4 ms·

I agree with the commenters saying that Germany should have prioritized coal for retirement before nuclear. Nonetheless, I'm impressed with what Germany has ach

I agree with the commenters saying that Germany should have prioritized coal for retirement before nuclear. Nonetheless, I'm impressed with what Germany has achieved within its self-imposed constraints. Germany's trying to decarbonize its electricity sector via renewables while having poorer onshore wind resources than the US. And much poorer solar resources. And much higher population density. And it's retiring nuclear power at the same time. Finally, it started deploying solar PV by the gigawatt in 2007 (!), when the equipment was very expensive compared to now[1]. Germany is attempting decarbonization on Nightmare Mode difficulty, so I find it impressive that they're actually making progress. It's also frustrating because they're giving up several years of forward progress on emissions by shutting down working nuclear reactors. It's doubly annoying that Germany's determination to pioneer solar has provided a canned "bad example" for solar foes elsewhere. "Look how expensive solar made German electricity. I don't want that disaster in Texas." Of course new Texan solar plants will never cost as much as German plants built last decade, and they'll get far more sunlight. But that's not as pithy as "just look at Germany!" [1] Germany's pioneering large-scale PV deployment may well have been a driver for the much larger, much more economical PV manufacturing base that exists today. It's still surprising to me that solar didn't first grow big in somewhere much sunnier like Australia.

GuB-42 8y ago
> I agree with the commenters saying that Germany should have prioritized coal for retirement before nuclear. Coal (actually lignite) is a major part of Germany's plan. I don't expect them to abandon it anytime soon. Solar and wind power are inherently variable, they can't really work by themselves, they need to be backed by hydro (which is limited), storage (still not viable on a large scale) or easily adjustable power plants. And that's where coal comes in. Germany is actually building new throttlable coal plants in order to complement their renewables. It is a good economic choice: they have a lot of locally available lignite, and it has little export value, so they might as well use it for themselves. It is also good for national sovereignty because they don't depend on imports. Unfortunately, it is also the worst possible fuel when it comes to CO2 emissions, that's why they fare rather poorly despite all their renversables. Nuclear has no place in their strategy. With their renewables+coal, they don't really need the base load capabilities nuclear powers. Nuclear plants can be throttled to some extent but in order for them to be economically viable, they need to be as close to 100% as possible due to their high capital costs.
- xxgreg 8y ago
  A commission has been set up to plan for the phase-out of coal in Germany. Seems like all agree coal will be phased out, the debate is more around the timescale, and compensation for those affected. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-coal-exit-commission https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-coal-exi... "Today, the Federal Cabinet decided to establish the Commission on Growth, Structural Change and Employment. By December 2018, the Commission will prepare a roadmap for the phase-out of coal, which will ensure that the short-, medium- and long-term climate targets are achieved. The Commission will also submit proposals for structural development in the affected regions that will serve to strengthen growth and employment." https://www.bmu.de/en/report/kommission-wachstum-strukturwandel-und-beschaeftigung-nimmt-arbeit-auf/ https://www.bmu.de/en/report/kommission-wachstum-strukturwan...
- philipkglass 8y ago
  Yes, nuclear would eventually have been pushed out of Germany's generating mix as higher renewable penetration demanded more flexible complementary generation. But it wasn't going to happen this soon. In 2010 the German government agreed to extend nuclear plant lifetimes by an average of 12 years, into the 2030s: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11194117 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11194117 The German government reversed course less than a year later following the Fukushima accidents. 8 German reactors were shut down swiftly and the 9 others are scheduled to shut down by 2022. German coal consumption and emissions rose above the 2010 level for multiple years after the 8 reactors stopped, and I expect a similar effect after 2022. I understand that the voters wouldn't stand for reactor life extensions after Fukushima, but this reversal definitely made decarbonization slower and more expensive. The other thing that seems to be impairing German decarbonization efforts more recently is that they're not shutting coal plants as fast as economically feasible. The plants provide too many jobs. Germany has efficient, new, idle combined cycle gas turbine plants like Irsching Power Station: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-uniper-irsching-notification/operator-of-german-irsching-gas-plant-applies-for-further-idling-idUKKBN1HX2LS https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-uniper-irsching-notificati... Given the downward trend of European gas prices it seems like shutting down some old coal plants and buying fuel for these modern gas plants would be a pretty affordable way to reduce emissions at the margin. The gas plants are also more flexible than coal. But gas plants need only 20 or 30 people to operate where coal plants of equivalent output need hundreds. So Germany delays the retirement of dirty, inefficient coal plants as a sop to the economically depressed regions where they are concentrated. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/world/europe/germany-coal-climate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/world/europe/germany-coal...
mrpopo 8y ago
> Germany is attempting decarbonization on Nightmare Mode difficulty Your comment was very clear about Germany's nuclear v. coal issue, but you cannot call it decarbonization. Germany has no fixed plans phasing out coal. It's denuclearization. And it should absolutely not be deemed an example for other countries. Still, Germany's renewables adoption is commendable.

GuB-42 8y ago

> I agree with the commenters saying that Germany should have prioritized coal for retirement before nuclear. Coal (actually lignite) is a major part of Germany's plan. I don't expect them to abandon it anytime soon. Solar and wind power are inherently variable, they can't really work by themselves, they need to be backed by hydro (which is limited), storage (still not viable on a large scale) or easily adjustable power plants. And that's where coal comes in. Germany is actually building new throttlable coal plants in order to complement their renewables. It is a good economic choice: they have a lot of locally available lignite, and it has little export value, so they might as well use it for themselves. It is also good for national sovereignty because they don't depend on imports. Unfortunately, it is also the worst possible fuel when it comes to CO2 emissions, that's why they fare rather poorly despite all their renversables. Nuclear has no place in their strategy. With their renewables+coal, they don't really need the base load capabilities nuclear powers. Nuclear plants can be throttled to some extent but in order for them to be economically viable, they need to be as close to 100% as possible due to their high capital costs.

xxgreg 8y ago
A commission has been set up to plan for the phase-out of coal in Germany. Seems like all agree coal will be phased out, the debate is more around the timescale, and compensation for those affected. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-coal-exit-commission https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-coal-exi... "Today, the Federal Cabinet decided to establish the Commission on Growth, Structural Change and Employment. By December 2018, the Commission will prepare a roadmap for the phase-out of coal, which will ensure that the short-, medium- and long-term climate targets are achieved. The Commission will also submit proposals for structural development in the affected regions that will serve to strengthen growth and employment." https://www.bmu.de/en/report/kommission-wachstum-strukturwandel-und-beschaeftigung-nimmt-arbeit-auf/ https://www.bmu.de/en/report/kommission-wachstum-strukturwan...
philipkglass 8y ago
Yes, nuclear would eventually have been pushed out of Germany's generating mix as higher renewable penetration demanded more flexible complementary generation. But it wasn't going to happen this soon. In 2010 the German government agreed to extend nuclear plant lifetimes by an average of 12 years, into the 2030s: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11194117 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11194117 The German government reversed course less than a year later following the Fukushima accidents. 8 German reactors were shut down swiftly and the 9 others are scheduled to shut down by 2022. German coal consumption and emissions rose above the 2010 level for multiple years after the 8 reactors stopped, and I expect a similar effect after 2022. I understand that the voters wouldn't stand for reactor life extensions after Fukushima, but this reversal definitely made decarbonization slower and more expensive. The other thing that seems to be impairing German decarbonization efforts more recently is that they're not shutting coal plants as fast as economically feasible. The plants provide too many jobs. Germany has efficient, new, idle combined cycle gas turbine plants like Irsching Power Station: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-uniper-irsching-notification/operator-of-german-irsching-gas-plant-applies-for-further-idling-idUKKBN1HX2LS https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-uniper-irsching-notificati... Given the downward trend of European gas prices it seems like shutting down some old coal plants and buying fuel for these modern gas plants would be a pretty affordable way to reduce emissions at the margin. The gas plants are also more flexible than coal. But gas plants need only 20 or 30 people to operate where coal plants of equivalent output need hundreds. So Germany delays the retirement of dirty, inefficient coal plants as a sop to the economically depressed regions where they are concentrated. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/world/europe/germany-coal-climate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/world/europe/germany-coal...

mrpopo 8y ago

> Germany is attempting decarbonization on Nightmare Mode difficulty Your comment was very clear about Germany's nuclear v. coal issue, but you cannot call it decarbonization. Germany has no fixed plans phasing out coal. It's denuclearization. And it should absolutely not be deemed an example for other countries. Still, Germany's renewables adoption is commendable.