4 ms·

> The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. No, they did not. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/paragraph_text_image/public/para

by jhgb 5y ago

> The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. No, they did not. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/paragraph_text_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2020.png https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/p...

melling 5y ago
There have been several recent stories about the increase in coal usage this year. https://amp.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105 https://amp.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec... Coal is the primary source of electricity this year
- cesarb 5y ago
  > > > The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. > > No, they did not. > There have been several recent stories about the increase in coal usage this year. But was there any closure of nuclear power plants in Germany this year? If not, you cannot say that this increase was because they have switched from nuclear to coal; they must have switched from something else. > https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec... That story implies that Germany this year switched from wind to coal (due to weaker winds), not from nuclear.
  - melling 5y ago
    So they switched from nuclear to wind to coal? Coal in the primary source of electricity. If they hadn’t reduced nuclear, coal could almost be gone? “ Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 11.63% of electricity supply in 2017[3] compared to 22.4% in 2010” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
    - jhgb 5y ago
      No, if they hadn't reduced nuclear production, the relative changes between coal and renewables would have exactly been the same, only coal would have had the same uptick from a lower 2020 value. "The increase in coal usage" would have been exactly the same regardless of whether they shut down some nuclear power plants or not. That should be obvious to you. Since this inter-annual change would have happened regardless of nuclear generation levels (unless you for some reason assume that the number of nuclear power plants operating in Germany affects German inter-annual weather changes), you can't use the nuclear generation levels to make this argument.
      - talolard 5y ago
        Could you elaborate, im interested in understanding your perspective but couldn’t follow it. In my mind , uptick in coal usage was directly caused by a decrease in wind power production. I understand that if Germany had chosen nuclear over wind, that decline would not happen and thus the usage of coal would not increase. Is that not true ?
        jhgb 5y ago
        > I understand that if Germany had chosen nuclear over wind, that decline would not happen This doesn't make sense unless nuclear power plants blow additional wind. See my other comment for a simple example. Keeping nuclear plants alive vs. not keeping them alive doesn't change the picture of inter-annual generation changes unless those shutdowns happened exactly between those two years.
      - gdavisson 5y ago
        Why would that be the case? Shutting down nuclear plants doesn't increase the production capacity from renewables. For a given renewable production capacity, there's a fixed amount that has to be made up from non-renewable sources; since coal is pretty clearly the worst of those, you use things other than coal -- anything other than coal -- first, and kill off coal as fast as possible. If you have a way to increase the renewable capacity to make up for a decrease in nuclear production, why not do that anyway, and shut down more coal production instead of nuclear?
- jhgb 5y ago
  This is completely irrelevant. The inter-annual variability means nothing in the long run since the climate only cares about long-term averages. You're ignoring the long-term trend on purpose. This doesn't mean in any way that Germany is switching from nuclear to coal. They're switching from nuclear AND coal to renewables.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    They could reduce coal dramatically by not switching from nuclear, all else being equal.
izacus 5y ago
This graph does not show the failure of renewables to provide sufficient power this year (it ends at 2020). The renewable power production is down for up to 40% and french nuclear power being in maintenance mode has caused the coal consumption to rise significantly.
- jhgb 5y ago
  It's completely irrelevant. The reason for the transition is climate protection and the climate cares about long term averages - the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the order of centuries. Pushing that average baseline lower is what matters, even in the presence of occasional spikes.

by jhgb 5y ago

melling 5y ago

There have been several recent stories about the increase in coal usage this year. https://amp.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105 https://amp.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec... Coal is the primary source of electricity this year

cesarb 5y ago
> > > The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. > > No, they did not. > There have been several recent stories about the increase in coal usage this year. But was there any closure of nuclear power plants in Germany this year? If not, you cannot say that this increase was because they have switched from nuclear to coal; they must have switched from something else. > https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec... That story implies that Germany this year switched from wind to coal (due to weaker winds), not from nuclear.
- melling 5y ago
  So they switched from nuclear to wind to coal? Coal in the primary source of electricity. If they hadn’t reduced nuclear, coal could almost be gone? “ Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 11.63% of electricity supply in 2017[3] compared to 22.4% in 2010” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
  - jhgb 5y ago
    No, if they hadn't reduced nuclear production, the relative changes between coal and renewables would have exactly been the same, only coal would have had the same uptick from a lower 2020 value. "The increase in coal usage" would have been exactly the same regardless of whether they shut down some nuclear power plants or not. That should be obvious to you. Since this inter-annual change would have happened regardless of nuclear generation levels (unless you for some reason assume that the number of nuclear power plants operating in Germany affects German inter-annual weather changes), you can't use the nuclear generation levels to make this argument.
    - talolard 5y ago
      Could you elaborate, im interested in understanding your perspective but couldn’t follow it. In my mind , uptick in coal usage was directly caused by a decrease in wind power production. I understand that if Germany had chosen nuclear over wind, that decline would not happen and thus the usage of coal would not increase. Is that not true ?
      - jhgb 5y ago
        > I understand that if Germany had chosen nuclear over wind, that decline would not happen This doesn't make sense unless nuclear power plants blow additional wind. See my other comment for a simple example. Keeping nuclear plants alive vs. not keeping them alive doesn't change the picture of inter-annual generation changes unless those shutdowns happened exactly between those two years.
    - gdavisson 5y ago
      Why would that be the case? Shutting down nuclear plants doesn't increase the production capacity from renewables. For a given renewable production capacity, there's a fixed amount that has to be made up from non-renewable sources; since coal is pretty clearly the worst of those, you use things other than coal -- anything other than coal -- first, and kill off coal as fast as possible. If you have a way to increase the renewable capacity to make up for a decrease in nuclear production, why not do that anyway, and shut down more coal production instead of nuclear?
jhgb 5y ago
This is completely irrelevant. The inter-annual variability means nothing in the long run since the climate only cares about long-term averages. You're ignoring the long-term trend on purpose. This doesn't mean in any way that Germany is switching from nuclear to coal. They're switching from nuclear AND coal to renewables.
- fsflover 5y ago
  They could reduce coal dramatically by not switching from nuclear, all else being equal.

izacus 5y ago

This graph does not show the failure of renewables to provide sufficient power this year (it ends at 2020). The renewable power production is down for up to 40% and french nuclear power being in maintenance mode has caused the coal consumption to rise significantly.

jhgb 5y ago
It's completely irrelevant. The reason for the transition is climate protection and the climate cares about long term averages - the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the order of centuries. Pushing that average baseline lower is what matters, even in the presence of occasional spikes.