6 ms·

The Germans switched off their nuclear power "to save the environment", which is why they have to burn coal, because the solar and wind aren't stable enough to

The Germans switched off their nuclear power "to save the environment", which is why they have to burn coal, because the solar and wind aren't stable enough to supply consistent power. They also had to switch off some of their wind farms.

johansch 9y ago
German 'environmentalists' (I use that word ironically) are indeed something else. They did this after Fukushima. Are they afraid there'll be a baltic sea tsunami?
- detaro 9y ago
  To be fair, it wasn't the environmentalists who suddenly got the urge to do this after Fukushima: the anti-nuclear movement had been talking about that for decades, and surely not for fears of "baltic sea tsunamis". Fukushima was when the then-current government suddenly found it opportune to quickly reverse their reversal of the plan to slowly phase out nuclear power. And how to deal with energy mix problems is a topic with widely varying opinions among people you might classify as environmentalists.
  - johansch 9y ago
    Are you saying the german anti-nuclear people are largely distinct from the german 'environmentalists'?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - detaro 9y ago
      I'm not sure why you think I'm saying that. My comment primarily points out that framing it as something that "environmentalists did on a whim after Fukushima, because Tsunamis oh so funny" is gross misrepresentation. Also that "environmentalist" is a very broad label. It's not like being anti-nuclear is a niche sentiment. A large percentage of the general population is "anti-nuclear" in that they support existing plans (=laws) to phase out nuclear power. E.g. in 2010, before Fukushima, ~50 % didn't want delays to the plans, and only 25 % supported large delays to it. The government added delays. Fukushima happened, and within days they changed their opinion back and reaffirmed the old plans (more or less). If you look at people more actively supporting the movement, sometimes being part of it since decades ago, when it was a niche opinion, I'd say in many cases they are less motivated by protecting the environment in general than they are by protecting humans, or protesting bad policies. But there is of course a big overlap with environmentalists.
      - sirtaj 9y ago
        I remember discussing this with a German acquaintance in the early 90s. Extremely anti-nuclear because of Chernobyl and the food contamination scares in its aftermath, and it didn't seem like a niche view at the time. Presumably that legacy lives on.
- _ph_ 9y ago
  No German power plant is in danger of a tsunami indeed. But what was worrisome about the Fukushima disaster was, that the tsunami was the trigger, but the nuclear disaster was mostly created by human failure. The reactor was too old, and failed purely because the lack of electrical power and the disability to deal with it. So, how many possible failure modes we have not considered also? Not to mention, that we don't have a good plan about what to do with the nuclear waste. Another component is, that the nuclear plants are only operating part-time as more and more maintenance is required, France just faced severe power shortage, as too many of their aging nuclear plants where down due to maintenance. I certainly would be happy, if we used less coal. And currently, quite a few coal plants in Germany are running rather for the profits of the operators than for the grids requirements. As the renewable energies grow, very soon quite a few coal plants are going to be decommissioned and replaced with on-demand gas power.
  - nickik 9y ago
    Seems to solution is to replace reactors with newer better saver ones.
    - _ph_ 9y ago
      That would be a possibility. However the costs for those which are currently being built seem to skyrocket far beyond what renewable energies would cost - and that does not yet include the unsolved waste problem.
oska 9y ago
Kunze and Lehmann [1] show with facts and figures that your assertion is false. > Critics of renewable energy have mocked the Energiewende, claiming that it has led to an increase in coal power and related CO2 emissions in Germany. But Conrad Kunze and Paul Lehmann of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ show that this is a myth. German coal generation and CO2 emissions rose not because of but in spite of the Energiewende. They would have been even higher if Germany had not phased out its nuclear power and embarked on its remarkable renewable energy path. “There is no dark side to the Energiewende”. [1] http://energypost.eu/energiewende-dark-side/ http://energypost.eu/energiewende-dark-side/
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  Wow, surely that's got to be one of the biggest false dichotomies I've seen in years. No-one is arguing Germany would be better off if they kept their nuclear powerplants and didn't invest in solar and wind. Rather, the argument is Germany should have kept nuclear while also pivoting to solar and wind; that would indisputably have given a much bigger positive effect than the current version of Energiewende.
  - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
    I'm not sure why HN is so market friendly, but when it comes to nuclear power, most are very much in favor. Although nuclear power is the most market distorted energy production there is. If societies - see Fukushima - wouldn't pay for the risks insurers don't take and heavily subsidize nuclear power profiting energy global companies, there would be no nuclear power. If as a startup I'd get that amount of money from our government, I would have no need for customers. So hurray for free markets and that Germany stopped this nonsense.
    - Safety1stClyde 9y ago
      > If societies - see Fukushima - wouldn't pay for the risks insurers don't take and heavily subsidize nuclear power profiting energy global companies, there would be no nuclear power. Nuclear power is much less subsidised than solar power or wind power. The whole solar panel industry would not have existed without endless subsidies. As for the risks, nuclear remains the safest form of power. http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energ...

johansch 9y ago

German 'environmentalists' (I use that word ironically) are indeed something else. They did this after Fukushima. Are they afraid there'll be a baltic sea tsunami?

detaro 9y ago
To be fair, it wasn't the environmentalists who suddenly got the urge to do this after Fukushima: the anti-nuclear movement had been talking about that for decades, and surely not for fears of "baltic sea tsunamis". Fukushima was when the then-current government suddenly found it opportune to quickly reverse their reversal of the plan to slowly phase out nuclear power. And how to deal with energy mix problems is a topic with widely varying opinions among people you might classify as environmentalists.
- johansch 9y ago
  Are you saying the german anti-nuclear people are largely distinct from the german 'environmentalists'?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - detaro 9y ago
    I'm not sure why you think I'm saying that. My comment primarily points out that framing it as something that "environmentalists did on a whim after Fukushima, because Tsunamis oh so funny" is gross misrepresentation. Also that "environmentalist" is a very broad label. It's not like being anti-nuclear is a niche sentiment. A large percentage of the general population is "anti-nuclear" in that they support existing plans (=laws) to phase out nuclear power. E.g. in 2010, before Fukushima, ~50 % didn't want delays to the plans, and only 25 % supported large delays to it. The government added delays. Fukushima happened, and within days they changed their opinion back and reaffirmed the old plans (more or less). If you look at people more actively supporting the movement, sometimes being part of it since decades ago, when it was a niche opinion, I'd say in many cases they are less motivated by protecting the environment in general than they are by protecting humans, or protesting bad policies. But there is of course a big overlap with environmentalists.
    - sirtaj 9y ago
      I remember discussing this with a German acquaintance in the early 90s. Extremely anti-nuclear because of Chernobyl and the food contamination scares in its aftermath, and it didn't seem like a niche view at the time. Presumably that legacy lives on.
_ph_ 9y ago
No German power plant is in danger of a tsunami indeed. But what was worrisome about the Fukushima disaster was, that the tsunami was the trigger, but the nuclear disaster was mostly created by human failure. The reactor was too old, and failed purely because the lack of electrical power and the disability to deal with it. So, how many possible failure modes we have not considered also? Not to mention, that we don't have a good plan about what to do with the nuclear waste. Another component is, that the nuclear plants are only operating part-time as more and more maintenance is required, France just faced severe power shortage, as too many of their aging nuclear plants where down due to maintenance. I certainly would be happy, if we used less coal. And currently, quite a few coal plants in Germany are running rather for the profits of the operators than for the grids requirements. As the renewable energies grow, very soon quite a few coal plants are going to be decommissioned and replaced with on-demand gas power.
- nickik 9y ago
  Seems to solution is to replace reactors with newer better saver ones.
  - _ph_ 9y ago
    That would be a possibility. However the costs for those which are currently being built seem to skyrocket far beyond what renewable energies would cost - and that does not yet include the unsolved waste problem.

oska 9y ago

Kunze and Lehmann [1] show with facts and figures that your assertion is false. > Critics of renewable energy have mocked the Energiewende, claiming that it has led to an increase in coal power and related CO2 emissions in Germany. But Conrad Kunze and Paul Lehmann of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ show that this is a myth. German coal generation and CO2 emissions rose not because of but in spite of the Energiewende. They would have been even higher if Germany had not phased out its nuclear power and embarked on its remarkable renewable energy path. “There is no dark side to the Energiewende”. [1] http://energypost.eu/energiewende-dark-side/ http://energypost.eu/energiewende-dark-side/

semi-extrinsic 9y ago
Wow, surely that's got to be one of the biggest false dichotomies I've seen in years. No-one is arguing Germany would be better off if they kept their nuclear powerplants and didn't invest in solar and wind. Rather, the argument is Germany should have kept nuclear while also pivoting to solar and wind; that would indisputably have given a much bigger positive effect than the current version of Energiewende.
- _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  I'm not sure why HN is so market friendly, but when it comes to nuclear power, most are very much in favor. Although nuclear power is the most market distorted energy production there is. If societies - see Fukushima - wouldn't pay for the risks insurers don't take and heavily subsidize nuclear power profiting energy global companies, there would be no nuclear power. If as a startup I'd get that amount of money from our government, I would have no need for customers. So hurray for free markets and that Germany stopped this nonsense.
  - Safety1stClyde 9y ago
    > If societies - see Fukushima - wouldn't pay for the risks insurers don't take and heavily subsidize nuclear power profiting energy global companies, there would be no nuclear power. Nuclear power is much less subsidised than solar power or wind power. The whole solar panel industry would not have existed without endless subsidies. As for the risks, nuclear remains the safest form of power. http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energ...