4 ms·

Well, the green party never advocated for using coal instead. Of course, you cannot abandon nuclear power, then destroy your rising solar industry, then destroy

by patall 5y ago

Well, the green party never advocated for using coal instead. Of course, you cannot abandon nuclear power, then destroy your rising solar industry, then destroy your wind industry (first onshore, than offshore) and finally also abandon coal and gas. While playing games with biogas & hydropower and reducing support for alternative heating systems like wood pellets. All of that seems to be the current plan of the conservative party. The green party had a plan and it was on track until about 2010, 5 years after they lost power. Since then, its all gone down. But blaming that on a party in opposition is at minimum unfair, if not stupid. All at the cost of more than a hundred thousand industry jobs.

MagnumOpus 5y ago
> the green party never advocated for using coal instead ... blaming that on a party in opposition They had the choice of achieving an exit from nuclear power or from coal power. They chose the former when they pushed through the Atomkonsens in 2002 when they were, in fact, a governing party. Now Germany has lost pretty much exactly as much power generation from early shutdown of nuclear plants as they are running in terms of coal power generation.
- patall 5y ago
  They were a governing party with 1/6 of the votes in a coalition with a party that to this day delays the exit from coal because 'jobs'. In an economic crisis when the word greenhouse gases (and not yet climate change) was not prevalent at all. In retrospect, you are probably right. But at the time that simply was impossible. > Now Germany has lost pretty much exactly as much power generation from early shutdown of nuclear plants as they are running in terms of coal power generation. And exactly that is not because of the green party. The green parties program from 2005 outlined the end of coal subventions for 2012. The status quo is 2038.
  - nec4b 5y ago
    It doesn't matter how many votes they had (1 would be enough). They were necessary for forming the coalition, therefore they could extort other larger coalition parties to give in to their demands.
belorn 5y ago
The green party is part of the government here in Sweden and the current energy plan is to use renewables when weather conditions is optimal and then to use in non-optimal weather conditions: Subsidized gas and oil under the umbrella term "Reserve energy plan". Import energy from coal, gas an oil power plants from neighboring countries and expand the capacity to import more during periods of high demand. It only been months since the last public debate between the green party spoke person and the opposition, and in that they reiterated that the plan for the future is to use fossil fuels as the only economical viable option compared to nuclear for periods of non-optimal weather conditions. Nuclear is too expensive compared to fossil fuels. In some later debate articles they further expanded that the plan is to use fossil fuels until the technology to create green hydrogen has been made cheap enough to be economical viable (date undetermined). If I remember right they cited the German green party as inspiration, through I could be wrong on that part.
- patall 5y ago
  We do not have to think about weather, even the day-night cycle produces very strong differences in energy demand. Now what does the nuclear power house France do to counter this change in demand? Hint: it is (to 99%) not to regulate nuclear power. E.g https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&week=34&legendItems=0000100000000100 https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&... There are limited sources of variable energy like some hydro, biomass, storage or ... (some) fossils. Nuclear is very bad as a variable energy source and therefore, aside for nuclear carriers, nowhere the only source of power. It would be nice if it were, but it is not.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > Now what does the nuclear power house France do to counter this change in demand? Hint: it is (to 99%) not to regulate nuclear power. Nukes are baseload, you don't vary those plants' output when you don't have to, especially when you can use the consumption downtime to refill the pumped hydro. However french nukes are built for load following, and they can absolutely shed and recover quickly when that's useful: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&week=09&legendItems=0000100000000100&year=2019 https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&... https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&week=10&legendItems=0000100000000100&year=2019 https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&... https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&week=11&legendItems=0000100000000100&year=2019 https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&... > Nuclear is very bad as a variable energy source and therefore, aside for nuclear carriers, nowhere the only source of power. It would be nice if it were, but it is not. Literally nobody but you even hinted that nukes could (let alone should) be the sole power source.
wink 5y ago
Yes, this cannot be overstated. You can be pro or anti nuclear power, that is actually not the important part. The Green Party was (at most) the smaller partner in the governing coalition, but only for a short time (8y) in the last.. 40 years and as patall wrote, solar and wind has been completely sabotaged by the leading parties since then and reading the news you get a feeling that indeed the automotive lobby is one of the key drivers (pun not intended) of our environmental plans.

by patall 5y ago

MagnumOpus 5y ago

> the green party never advocated for using coal instead ... blaming that on a party in opposition They had the choice of achieving an exit from nuclear power or from coal power. They chose the former when they pushed through the Atomkonsens in 2002 when they were, in fact, a governing party. Now Germany has lost pretty much exactly as much power generation from early shutdown of nuclear plants as they are running in terms of coal power generation.

patall 5y ago
They were a governing party with 1/6 of the votes in a coalition with a party that to this day delays the exit from coal because 'jobs'. In an economic crisis when the word greenhouse gases (and not yet climate change) was not prevalent at all. In retrospect, you are probably right. But at the time that simply was impossible. > Now Germany has lost pretty much exactly as much power generation from early shutdown of nuclear plants as they are running in terms of coal power generation. And exactly that is not because of the green party. The green parties program from 2005 outlined the end of coal subventions for 2012. The status quo is 2038.
- nec4b 5y ago
  It doesn't matter how many votes they had (1 would be enough). They were necessary for forming the coalition, therefore they could extort other larger coalition parties to give in to their demands.

belorn 5y ago

The green party is part of the government here in Sweden and the current energy plan is to use renewables when weather conditions is optimal and then to use in non-optimal weather conditions: Subsidized gas and oil under the umbrella term "Reserve energy plan". Import energy from coal, gas an oil power plants from neighboring countries and expand the capacity to import more during periods of high demand. It only been months since the last public debate between the green party spoke person and the opposition, and in that they reiterated that the plan for the future is to use fossil fuels as the only economical viable option compared to nuclear for periods of non-optimal weather conditions. Nuclear is too expensive compared to fossil fuels. In some later debate articles they further expanded that the plan is to use fossil fuels until the technology to create green hydrogen has been made cheap enough to be economical viable (date undetermined). If I remember right they cited the German green party as inspiration, through I could be wrong on that part.

patall 5y ago
We do not have to think about weather, even the day-night cycle produces very strong differences in energy demand. Now what does the nuclear power house France do to counter this change in demand? Hint: it is (to 99%) not to regulate nuclear power. E.g https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&week=34&legendItems=0000100000000100 https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&... There are limited sources of variable energy like some hydro, biomass, storage or ... (some) fossils. Nuclear is very bad as a variable energy source and therefore, aside for nuclear carriers, nowhere the only source of power. It would be nice if it were, but it is not.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > Now what does the nuclear power house France do to counter this change in demand? Hint: it is (to 99%) not to regulate nuclear power. Nukes are baseload, you don't vary those plants' output when you don't have to, especially when you can use the consumption downtime to refill the pumped hydro. However french nukes are built for load following, and they can absolutely shed and recover quickly when that's useful: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&week=09&legendItems=0000100000000100&year=2019 https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&... https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&week=10&legendItems=0000100000000100&year=2019 https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&... https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&week=11&legendItems=0000100000000100&year=2019 https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&... > Nuclear is very bad as a variable energy source and therefore, aside for nuclear carriers, nowhere the only source of power. It would be nice if it were, but it is not. Literally nobody but you even hinted that nukes could (let alone should) be the sole power source.

wink 5y ago

Yes, this cannot be overstated. You can be pro or anti nuclear power, that is actually not the important part. The Green Party was (at most) the smaller partner in the governing coalition, but only for a short time (8y) in the last.. 40 years and as patall wrote, solar and wind has been completely sabotaged by the leading parties since then and reading the news you get a feeling that indeed the automotive lobby is one of the key drivers (pun not intended) of our environmental plans.