this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
8 points (90.0% liked)

World News

32351 readers
334 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

German energy giant RWE has begun dismantling a wind farm to make way for a further expansion of an open-pit lignite coal mine in the western region of North Rhine Westphalia.

I thought renewables were cheaper than coal. How is this possible?

top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RagnarokOnline@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think this headline is misleading.

A better headline might read: “Coal found beneath wind farm. Turbines dismantled to make room for mining operation.”

[–] youRFate@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Still, its lignite, they should cease all mining operations.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Germany, are you on the drugs?

[–] A2PKXG@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's about density. Renewables Are great, but not on terms of value add per square foot. The coal under the wind mill is worth orders of magnitude more than the windmill.

And, it's not as bad as it sounds. In general, the number of windmills keeps increasing.

[–] UlrikHD@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you care about energy density, nuclear is the best solution, not coal. I guess Germans don't care though

[–] A2PKXG@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't say density is the paramount parameter. Also, once you optimize one drawback, it generally gets less important.

I just wanted to put the image into context, and show that it isn't a big step backwards, just sideways perhaps. Or in other words, a sigle wind farm isn't relevant, the sum is

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

Mining more coal is extremely relevant though.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ban straws! (even though disabled people need them and they create negligible pollution)

Replace your car with an electric one! (even though it still works fine and will end up in landfill, never mind the environmental cost of producing the new one, or the source of the electricity it uses)

Reduce your carbon footprint! (even though its a term we invented ourselves to shift responsibility to you, while we fly our private jets around creating more pollution than you ever could in 10 lifetimes)

Recycle! (even though 90% of it ends up in landfill anyway because we don't want to pay to actually recycle it)

All equates to

Look the other way while we continue to rape the planet and blame it on you!!!

Never forget - capitalists (and the governments they're co-dependent on) only want more money, they don't car about you or me or the planet, only about themsleves and the numbers in their accounts, and they will never willingly stop doing whatever it takes to make more.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

or the source of the electricity it uses

Oh, quit this noise. In the same countries where electric cars are becoming common, wind/water/sun-produced energy is also on the rise. Electric cars decouple the energy used from the means of production in ways that gasoline will never have, and the potential outweighs the temporary conditions of power generation in socially backward areas like Darfur and America.

[–] smollittlefrog@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Luckily many people live in democracies where they can simply vote to enact climate policies.

Sadly most people living in those democracies choose to continue enabling climate change.

The reason nothing is being done against climate change isn't corrupt politicians. It's the millions of people voting for them.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol, no.

The fault lies with those who built and benefit from the system, not those trapped in it who are merely given the illusion of choice.

Get off your high horse and aim your anger at the right people, otherwise all you are doing is enabling their rigged system.

[–] smollittlefrog@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Your first link is US only, your second link is about a completely seperate issue. You don't need to dismantle capitalism to protect the climate.

In Germany, where I live, the voters could easily vote for the greens "Grüne" and the left "Linke".

If those two parties had a majority in government, we'd have a climate friendly system in no time.

But they don't. We had a conservative government for 16 years. Now we have a center government, which sadly includes the small government / free market party "FDP", blocking all significant progress.

No systemic oppression stops people from voting Left/Greens. But they never did, and never will.

There's now an uprise of the far right party "AfD" in Germany, to the point it's becoming one of the major parties.

In Germany people have the choice readily available to stop actively damaging the climate.

But every couple of years, they freely choose to not do that.

I feel like many left-wing people regularly forget about the billions of people who genuinely do not care to do anything about climate change.

[–] Harrison@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago

Under capitalism, the capitalist class controls the media, and can use their wealth to control the political class.

A democracy can only make choices so far as it's voters are informed, and when a group controls most sources of information, it can control the democracy as a whole.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don’t need to dismantle capitalism to protect the climate.

You absolutely do. If it was profitable to destroy the envrionment capitalism would do it in a heartbeat. And guess what it IS profitable to destroy the environment, that is why it is happening! You cannot protect the environment under capitalism.

[–] smollittlefrog@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You can limit capitalism without abolishing it.

In Germany people are guaranteed 20/24 paid vacation days. That's not profitable.

That's a limit imposed on capitalism. It can be done and has been done without abolishing capitalism.

That's just one of the thousands of policies that limit capitalism.

You can limit capitalism (as literally every capitalist nation does) without abolishing it.

Enforcing climate friendlyness would be just another limit.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

When you try to limit capitalism you get nuclear plants being shut down and coal plants being opened and the environment still being destroyed.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

No they can't? If it was as simple as voting for green policies we'd see more of them. The only thing people can do is vote for greenwashed policies that do not impact the bottom line of industry.

[–] suction@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Delete this InfoWars-level bs misinformation meant to smear clean energy.

One small privately owned wind farm is being disassembled, this is not a general new policy or anything signalling a shift away from clean energy.

[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cmon Germany I wanna root for you so bad because of your pro-consumer laws but blunders like this and the nuke plants keep making it so damn hard.

[–] andrai@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The contract for RWE to expand the mine there goes back decades and the wind farm operator knew it would be demolished before they build it. It's at the end of its life cycle now and had to be demolished one way or another.

German government could either breach their contract with RWE and pay them compensation or allow the destruction of a derelict wind park in exchange of RWE stopping coal extraction 8 years earlier then planned. It's a job well done by the government.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

They are the Government, they can just shut down coal immediately by law. Make all coal extraction immediately illegal, sue RWE for climate destruction, throw the executives in jail. Save the planet.

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Didn't the green party in Germany have power in government right now? And weren't they the same guys who dismantled their nuclear plants?

I'm not very informed on German politics but if the answer to both was yes they should really rename their green party to the coal party.

[–] napoleonsdumbcousin@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The original contract with the company RWE was made in the 1990s and included destroying whole towns for the coal mine, which was planned to be in use until 2038.

What we see now is a compromise between RWE, the state of North Rhine-Westphalia and the federal government to save the remaining towns and close the mine earlier (in 2030). The wind turbines are from 2001 and are nearing the end of their lifecycle.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why not introduce a coal tax of 1million per ton, no need to modify the contract at all. If they want to pay 1million per ton to mine the coal, RWE is more then welcome to do so. It is their legal right after all.

[–] rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This would likely end up hurting consumers more than RWE, because the "merit order" pricing system sets electricity prices depending on the production cost of the most expensive unit of electricity that is being consumed at a given time (usually coal). So raising the production cost of coal-based electricity sadly will also raise electricity prices, so long as renewables don't take over a larger share of the market.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

I mean of course it would hurt consumer absent government intervention, that is the design of the market system. Socialize costs, privatize the profits. But it doesn't HAVE to be that way if Germany actually wanted to go green.