4 ms·

Given these numbers, how was it possible for Germany to cut nuclear energy production from 156TWh in 2002 to 72TWh in 2018? (source: https://www.energy-charts.d

by cygx 7y ago

Given these numbers, how was it possible for Germany to cut nuclear energy production from 156TWh in 2002 to 72TWh in 2018? (source: https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&period=annual&year=all https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&p...)

XorNot 7y ago
They buy their baseload from France, which at this point has one of the most vibrant nuclear industries in the world (and no surprise, fought hard to make sure ITER was on French territory).
- cygx 7y ago
  In 2018, Germany imported 10TWh of electricity from France, while it produced 545TWh. That's not even 2% - how are you supposed to cover baseload with that?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    A lot of people seem to be saying "baseload" when they mean "peak". That's the benefit of the international links - countries not having their peak consumption at the same time of day can average it out between each other.
    - lstodd 7y ago
      Can't send power over thousands of kilometers without losing half of it, sorry. Not to mention oceans. It is just not happening.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    That's the problem with solar and wind. During peak times you get very good generation capacity and nothing or too little off-peak.
- ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  " The French government just announced a plan to power 95 percent of the country with solar and wind energy by 2060. And by doing so, the government would spend about $44.5 billion (39 billion euros) less than it would if it maintained its current energy infrastructure. To get there, the government would need to cancel plans to construct 15 new nuclear power plants, and instead replace its aging nuclear reactors with renewable infrastructure over the next several decades, according to a new report published Monday by the French environmental agency."
  - lstodd 7y ago
    That'll result in humanitarian aid being sent to France. I hope it's just political bullshit.
- imtringued 7y ago
  You must be pretty naive if you think an industrial giant like Germany can just import energy from another country. The answer is that Germany has 24GW of load following gas plants that sit idle 90% of the time.
NotPaidToPost 7y ago
Germany decided to focus on cutting nuclear instead of cutting coal. This is not an example to follow, really. In the current situation, getting rid of coal and fossil fuels should have higher priority than getting rid of nuclear purely for ideological reasons... Your argument is also misleading: Of course use of nuclear power can be reduced by increasing use of renewables. But the important point is that renewables cannot replace nuclear.
- cygx 7y ago
  Doesn't matter for the argument under discussion. If you look at the numbers, you'll see that Germany did reduce coal energy by 48TWh, which was essentially offset by increased biomass capabilities and some natural gas. So focussing on nuclear, you're left with a decrease by 84TWh offset by an increase of Wind energy by 95TWh and Solar by 46 TWh.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >by increased biomass capabilities and some natural gas. Some natural gas? Some? You think those pipelines from Russia are there to only provide 'SOME' natural gas?? Nord Stream has an annual capacity of 55 billion cubic meters. Nord Stream 2 will double that to 110 billion cubic meters. Those are huge, politically sensitive, projects. And those aren't the only planned natural gas pipelines. Second, biomass really sucks as the fuel of the future. It is environmentally destructive due to the land-use requirements. It's also expensive. It may be carbon neutral (depends if you burn dedicated crops or if you burn waste). Regardless, it's crazy that people would be pushing this as a fuel of the future just so they can get nuclear power off the table. There is only one answer to cutting C02 emissions, and that's nuclear. We've already lost 50 years because we haven't internalized that fact, and we'll continue to lose time until we do.
    - cygx 7y ago
      Yes, 'some'. Specifically, 4.44TWh.
macspoofing 7y ago
Did you not notice that Germany signed multi-decade/multi-billion dollar deals with Russia for their natural gas. As Germany scaled up their solar and wind infrastructure they NECESSARILY also scaled up their use of natural gas and also supplemented high demand with imported coal and nuclear power from their neighbours. There is no such thing as a solar/wind deployment without natural gas. Natural gas providers are now one of the biggest lobby group for solar and wind.
- cygx 7y ago
  Germany did scale up its natural gas usage - from 40TWh in 2002 to 44 TWh in 2018. That's a rounding error. In 2016, gas consumption in Germany was about industrial (38%) and domestic homes usage (31%), not electricity production (15%). It may very well be that gas is going to play a major role in replacing coal, but that has yet to happen - while nuclear energy has already been cut back significantly.

by cygx 7y ago

XorNot 7y ago

They buy their baseload from France, which at this point has one of the most vibrant nuclear industries in the world (and no surprise, fought hard to make sure ITER was on French territory).

cygx 7y ago
In 2018, Germany imported 10TWh of electricity from France, while it produced 545TWh. That's not even 2% - how are you supposed to cover baseload with that?
- pjc50 7y ago
  A lot of people seem to be saying "baseload" when they mean "peak". That's the benefit of the international links - countries not having their peak consumption at the same time of day can average it out between each other.
  - lstodd 7y ago
    Can't send power over thousands of kilometers without losing half of it, sorry. Not to mention oceans. It is just not happening.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  That's the problem with solar and wind. During peak times you get very good generation capacity and nothing or too little off-peak.
ZeroGravitas 7y ago
" The French government just announced a plan to power 95 percent of the country with solar and wind energy by 2060. And by doing so, the government would spend about $44.5 billion (39 billion euros) less than it would if it maintained its current energy infrastructure. To get there, the government would need to cancel plans to construct 15 new nuclear power plants, and instead replace its aging nuclear reactors with renewable infrastructure over the next several decades, according to a new report published Monday by the French environmental agency."
- lstodd 7y ago
  That'll result in humanitarian aid being sent to France. I hope it's just political bullshit.
imtringued 7y ago
You must be pretty naive if you think an industrial giant like Germany can just import energy from another country. The answer is that Germany has 24GW of load following gas plants that sit idle 90% of the time.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago

Germany decided to focus on cutting nuclear instead of cutting coal. This is not an example to follow, really. In the current situation, getting rid of coal and fossil fuels should have higher priority than getting rid of nuclear purely for ideological reasons... Your argument is also misleading: Of course use of nuclear power can be reduced by increasing use of renewables. But the important point is that renewables cannot replace nuclear.

cygx 7y ago
Doesn't matter for the argument under discussion. If you look at the numbers, you'll see that Germany did reduce coal energy by 48TWh, which was essentially offset by increased biomass capabilities and some natural gas. So focussing on nuclear, you're left with a decrease by 84TWh offset by an increase of Wind energy by 95TWh and Solar by 46 TWh.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >by increased biomass capabilities and some natural gas. Some natural gas? Some? You think those pipelines from Russia are there to only provide 'SOME' natural gas?? Nord Stream has an annual capacity of 55 billion cubic meters. Nord Stream 2 will double that to 110 billion cubic meters. Those are huge, politically sensitive, projects. And those aren't the only planned natural gas pipelines. Second, biomass really sucks as the fuel of the future. It is environmentally destructive due to the land-use requirements. It's also expensive. It may be carbon neutral (depends if you burn dedicated crops or if you burn waste). Regardless, it's crazy that people would be pushing this as a fuel of the future just so they can get nuclear power off the table. There is only one answer to cutting C02 emissions, and that's nuclear. We've already lost 50 years because we haven't internalized that fact, and we'll continue to lose time until we do.
  - cygx 7y ago
    Yes, 'some'. Specifically, 4.44TWh.

macspoofing 7y ago

Did you not notice that Germany signed multi-decade/multi-billion dollar deals with Russia for their natural gas. As Germany scaled up their solar and wind infrastructure they NECESSARILY also scaled up their use of natural gas and also supplemented high demand with imported coal and nuclear power from their neighbours. There is no such thing as a solar/wind deployment without natural gas. Natural gas providers are now one of the biggest lobby group for solar and wind.

cygx 7y ago
Germany did scale up its natural gas usage - from 40TWh in 2002 to 44 TWh in 2018. That's a rounding error. In 2016, gas consumption in Germany was about industrial (38%) and domestic homes usage (31%), not electricity production (15%). It may very well be that gas is going to play a major role in replacing coal, but that has yet to happen - while nuclear energy has already been cut back significantly.