Data Centres don't necessarily need to have negative environmental impacts .. they can be made to use water and energy sustainability. This is just a matter of regulation.
Extracting, exporting, and burning fossil fuels not so much.
The fundamental costs and margin requirements in the system haven't changed.
This is a government-mandated electricity plan (a default market offer) that competitive electricity retailers are now required to offer. Those retailers still have network costs, environmental costs, energy costs, and administration costs to recover, and so prices at other times of day necessarily go up.
Some consumers may be better off on this plan (generally at the expense of other consumers), and some will be worse off.
It’s not 100% “instead”, but equally it’s not 0%. A grid with more distributed generation (and storage and load flexibility) can be smaller and cheaper.
The framing in the article is that Germany made a purely technical decarbonization policy choice between renewable energy and nuclear power and chose incorrectly, but this is too reductive.
Germany has a long history of public opposition to nuclear power, going back over 50 years, and this is related to environmental concerns, safety concerns, and the association with nuclear weapons.
Both the USA and the Soviets had nuclear weapons deployed on German soil with the potential to be directed at the German people and this cultural and historical context is important to understand the current policy landscape.
The origin of the popular Green party in Germany is deeply connected to the peace movement and anti-nuclear activism that pre-dates concerns about climate change.
It’s fine to disagree with the policy decisions the German people made, but it’s good to understand the reasons why they made them.
The phrase "green energy transition" is mentioned only in the headline, and is completely irrelavent to the point being made in article, which is that unregulated mining in poor developing countries is bad.
Every power generation technology needs ‘backup capacity’ and energy storage.
If your transmission line to your nuclear power station trips, you need reserve capacity elsewhere to serve the load.
Gas and coal generation all need storage to run reliably.
If you are going to be an armchair power system designer and you want to ‘gross up’ the cost of capacity and storage into the cost of renewable generation, then be consistent.
No one is powering a house with a battery, or hydrogen, for 100 hours.
Neither are an energy source. We will power houses with low cost carbon-free energy: nuclear and renewables.
For renewables, interconnection and load and generation diversity will deal with most intermittency issues.
We then provide additional firming capacity with other technology, including energy storage, that in the case of batteries, is probably operating every day, and for pumped hydro and other long duration storage that’s probably operating every week or two, and then some fuel-based generation that’s probably only operating a few days a year.
Hydrogen is probably not a big part of the future power system.
Solar farms are definitely much, much simpler .. thousands or even millions of perfectly uniform panels manufactured in a factory, some wiring and power electronics and some electrical infrastructure to connect to the grid. Projects are delivered in months, and almost all within 1% of project budget.
Nuclear power plants consist of probably tens of thousands of different components: a reactor (containing a reactor core, fuel rods, control rods, moderator, and coolant), a turbine, a generator, a containment building, a cooling system, pumps, valves, and piping, a control system, a safety system, and a waste disposal system, along with all the same electrical infrastructure to connect to the grid. Projects take years to decades and invariably delivered multiples over budget.
“The amount of raw materials in one long-range battery electric vehicle could instead be used to make 6 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or 90 hybrid electric vehicles. For the same limited resources, instead of replacing one internal combustion engine vehicle, you can replace 90.”
So we’re only concerned with the ‘raw materials’ in the battery, and not the materials in the body, motor, and other parts? Not to mention the fuel of course.
The idea that the limiting factor on Toyota making more hybrid vehicles is the availability of battery metals seems suspect .. there will always be a supply imbalance in growing markets, but supply is rapidly increasing, and it will increase faster if Toyota builds more cars with batteries in them.
Extracting, exporting, and burning fossil fuels not so much.