7 ms·

> It would be extremely silly to stop using nuclear power That's what a minority in Germany said, before the majority voted against nuclear power. Hence the en

> It would be extremely silly to stop using nuclear power That's what a minority in Germany said, before the majority voted against nuclear power. Hence the energy clusterfk Germany is now in. Germany, a country with almost non-existent seismic activity killed its nuclear energy future because a tsunami happened in Fukushima. [1] It's not just "silly" it is that much silly, that sooner or later the prohibition will be repealed out of necessity. And the same fate would have happened to the Swiss plebiscite's result if it were a win. [1] "voted against because of Fukushima" is technically a crass simplification. First Germans voted for the parties that pledged to end nuclear power. Then Merkel won the next election, cancelled nuclear-prohibition. But when Fukushima happened everybody knew Merkel would be out of office within weeks if she didn't immediately repeal her repeal.

StreamBright 10y ago
You can play the emotional cord any time to get voters to vote on anything, and you can make any multi-dimensional problem single dimensional. Increasing fossil fuel usage is not the answer and it never will be the answer. Once we have great solar panels and large capacity batteries we can use solar as the primary source, but the technology is decades away, best case. This does not look good: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Electricity_Production_in_Germany.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Electric...
- labster 10y ago
  We do have large capacity batteries for solar right now, it's called pumped hydro storage. It's a droughtful prospect here in California, but I could see it working out in Germany pretty well.
  - woodpanel 10y ago
    I do think too battery improvement will mean a major progress. However, I invite you to visit my country. Pick any date in the year but two months and you'll see: "capacity batteries for solar" are not our problem with solar ;-)
    - labster 10y ago
      Heh, I'll just extrapolate from my visits to Seattle. I will try to visit next year -- during one of the sunny months. Actually, I think a lot of the problems facing Europe with renewables are the same in the U.S. Abundant solar and wind available in the south, and no efficient way of transferring the electric power north.
- woodpanel 10y ago
  Oh my... The current plan is to shut down all German nuclear energy plants by 2022. One major problem a non-sunny, non-constant-storm and non-wast-ranges-of-mountain-spring country like Germany already faces: Our energy-grid is not equipped for the high fluctuations nature provides in energy. We often have to use foreign energy grids so that ours doesn't collapse in times of high renewable energy input. The plagued neighbours repeatedly threatened to cut us off from their network if we proceed to do this In the meantime, these energy dumps on our neighbours grids are re-labled as proof that the renewable energy agenda works because we became "net energy exporters". Also, our grid isn't equipped for it because of the geographical dislocations of renewable power sources and where our industry clusters are. Thus creating the need for a "energy autobahn", basically 2-4 Gigawatt landlines. It doesn't help that the same backwards-thinking that got us into quitting nuclear is actively engaging against the "electro-smog" of these new-to-be-built landlines, forcing those lines underneath, which is multiplying the costs. Also, with the energy gap that's about to happen in Germany our neighbors are actively building nuclear plants right across the border. So if you had any fears about nuclear fallout ... well done! Finally, all this massive undertaking results in chiseled government redistribution programs that amount to a humongous bill that ultimately those people will have to pay the most, that made least use of the redistribution programs. For instance: rich farmers estates are littered with subsidized solar panels, which produce energy that the energy companies have to buy for a constantly rising government-set minimum price. Those companies of course are sharing the costs with their customers, which includes everyone and the poor).
- dx034 10y ago
  Your chart ends in 2012, the picture now looks very different. I agree that there is not enough storage to go with 100% wind/solar, but phasing out nuclear doesn't mean using more coal in Germany. This article has some more up-to-date numbers regarding renewables. The share was already at 27% in 2014, 2016 will likely have more than 30%. I don't have 2016 numbers, but the growth in renewable production was 37% 2012-2015. And most of that growth came in 2015 with the plummet in prices for solar and onshore wind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
DasIch 10y ago
Germany decided to get rid of nuclear power long before Fukushima and had massive protests against much for much longer still.
- woodpanel 10y ago
  Please read till the end before condemn.
  - DasIch 10y ago
    I have and it doesn't get more accurate. The current plan was in place before Fukushima. What happened is that under Merkel, they increased the timeframe for abandoning nuclear energy after Fukushima, that was reversed after Fukushima.

StreamBright 10y ago

You can play the emotional cord any time to get voters to vote on anything, and you can make any multi-dimensional problem single dimensional. Increasing fossil fuel usage is not the answer and it never will be the answer. Once we have great solar panels and large capacity batteries we can use solar as the primary source, but the technology is decades away, best case. This does not look good: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Electricity_Production_in_Germany.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Electric...

labster 10y ago
We do have large capacity batteries for solar right now, it's called pumped hydro storage. It's a droughtful prospect here in California, but I could see it working out in Germany pretty well.
- woodpanel 10y ago
  I do think too battery improvement will mean a major progress. However, I invite you to visit my country. Pick any date in the year but two months and you'll see: "capacity batteries for solar" are not our problem with solar ;-)
  - labster 10y ago
    Heh, I'll just extrapolate from my visits to Seattle. I will try to visit next year -- during one of the sunny months. Actually, I think a lot of the problems facing Europe with renewables are the same in the U.S. Abundant solar and wind available in the south, and no efficient way of transferring the electric power north.
woodpanel 10y ago
Oh my... The current plan is to shut down all German nuclear energy plants by 2022. One major problem a non-sunny, non-constant-storm and non-wast-ranges-of-mountain-spring country like Germany already faces: Our energy-grid is not equipped for the high fluctuations nature provides in energy. We often have to use foreign energy grids so that ours doesn't collapse in times of high renewable energy input. The plagued neighbours repeatedly threatened to cut us off from their network if we proceed to do this In the meantime, these energy dumps on our neighbours grids are re-labled as proof that the renewable energy agenda works because we became "net energy exporters". Also, our grid isn't equipped for it because of the geographical dislocations of renewable power sources and where our industry clusters are. Thus creating the need for a "energy autobahn", basically 2-4 Gigawatt landlines. It doesn't help that the same backwards-thinking that got us into quitting nuclear is actively engaging against the "electro-smog" of these new-to-be-built landlines, forcing those lines underneath, which is multiplying the costs. Also, with the energy gap that's about to happen in Germany our neighbors are actively building nuclear plants right across the border. So if you had any fears about nuclear fallout ... well done! Finally, all this massive undertaking results in chiseled government redistribution programs that amount to a humongous bill that ultimately those people will have to pay the most, that made least use of the redistribution programs. For instance: rich farmers estates are littered with subsidized solar panels, which produce energy that the energy companies have to buy for a constantly rising government-set minimum price. Those companies of course are sharing the costs with their customers, which includes everyone and the poor).
dx034 10y ago
Your chart ends in 2012, the picture now looks very different. I agree that there is not enough storage to go with 100% wind/solar, but phasing out nuclear doesn't mean using more coal in Germany. This article has some more up-to-date numbers regarding renewables. The share was already at 27% in 2014, 2016 will likely have more than 30%. I don't have 2016 numbers, but the growth in renewable production was 37% 2012-2015. And most of that growth came in 2015 with the plummet in prices for solar and onshore wind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

DasIch 10y ago

Germany decided to get rid of nuclear power long before Fukushima and had massive protests against much for much longer still.

woodpanel 10y ago
Please read till the end before condemn.
- DasIch 10y ago
  I have and it doesn't get more accurate. The current plan was in place before Fukushima. What happened is that under Merkel, they increased the timeframe for abandoning nuclear energy after Fukushima, that was reversed after Fukushima.