5 ms·

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 ha

by oska 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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...
    - unlmtd 10y ago
      The cost of nuclear fission is ignored/not-understood. It's also impossible to insure against the risks (see Fukishima). As such, it is completly illegal. Also note that it is the cornerstone of nuclear-fission bombs. So nuclear power is the most destructive endeavor of all. It dwarves fossil fuels in potential destructive power. Our survival depends on banning all nuclear fission.
    - caf 10y ago
      The whole solar panel industry would not have existed without endless subsidies. That is not literally true. Commercial solar panels for both remote-area power and spacecraft existed before subsidies aimed at large-scale generation. On the other hand, the nuclear power industry certainly wouldn't have existed without entirely state-funded, military nuclear programs.
      - jimnotgym 10y ago
        I also feel we have never quite get to the true cost of nuclear. In the UK there are obsolete nuclear stations where nothing much is happening to decommission them, and they are already billions over budget in their decommissioning. I have begun to feel that it is the ultimate in cheap power now, and the next generation can pick up the cost.
  - wahern 10y ago
    The fact that insurance needs to be subsidized has more to do with the extreme possibilities--one bad accident and the insurer is broke. Insurers exclude terrorism and war for the same reason. And for the same reason the government effectively subsidizes those risks by giving aid after such events. Also, a nuclear plant will be responsible for any and all externalities. You can't hide a radiation incident. Whereas coal can poison thousands of people for years and the emitter and their insurer would never have to worry about liability. Likewise, thousands of solar panel installers can become disabled and draw benefits without anybody blaming the industry, or even thinking to compare with injury rates for similar work at nuclear plants. Finally, the costs imposed on nuclear power by unnecessarily burdensome regulation far exceed any subsidies. If there was a less regulated market there'd be many more nuclear plants. There'd also probably be many more, albeit mostly minor, nuclear incidents, just like there are many incidents with coal (e.g. fly ash reservoir breaches). But in any event, as things stand we only demand perfection from one industry while accepting some number of externalities as the cost of doing business in every other industry.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      > The fact that insurance needs to be subsidized has more to do with the extreme possibilities--one bad accident and the insurer is broke. Insurers exclude terrorism and war for the same reason. And for the same reason the government effectively subsidizes those risks by giving aid after such events. The government should also discourage terrorism and war when possible.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >I'm not sure why HN is so market friendly, but when it comes to nuclear power, most are very much in favor. If everyone was only market friendly, nobody would be advocating for solar/wind/coal/etc. None of them compete with coal and gas when it comes to unsubsidized cost.
    - _Codemonkeyism 10y ago
      Solar is cheaper than coal without subsidies (and coal is/was subsidized a lot in western countries over the last decades primarily b/c of jobs). Not to nitpick but "advocating for ../../coal/etc. [...] None of them compete with coal" doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
      - hueving 10y ago
        No it's not, otherwise that would be massive news. The only way it's cheaper is through charging coal for externalities, which is the exact point I'm making.
Safety1stClyde 10y ago
There is nothing whatsoever in the link you've posted which contradicts anything in my comment above. What's more, some of that does not add up: > Most likely, it would have occurred in the same way if Germany had not phased out nuclear and promoted renewables. Yes, if Germany both did not have renewables and also had not phased out nuclear, the amount of energy generation from coal might have remained the same. But if they had not phased out nuclear but kept the renewables, the energy generation from coal would not have kept the same, because they would have had the nuclear to use instead of the coal. And another really silly comment here: > Nuclear plants are gradually shutting down, but what is missing is a mechanism to retire the coal industry. If the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, you can't generate electricity from solar panels and wind. So you can't phase out coal or nuclear power and replace it with solar or wind, because there is no way to store the electrity. It has to be generated on demand. Already wind power in Germany is oversupplied and they are paying people to switch off the turbines. And here, repeating the same nonsense again: > In Germany it took a long time for renewable energy not to be portrayed anymore as a niche activity, unable to provide large-scale power. In international debates this notion still seems commonplace. Mistakenly, as we have tried show. And you've failed, because you've completely ignored the issue of supply and demand. There has to be either a way to store the electricity, or a way to generate electricity when the sun is not shining and wind is not blowing. The only way to store electricity which isn't pie in the sky is hydro, and Germany doesn't have enough hydro capacity to store the electrity, and won't have it because of geography. > Important issues still need to be solved, such as safeguarding security of supply with high shares of volatile renewables Which is what the coal is doing, now that the nuclear is switched off, and the whole of the rest of the article is not worth the pixels it's printed on.

by oska 10y ago

semi-extrinsic 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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...
  - unlmtd 10y ago
    The cost of nuclear fission is ignored/not-understood. It's also impossible to insure against the risks (see Fukishima). As such, it is completly illegal. Also note that it is the cornerstone of nuclear-fission bombs. So nuclear power is the most destructive endeavor of all. It dwarves fossil fuels in potential destructive power. Our survival depends on banning all nuclear fission.
  - caf 10y ago
    The whole solar panel industry would not have existed without endless subsidies. That is not literally true. Commercial solar panels for both remote-area power and spacecraft existed before subsidies aimed at large-scale generation. On the other hand, the nuclear power industry certainly wouldn't have existed without entirely state-funded, military nuclear programs.
    - jimnotgym 10y ago
      I also feel we have never quite get to the true cost of nuclear. In the UK there are obsolete nuclear stations where nothing much is happening to decommission them, and they are already billions over budget in their decommissioning. I have begun to feel that it is the ultimate in cheap power now, and the next generation can pick up the cost.
- wahern 10y ago
  The fact that insurance needs to be subsidized has more to do with the extreme possibilities--one bad accident and the insurer is broke. Insurers exclude terrorism and war for the same reason. And for the same reason the government effectively subsidizes those risks by giving aid after such events. Also, a nuclear plant will be responsible for any and all externalities. You can't hide a radiation incident. Whereas coal can poison thousands of people for years and the emitter and their insurer would never have to worry about liability. Likewise, thousands of solar panel installers can become disabled and draw benefits without anybody blaming the industry, or even thinking to compare with injury rates for similar work at nuclear plants. Finally, the costs imposed on nuclear power by unnecessarily burdensome regulation far exceed any subsidies. If there was a less regulated market there'd be many more nuclear plants. There'd also probably be many more, albeit mostly minor, nuclear incidents, just like there are many incidents with coal (e.g. fly ash reservoir breaches). But in any event, as things stand we only demand perfection from one industry while accepting some number of externalities as the cost of doing business in every other industry.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    > The fact that insurance needs to be subsidized has more to do with the extreme possibilities--one bad accident and the insurer is broke. Insurers exclude terrorism and war for the same reason. And for the same reason the government effectively subsidizes those risks by giving aid after such events. The government should also discourage terrorism and war when possible.
- hueving 10y ago
  >I'm not sure why HN is so market friendly, but when it comes to nuclear power, most are very much in favor. If everyone was only market friendly, nobody would be advocating for solar/wind/coal/etc. None of them compete with coal and gas when it comes to unsubsidized cost.
  - _Codemonkeyism 10y ago
    Solar is cheaper than coal without subsidies (and coal is/was subsidized a lot in western countries over the last decades primarily b/c of jobs). Not to nitpick but "advocating for ../../coal/etc. [...] None of them compete with coal" doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
    - hueving 10y ago
      No it's not, otherwise that would be massive news. The only way it's cheaper is through charging coal for externalities, which is the exact point I'm making.

Safety1stClyde 10y ago

There is nothing whatsoever in the link you've posted which contradicts anything in my comment above. What's more, some of that does not add up: > Most likely, it would have occurred in the same way if Germany had not phased out nuclear and promoted renewables. Yes, if Germany both did not have renewables and also had not phased out nuclear, the amount of energy generation from coal might have remained the same. But if they had not phased out nuclear but kept the renewables, the energy generation from coal would not have kept the same, because they would have had the nuclear to use instead of the coal. And another really silly comment here: > Nuclear plants are gradually shutting down, but what is missing is a mechanism to retire the coal industry. If the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, you can't generate electricity from solar panels and wind. So you can't phase out coal or nuclear power and replace it with solar or wind, because there is no way to store the electrity. It has to be generated on demand. Already wind power in Germany is oversupplied and they are paying people to switch off the turbines. And here, repeating the same nonsense again: > In Germany it took a long time for renewable energy not to be portrayed anymore as a niche activity, unable to provide large-scale power. In international debates this notion still seems commonplace. Mistakenly, as we have tried show. And you've failed, because you've completely ignored the issue of supply and demand. There has to be either a way to store the electricity, or a way to generate electricity when the sun is not shining and wind is not blowing. The only way to store electricity which isn't pie in the sky is hydro, and Germany doesn't have enough hydro capacity to store the electrity, and won't have it because of geography. > Important issues still need to be solved, such as safeguarding security of supply with high shares of volatile renewables Which is what the coal is doing, now that the nuclear is switched off, and the whole of the rest of the article is not worth the pixels it's printed on.