3 ms·

1. There is very little energy storage 2. Sun and wind only produce a fraction of the time (40% [1] and 25% [2] respectively, and 7.5% (= 8.94/(63.2+56)) of in

1. There is very little energy storage 2. Sun and wind only produce a fraction of the time (40% [1] and 25% [2] respectively, and 7.5% (= 8.94/(63.2+56)) of installed capacity this very second [3]) 3. Production capacity without sun and wind < peak demand Germany's mix only work because of neighbouring countries. And their humongous amounts of still existing coal and gas. [1] https://assets.greentechmedia.com/assets/content/cache/made/assets/content/cache/remote/https_dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/content/images/articles/Massachusetts_duck_curve_shoulder_month_XL_1598_1170_80.jpg https://assets.greentechmedia.com/assets/content/cache/made/... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/555654/wind-electricity-load-factor-uk/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/555654/wind-electricity-... [3] https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE

lambdasquirrel 5y ago
Sure but carbon is carbon. If they are able to get that much more of their overall power output from renewable, that's carbon not going into the air. The problem with the current generation of nuclear is that it's expensive to build, and a lot of the older reactors are, well, old. If it's possible to get the same emissions reduction by building out lots and lots of renewable, instead of spending that money on nuclear, that's understandable for a country that can't just print money. There will eventually be some limit to that strategy (i.e. how do you meet supply at night) and we'll have to see how the next-gen energy storage and nuclear pan out.
- sgift 5y ago
  > and a lot of the older reactors are, well, old. People say this as if reactors get build once and then stay the same way. These reactors get upgraded all the time. Here's an example: Isar 1 was one of the oldest reactors in Germany. When a German reactor gets new fuel rods it has to be certified again according to current regulations. Isar 1 needed new fuel rods in 2011, so it got upgraded and certified again. After that new fuel rods were introduced into the reactor. A few month later as consequence of the Fukushima disaster it got "shut down"[1], because it was now "not safe". Which is obviously bullshit, cause the rules on reactor safety for German nuclear reactor didn't change due to Fukushima, opinions did and politicians needed to show that they do something. [1] It didn't really get shut down in 2011. It got removed from the power grid. So, Isar 1 continued to produce power, which was then promptly discharged into the environment as heat. Only after the fuel rods were burned down it really got shut down.
  - nomel 5y ago
    > So, Isar 1 continued to produce power, which was then promptly discharged into the environment as heat. That's completely idiotic, correct?
  - nootropicat 5y ago
    >It didn't really get shut down in 2011. It got removed from the power grid. So, Isar 1 continued to produce power, which was then promptly discharged into the environment as heat. Wow. Idiocracy vibes.

lambdasquirrel 5y ago

Sure but carbon is carbon. If they are able to get that much more of their overall power output from renewable, that's carbon not going into the air. The problem with the current generation of nuclear is that it's expensive to build, and a lot of the older reactors are, well, old. If it's possible to get the same emissions reduction by building out lots and lots of renewable, instead of spending that money on nuclear, that's understandable for a country that can't just print money. There will eventually be some limit to that strategy (i.e. how do you meet supply at night) and we'll have to see how the next-gen energy storage and nuclear pan out.

sgift 5y ago
> and a lot of the older reactors are, well, old. People say this as if reactors get build once and then stay the same way. These reactors get upgraded all the time. Here's an example: Isar 1 was one of the oldest reactors in Germany. When a German reactor gets new fuel rods it has to be certified again according to current regulations. Isar 1 needed new fuel rods in 2011, so it got upgraded and certified again. After that new fuel rods were introduced into the reactor. A few month later as consequence of the Fukushima disaster it got "shut down"[1], because it was now "not safe". Which is obviously bullshit, cause the rules on reactor safety for German nuclear reactor didn't change due to Fukushima, opinions did and politicians needed to show that they do something. [1] It didn't really get shut down in 2011. It got removed from the power grid. So, Isar 1 continued to produce power, which was then promptly discharged into the environment as heat. Only after the fuel rods were burned down it really got shut down.
- nomel 5y ago
  > So, Isar 1 continued to produce power, which was then promptly discharged into the environment as heat. That's completely idiotic, correct?
- nootropicat 5y ago
  >It didn't really get shut down in 2011. It got removed from the power grid. So, Isar 1 continued to produce power, which was then promptly discharged into the environment as heat. Wow. Idiocracy vibes.