this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
11 points (64.9% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Get your facts straight, or update Wikipedia to reflect your understanding:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Belgium
wind + solar + hydro → 20%
80% from burning fuels¹. With 3 new gas-burning plants under construction to replace nuclear, that’s not going to improve things.
Nonsense. I guess you missed the whole “Code Red” march against Electrabel last year protesting the plan to build 3 new gas-burning power plants.
And that’s important why? From wikipedia:
“Belgium decided to phase out nuclear power generation completely by 2025.”
Whether there are 1, 2, or 5 nuclear plants is immaterial when it’s all being phased out, and replaced with gas-burning power plants.
Betting in a way that neglects plans that have already been announced is stupid for sure.
¹ recall: fuel energy → heat energy→ steam → turbine → transmission → heat energy
I'll summarise why this is wrong too
Ignoring other renewables
Ignoring French nuclear imports
Ignoring current state but talking about possible future plans
I have accounted for all the renewables mentioned in the linked wikipedia page, which covers sources as insignificant as hydro (<1%). What else is there? Have you thought about updating wikipedia with whatever you think is missing?
That would only increase the proportion of fuel energy even more, which only works against your botched claim. If you want to count French nuclear, then the portion of solar, wind, and hydro is proportionally even less. Brussels currently has a nuclear power plant inside the region. Why do you think it would it be sensible to transmit over such distance? That would introduce even more substantial inefficiency in the transmission.
The status quo only has 1 year left on it. And nuclear power still has the same stages of energy transition loss you’ve failed to debunk. What’s the point? Your claim is nonsense either way.
No you haven't. Read your own source. Hint: biogas
Also, nuclear fuel is not gas, so this speaks for electric stoves, silly.
biogas was used in 2009, not in 2020 when the stats were collected. Nor would it matter if it were still used. Hint: it would be an increase on the 80%.
recall: fuel energy → heat energy→ steam → turbine → transmission → heat energy
That’s fuel. That’s in the 80%.
again: fuel energy → heat energy→ steam → turbine → transmission → heat energy
Try fueling your stove with uranium and report back
Luckily you don’t need to burn uranium to avoid 5 steps of energy transformation.