of hydropower. Which is not an option for many countries and has it’s own ecological problems associated with it.

    Also, these 100% renewable countries have very little electricity requirements.

    https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php

    The United States produces at least produces four million Gigawatt hours of electricity per year. Compare that to some of these “100% renewable” countries.

    • Sure, most countries that already made it use hydro. But Denmark is already up tp 80% without hydro, and the UK and Germany are already nearly halfway there without any meaningful hydro. And there’s still so much solar and wind that can still be installed. They’re nowhere near their maximum production capacity yet.

      100% from renewables is clearly feasible and achievable. Of course it takes time and investments, but nuclear energy will takre more time and investments to get going again.

    • Frokke@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Oh noes, facts. The bane of all renewables evangelicals…

      Just wait till you have to tell them they’re looking at irrelevant data. Not only are they using specific usecases that are not applicable to a large majority of countries, but they’re also using data that doesn’t support the long term fossil fuel goals.

      Just wait till you tell them how much the electricity requirements will skyrocket once we’re transitioning to EV, dropping fossil fuel heating, cooking, cargo trucks switch to EV, etc etc.