5 ms·

You’re messing with these stats a lot (I assume this is not malicious). The 50% renewables are not the cause of the extra 350g of CO2 in Germany. The way you w

You’re messing with these stats a lot (I assume this is not malicious). The 50% renewables are not the cause of the extra 350g of CO2 in Germany. The way you word this it sounds like renewables == bad, when in reality Germany is burning a boat load of coal which is causing the extra emissions, while France’s emissions are offset because they have lots of Nuclear power. Nuclear power takes 20-50 years to come online- it’s too late to rely on it and burn fossil fuels in the mean time. That ship sailed long ago.

random314 6y ago
The OP misrepresents every time there is a positive solar energy story, using the same Germany story as an example.
BurningFrog 6y ago
> That ship sailed long ago. That ship was sunk. Germany had a lot of nuclear power, and decided shut it down. That is why Germany is producing so much CO₂. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#German...
- _Microft 6y ago
  It agree that we should have shut down coal power instead of nuclear power but fact is that this never happened. Deal with it. Edit: „Deal with it“ might have been a snarky way to say it but on a serious note - nothing good comes from regretting missed opportunities forever. Get over them and make the best of the situation.
- joseph_grobbles 6y ago
  "Germany had a lot of nuclear power" No, they really didn't. At its height it accounted for barely 20%. It was dwarfed by coal, lignite and natural gas. It was never anything like France that went all in with nuclear. Since then, German consumption has exploded, yet the non-renewables have stayed about static while virtually all new demand is met with renewables.
ElKrist 6y ago
"The way you word this it sounds like renewables == bad" The point is that unfortunately renewables == good is not often true either despite the common perception. It all depends on how they integrate with the rest of the grid which is something rarely considered when I hear speeches about having more and more renewables in the future Once you decided to stop nuclear and go wind/solar, what do you do when it's 8pm in winter and there is no wind? => You fire up your coal/gas plants The answer could be "storage" but right now, as you can see from the stats, this option is not favored and I believe there are good reasons. As you can imagine, if storage was an easy solution today, Germany's emissions would be much smaller. Hopefully it becomes a more viable solution in the near future but at the moment we're still far from it
travisoneill1 6y ago
> Nuclear power takes 20-50 years to come online- it’s too late to rely on it and burn fossil fuels in the mean time. That ship sailed long ago. South Korea builds nuclear plants in less than 5 years on average. https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2027347/south-korea-second-fastest-nuclear-plant-building-country https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2027347/south-korea-s...

random314 6y ago

The OP misrepresents every time there is a positive solar energy story, using the same Germany story as an example.

BurningFrog 6y ago

> That ship sailed long ago. That ship was sunk. Germany had a lot of nuclear power, and decided shut it down. That is why Germany is producing so much CO₂. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#German...

_Microft 6y ago
It agree that we should have shut down coal power instead of nuclear power but fact is that this never happened. Deal with it. Edit: „Deal with it“ might have been a snarky way to say it but on a serious note - nothing good comes from regretting missed opportunities forever. Get over them and make the best of the situation.
joseph_grobbles 6y ago
"Germany had a lot of nuclear power" No, they really didn't. At its height it accounted for barely 20%. It was dwarfed by coal, lignite and natural gas. It was never anything like France that went all in with nuclear. Since then, German consumption has exploded, yet the non-renewables have stayed about static while virtually all new demand is met with renewables.

ElKrist 6y ago

"The way you word this it sounds like renewables == bad" The point is that unfortunately renewables == good is not often true either despite the common perception. It all depends on how they integrate with the rest of the grid which is something rarely considered when I hear speeches about having more and more renewables in the future Once you decided to stop nuclear and go wind/solar, what do you do when it's 8pm in winter and there is no wind? => You fire up your coal/gas plants The answer could be "storage" but right now, as you can see from the stats, this option is not favored and I believe there are good reasons. As you can imagine, if storage was an easy solution today, Germany's emissions would be much smaller. Hopefully it becomes a more viable solution in the near future but at the moment we're still far from it

travisoneill1 6y ago

> Nuclear power takes 20-50 years to come online- it’s too late to rely on it and burn fossil fuels in the mean time. That ship sailed long ago. South Korea builds nuclear plants in less than 5 years on average. https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2027347/south-korea-second-fastest-nuclear-plant-building-country https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2027347/south-korea-s...