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)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
poVoq@slrpnk.net
11
[answered] Electricity prices are more than double gas prices in Belgium (so why do Belgians overwhelmingly favor electric ovens?) (fedia.io)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io to c/europe@feddit.de
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'll summarise why this is wrong too

  • Ignoring other renewables

  • Ignoring French nuclear imports

  • Ignoring current state but talking about possible future plans

[–] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Ignoring other renewables

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?

Ignoring French nuclear imports

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.

Ignoring current state but talking about possible future plans

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.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

No you haven't. Read your own source. Hint: biogas

Also, nuclear fuel is not gas, so this speaks for electric stoves, silly.

[–] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

No you haven't. Read your own source. Hint: biogas

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

Also, nuclear fuel is not gas, so this speaks for electric stoves, silly.

That’s fuel. That’s in the 80%.

again: fuel energy → heat energy→ steam → turbine → transmission → heat energy

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Try fueling your stove with uranium and report back

[–] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 0 points 5 months ago

Luckily you don’t need to burn uranium to avoid 5 steps of energy transformation.