5 ms·

If you’re German for one, then it’s justified, because Merkel has been shutting down nuclear plants which forced a switch back to more coal.

dv_dt 6y ago
Then why isn't the argument that Germany should build more solar and wind generation? Nuclear plants take decades from start to finish - if they even finish in the West. Vs months to a few years for many renewable projects.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  Because the plants are finished and working. They just shut them down.
  - dv_dt 6y ago
    Nuclear plants have a lifetime of 30ish years. Many are getting shutdown now because the first wave of builds was around 30-50 years ago. The risks of continuing to operate older designs gets higher if they're refurbished.
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      Sure, but newer designs were shut down too. I used to live basically next to one. It was in construction for years, very close to completion when Fukushima happened. It was definitely not a rational reaction to cancel that thing.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Becayse germany has been very rapidly ramping up wind and solar, and still they are struggling to replace the reactors. They have made no progress in decarbonising the grid because rhey've been replacing one zero-carbon source with another zero carbon source, instead of removing coal.
jhayward 6y ago
Germany has cut coal use in half since the wind-down of the nuclear fleet began. Please do not repeat misinformation.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  And they would have cut it to zero by now if they left nuclear plants alone.
  - Lutzb 6y ago
    That is factully incorrect. Even if Germany had left nuclear on a level of 1995 and replaced aging plants with new plants of the same capcity the net nuclear output combined with renewables would not be enough to offset coal/gas/oil. See https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      This graph seems to show that coal would have been gone by now. What I getting wrong?
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  That’s misinformation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany You can clearly see how coal is on the rise shortly after 2010. So it is factually true to say they switched back to coal. You would be correct to point out that coal use has gone down since, but not by half. Not even close.
  - jhayward 6y ago
    Let’s use German industry data[1] Fuel 2010 2019 (TWH) Lignite 145.9 113.9 Hard Coal 117.0 57.3 Nuclear 140.6 75.1 Renewables 105.2 244.3 Natural Gas 89.3 91.0 That’s as of 9 months ago. Since Lignite generation dropped 22% in 2019 alone, and Anthracite 30%, we can expect it is even lower today. I make it about 35% by the 2010-2019 numbers, so true, not 50%, but it does in no way support any kind of statement that “coal use has gone up”. Just the opposite. [1] https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileName=ausdruck_strerz_abgabe_20200217.pdf https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileNa...

dv_dt 6y ago

Then why isn't the argument that Germany should build more solar and wind generation? Nuclear plants take decades from start to finish - if they even finish in the West. Vs months to a few years for many renewable projects.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
Because the plants are finished and working. They just shut them down.
- dv_dt 6y ago
  Nuclear plants have a lifetime of 30ish years. Many are getting shutdown now because the first wave of builds was around 30-50 years ago. The risks of continuing to operate older designs gets higher if they're refurbished.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    Sure, but newer designs were shut down too. I used to live basically next to one. It was in construction for years, very close to completion when Fukushima happened. It was definitely not a rational reaction to cancel that thing.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Becayse germany has been very rapidly ramping up wind and solar, and still they are struggling to replace the reactors. They have made no progress in decarbonising the grid because rhey've been replacing one zero-carbon source with another zero carbon source, instead of removing coal.

jhayward 6y ago

Germany has cut coal use in half since the wind-down of the nuclear fleet began. Please do not repeat misinformation.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
And they would have cut it to zero by now if they left nuclear plants alone.
- Lutzb 6y ago
  That is factully incorrect. Even if Germany had left nuclear on a level of 1995 and replaced aging plants with new plants of the same capcity the net nuclear output combined with renewables would not be enough to offset coal/gas/oil. See https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    This graph seems to show that coal would have been gone by now. What I getting wrong?
read_if_gay_ 6y ago
That’s misinformation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany You can clearly see how coal is on the rise shortly after 2010. So it is factually true to say they switched back to coal. You would be correct to point out that coal use has gone down since, but not by half. Not even close.
- jhayward 6y ago
  Let’s use German industry data[1] Fuel 2010 2019 (TWH) Lignite 145.9 113.9 Hard Coal 117.0 57.3 Nuclear 140.6 75.1 Renewables 105.2 244.3 Natural Gas 89.3 91.0 That’s as of 9 months ago. Since Lignite generation dropped 22% in 2019 alone, and Anthracite 30%, we can expect it is even lower today. I make it about 35% by the 2010-2019 numbers, so true, not 50%, but it does in no way support any kind of statement that “coal use has gone up”. Just the opposite. [1] https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileName=ausdruck_strerz_abgabe_20200217.pdf https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileNa...