4 ms·

This is just cherry-picking from noisy data in order to tell a misleading narrative. If you look at the actual development of electricity generation in Germany

• Aachen 5y ago
  That's excellent, but we should be replacing coal, not nuclear. At least not in this order. By having renewable replace nuclear you win nothing and coal keeps polluting just as much as it did before because you're not replacing coal. So yes, killing nuclear first obviously causes more pollution from coal.
  • fsh 5y ago
    Please have a careful look at the plot again. The electricity production from coal dropped by something like 50% in the last 10 years. Of course Germany's ancient nuclear reactors could have been kept running by a bit longer, but the overall effect would not have been dramatic. On the other hand, old GE-designed boiling water reactors suffered a bit of an image problem after three of them melted down in Fukushima.
• unrealhoang 5y ago
  then why not got rid of coal first, keep nuclear until renewables can be a sole source of energy?
  • natmaka 5y ago
    As far as I understand because it is politically unfeasible in Germany. They officially prefer renewable sources since 2000 and nuclear was to be used as a bridging technology, however they decided to phase it out ASAP after the Fukushima disaster, see ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Sources_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Source... )