8 ms·

Every kW of capacity in a nuclear plant that got shut down could instead have been used to burn less coal. Instead we replaced nuclear with renewables. I don't

Every kW of capacity in a nuclear plant that got shut down could instead have been used to burn less coal. Instead we replaced nuclear with renewables. I don't think that's the right order to do things if saving CO2 is the main objective.

jillesvangurp 5y ago
Nuclear had been a problem for years. Every attempt to transport nuclear waste was paired with very disruptive protests to block those transports. That made an expensive solution even more expensive and it made politicians involved look bad too. Germany is a crowded place; NIMBYism can make or break a political career and this was a never ending PR nightmare for conservative politicians. It made them look bad. Just not worth the trouble given how small the nuclear proportion was in the German market. Just trying to emphasize here how completely and utterly uncontroversial this nuclear shutdown has been locally. Up until Fukushima there were still new plants being considered/pondered/dreamed off (those plans looked increasingly less likely to ever happen). 2011 was the year when renewables became the one and only answer to future proofing Germany's energy needs. Nuclear became part of the problem instead of the solution. No more new plants was an easy and extremely popular decision across the political spectrum. Which immediately raised the sensible question what to do with the remaining old ones. Which was promptly answered by "lets just get this over with and move on with renewables". There only was around 16GW of nuclear capacity at the time, 8 of which is gone by now. The rest is going in the next few years. It wasn't that big of a deal replacing one expensive source of energy with another that wasn't that cheap either (at the time). Germany was not ready to do that with coal twelve years ago because at the time it was still most of its energy generation so it simply couldn't. That simply isn't true anymore. Renewables are now cheaper and coal is now the expensive option in the market. Once coal is gone, the next obvious target will be gas and oil plants (around 4% of the market).
throwaway210222 5y ago
… used to burn less coal. Here's some bad news: the albedo effect of coal smoke is supressing global warming by about 1,5°C - about half of the warming to date. We don't just have to shutdown coal: we have to capture a lot of the 2000 GT already in the atmosphere. Which is why all the IPPC projects assume enourmous CCS.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Burning more coal doesn't make the problem of sucking all the carbon out of the atmosphere any easier.
- nine_k 5y ago
  It's the water vapor that reflects light / IR and increases the albedo. Evaporate more water using waste heat from nuclear plants, industrial plants, or just by building huge vertical pipes that use convection to push warm damp air a kilometer up. Produce more clouds! This all can be done without burning (additional) carbon to power it.
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    I think my comment has been misunderstood (my fault). Under no circumstances is burning more carbon helpful.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

Nuclear had been a problem for years. Every attempt to transport nuclear waste was paired with very disruptive protests to block those transports. That made an expensive solution even more expensive and it made politicians involved look bad too. Germany is a crowded place; NIMBYism can make or break a political career and this was a never ending PR nightmare for conservative politicians. It made them look bad. Just not worth the trouble given how small the nuclear proportion was in the German market. Just trying to emphasize here how completely and utterly uncontroversial this nuclear shutdown has been locally. Up until Fukushima there were still new plants being considered/pondered/dreamed off (those plans looked increasingly less likely to ever happen). 2011 was the year when renewables became the one and only answer to future proofing Germany's energy needs. Nuclear became part of the problem instead of the solution. No more new plants was an easy and extremely popular decision across the political spectrum. Which immediately raised the sensible question what to do with the remaining old ones. Which was promptly answered by "lets just get this over with and move on with renewables". There only was around 16GW of nuclear capacity at the time, 8 of which is gone by now. The rest is going in the next few years. It wasn't that big of a deal replacing one expensive source of energy with another that wasn't that cheap either (at the time). Germany was not ready to do that with coal twelve years ago because at the time it was still most of its energy generation so it simply couldn't. That simply isn't true anymore. Renewables are now cheaper and coal is now the expensive option in the market. Once coal is gone, the next obvious target will be gas and oil plants (around 4% of the market).

throwaway210222 5y ago

… used to burn less coal. Here's some bad news: the albedo effect of coal smoke is supressing global warming by about 1,5°C - about half of the warming to date. We don't just have to shutdown coal: we have to capture a lot of the 2000 GT already in the atmosphere. Which is why all the IPPC projects assume enourmous CCS.

adrianN 5y ago
Burning more coal doesn't make the problem of sucking all the carbon out of the atmosphere any easier.
nine_k 5y ago
It's the water vapor that reflects light / IR and increases the albedo. Evaporate more water using waste heat from nuclear plants, industrial plants, or just by building huge vertical pipes that use convection to push warm damp air a kilometer up. Produce more clouds! This all can be done without burning (additional) carbon to power it.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  I think my comment has been misunderstood (my fault). Under no circumstances is burning more carbon helpful.