4 ms·
Here are some numbers to back this statement: https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&period=annual&year=all https://www.energy-charts.de/en
by ogrisel 6y ago
Here are some numbers to back this statement:
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...
It's true that in the first 3 years after the decision to speed-up the closure of nuclear in Germany in 2011, coal use increased. But more recently it went down drastically and was replaced mostly by wind and solar on a yearly basis.
Here is similar data but not just Germany (using the data from the 2020 BP statistical review):
https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/ogrisel/energy_charts/blob/master/electricity.ipynb https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/ogrisel/energy_charts/bl...
- enaaem 6y agoThey still use a lot of brown coal, which is dirty as hell. The way I see it, they could have had reduced the CO2 output more by keeping nuclear and investing into renewables. Missed potential really. The debate is not renewables vs nuclear. It's nuclear vs fossil .
- DiogenesKynikos 6y agoThe reason for that is the coal lobby, not necessity. Datteln 4 is going online because the government has already approved it, and is afraid that it will get sued if it turns around and rescinds the approval.
- ogrisel 6y agoThe debate is low carbon vs high carbon (if we all agree that climate change is the number #1 pbm).