3 ms·
> E.g. Germany's rush towards decommissioning after Fukushima has had a massively detrimental effect in Europe for this reason. This says that German emissions
by Chathamization 10y ago
> E.g. Germany's rush towards decommissioning after Fukushima has had a massively detrimental effect in Europe for this reason.
This says that German emissions from electricity generation were down, but that was offset by heating increases from a cold winter and emissions from increased good transportation:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-reiterates-g20-climate-focus-energy-transition-conference-0/transport-and-cold-weather-cause-emissions-rise https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-reiterates-g20-...
- vidarh 10y agoTwo problems with this: 1) you can not look at Germany in isolation. You need to take into account the import/export market. Decommissioning nuclear plants at a faster schedule substantially altered that, which affected other countries dependency on fossil fuels. 2) Germany is to their credit aggressively trying to get rid of its fossil fuel dependency, but the decommissioning of nuclear meant they needed to offset a significant shortfall. To the extent that hole was plugged by new clean energy capacity, that meant delaying decommissioning of far more lethal coal plants. Until fossil fuels is at 0, decommissioning nuclear is bad policy.
- Chathamization 10y agoThis seems to indicate that German electricity exports are actually up: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2016/germanys-electricity-exports-surplus-brings-record-revenue-of-over-two-billion-euros.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2016/germa...
- vidarh 10y agoSee point 2. In other words: They'd be up far more if the nuclear hadn't been removed, which still has the same effect of killing people. As I said before: Until there is 0 fossil fuels, taking nuclear offline kills people by delaying fossil decommissioning.