3 ms·
All fair, but 30% is not a small slice. All of that need to be replaced by something else, and the only thing that's quick enough to replace it was fossil fuel
by Aperocky 6y ago
All fair, but 30% is not a small slice.
All of that need to be replaced by something else, and the only thing that's quick enough to replace it was fossil fuel. Germany is also not exactly the ideal place for solar power generation.
It's still leave people scratching over why you guys ditched nuclear energy. The newer version of nuclear reactors are safer than fossil when you factor in pollution, and EU itself has expertise (from France).
- _ph_ 6y agoGerman nuclear power was not replaced by fossil fuel, but by renewables. For this year so far, 54% of the German electricity came from renewables, 12% nuclear, 21% coal. Solar alone has eclipsed nuclear with 13%. The installed solar peak capacity is 48 GW, wind is 60 GW, on windy days the production of wind power alone eclipses French nuclear output. Solar peaked at 27 GW at noon today.
- _Microft 6y agoHere are charts showing the composition of energy sources in the german power grid if someone is interested: https://energy-charts.de/power.htm https://energy-charts.de/power.htm
- lispm 6y agoThe France expertise shows that they can't build nuclear reactors anymore. The ones they work on are many years late and costs are exploding. The French nuclear industry is centralized and state-owned/run. Not everyone wants finds that model attractive.
- imtringued 6y agoGermany replaced nuclear power with renewables. The more important question is why didn't they replace fossil fuels with renewables and the answer is complicated.