12 ms·

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

by jhayward 6y ago

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...
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    Your numbers also show that coal use went up by several TWh shortly after the Energiewende. I'll concur that the numbers improved much faster than I would have expected based on what I had in mind from previous years. But they still went up.
    - jhayward 6y ago
      Anyone who describes the Energiewende nuclear draw down as having caused coal consumption to rise is propagating misinformation. While there may be some small, tightly qualified way in which the statement can be twisted to be true the impression that is conveyed is one that is in conflict with the facts. Misinformation often uses small truths to tell larger lies.
      - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        > Anyone who describes the Energiewende nuclear draw down as having caused coal consumption to rise is propagating misinformation. Anyone who does that would be factually correct, as proven by your own numbers. And this accusation is especially ironic coming from someone who made a factually incorrect statement. > there may be some small, tightly qualified way in which the statement can be twisted to be true It was true for several years and for several TWh. It's not at all fair to call that "twisted and tightly qualified". If you don't think so, note that from 2010 until now, the length of time in which coal use was elevated is about the same as the length of time where it decreased. So if my statement is twisted and tightly qualified, then so is your statement that coal use has been reduced by 35%. Not to mention your initial claim that it's been cut in half. > the impression that is conveyed is one that is in conflict with the facts. Since you insist, I'll amend my statement: getting out of nuclear forced an increase in coal use for several years. But the main point remains untouched. From a climate standpoint, Germany would've been strictly better off with nuclear.

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...
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  Your numbers also show that coal use went up by several TWh shortly after the Energiewende. I'll concur that the numbers improved much faster than I would have expected based on what I had in mind from previous years. But they still went up.
  - jhayward 6y ago
    Anyone who describes the Energiewende nuclear draw down as having caused coal consumption to rise is propagating misinformation. While there may be some small, tightly qualified way in which the statement can be twisted to be true the impression that is conveyed is one that is in conflict with the facts. Misinformation often uses small truths to tell larger lies.
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      > Anyone who describes the Energiewende nuclear draw down as having caused coal consumption to rise is propagating misinformation. Anyone who does that would be factually correct, as proven by your own numbers. And this accusation is especially ironic coming from someone who made a factually incorrect statement. > there may be some small, tightly qualified way in which the statement can be twisted to be true It was true for several years and for several TWh. It's not at all fair to call that "twisted and tightly qualified". If you don't think so, note that from 2010 until now, the length of time in which coal use was elevated is about the same as the length of time where it decreased. So if my statement is twisted and tightly qualified, then so is your statement that coal use has been reduced by 35%. Not to mention your initial claim that it's been cut in half. > the impression that is conveyed is one that is in conflict with the facts. Since you insist, I'll amend my statement: getting out of nuclear forced an increase in coal use for several years. But the main point remains untouched. From a climate standpoint, Germany would've been strictly better off with nuclear.