5 ms·

We still have no data that indicates wind and/or solar can displace coal/gas as energy sources. Germany, 2010: Coal+Oil+Gas 55% Nuclear

by cygx 6y ago

We still have no data that indicates wind and/or solar can displace coal/gas as energy sources. Germany, 2010: Coal+Oil+Gas 55% Nuclear 25% Wind+Solar+Hydro 13% Germany, 2020: Coal+Oil+Gas 36% Nuclear 12% Wind+Solar+Hydro 41% Source: https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=year&year=-1&source=all https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE...

runsWphotons 6y ago
These numbers can be looked at two ways. Germany actually failed in its efforts to get off the coal so far, I think. Just from these numbers you could as easily be making his point as yours.
- cygx 6y ago
  Germany actually failed in its efforts to get off the coal so far There was no way to 'fail' such efforts, because until last year, there was no actual roadmap for getting rid of coal. Instead, there were CO2 reduction goals. We were going to miss the mark for 2020 (40% reduction compared to 1990), but thanks to Covid, we've actually met the target...
  - runsWphotons 6y ago
    Thank you for the correction regarding the reduction goals. I wasn't aware the targets were new, or that Covid had changed the picture from articles I read last year. Still, I think my point stands that the numbers can be taken two ways. If you compare France which has a heavy reliance on nuclear---it has something like <10% contribution from fossil fuel sources. It could be that if Germany had increased its nuclear contribution, along with trying to increase the other renewables, the coal/gas numbers would be even lower.
vlovich123 6y ago
Carbon dioxide emissions from consumption of energy Germany: 847.6 million Mt (2017 est.) France: 341.2 million Mt (2017 est.) Germany: 57% from non-co2 sources France: 69% (50% from nuclear, 19% wind/solar/hydro) https://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/germany.france/energy https://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/germany.france/e...
- cygx 6y ago
  Note that the difference shrinks to a factor 2 if you consider per capita values. That's still bad, no argument: France splits atoms, while Germany burns lignite, and peat aside, that's as bad as it gets as far as CO2 goes. However, that's beside the point: The fact remains that Germany did move a significant amount of electricity generation from fossil fuels to renewables.
  - rhodozelia 6y ago
    They could have moved even more power consumption off of fossil fuels had they not freaked out after fukashima and turned all their reactors off!
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - cygx 6y ago
      You have to factor in political opposition by energy companies and unions. So I'd have expected that the bare minimum to hit our reduction goals would have been done. Given that we did manage to hit our goal, things might not have looked much different even in a world where nuclear plants had been kept alive...

by cygx 6y ago

runsWphotons 6y ago

These numbers can be looked at two ways. Germany actually failed in its efforts to get off the coal so far, I think. Just from these numbers you could as easily be making his point as yours.

cygx 6y ago
Germany actually failed in its efforts to get off the coal so far There was no way to 'fail' such efforts, because until last year, there was no actual roadmap for getting rid of coal. Instead, there were CO2 reduction goals. We were going to miss the mark for 2020 (40% reduction compared to 1990), but thanks to Covid, we've actually met the target...
- runsWphotons 6y ago
  Thank you for the correction regarding the reduction goals. I wasn't aware the targets were new, or that Covid had changed the picture from articles I read last year. Still, I think my point stands that the numbers can be taken two ways. If you compare France which has a heavy reliance on nuclear---it has something like <10% contribution from fossil fuel sources. It could be that if Germany had increased its nuclear contribution, along with trying to increase the other renewables, the coal/gas numbers would be even lower.

vlovich123 6y ago

Carbon dioxide emissions from consumption of energy Germany: 847.6 million Mt (2017 est.) France: 341.2 million Mt (2017 est.) Germany: 57% from non-co2 sources France: 69% (50% from nuclear, 19% wind/solar/hydro) https://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/germany.france/energy https://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/germany.france/e...

cygx 6y ago
Note that the difference shrinks to a factor 2 if you consider per capita values. That's still bad, no argument: France splits atoms, while Germany burns lignite, and peat aside, that's as bad as it gets as far as CO2 goes. However, that's beside the point: The fact remains that Germany did move a significant amount of electricity generation from fossil fuels to renewables.
- rhodozelia 6y ago
  They could have moved even more power consumption off of fossil fuels had they not freaked out after fukashima and turned all their reactors off!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - cygx 6y ago
    You have to factor in political opposition by energy companies and unions. So I'd have expected that the bare minimum to hit our reduction goals would have been done. Given that we did manage to hit our goal, things might not have looked much different even in a world where nuclear plants had been kept alive...