5 ms·

Germany is proving that you can go without nuclear without going back to coal. Instead they went into renewables. Im not sure if any other country in Europe/on

by max002 5y ago

Germany is proving that you can go without nuclear without going back to coal. Instead they went into renewables. Im not sure if any other country in Europe/on continent did it. Love them for that.

morelisp 5y ago
Germany energy composition in 2021 literally went back to coal. 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...
- YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
  It was the primary source of energy in Germany since the beginning of the industrial age we had a few years which favored renewables so they went ahead. Nuclear was never over 25% of power generation.
- max002 5y ago
  Yes, the production is one thing, but whaat i wantex to say is: 1. Germany is plan to shutdow all atomic 2. They dont plan to build any new coal
  - dzikimarian 5y ago
    Not true https://www.powermag.com/germany-brings-last-new-coal-plant-online/ https://www.powermag.com/germany-brings-last-new-coal-plant-...
    - detaro 5y ago
      What is that article supposed to show is not true?
      - dzikimarian 5y ago
        Ok, maybe "not true" is an overstatement. However this power plant was planned and built after Germany declared to go away from coal, contrary to the earlier statements.
      - morelisp 5y ago
        The government's commitment to not open any new coal plants predates the opening of Datteln 4. They are still claiming a victory because they are opening one and shutting down multiple. Of course those four were going to shut down anyway, but by any normal meaning of words this is "going back to coal". The plan to eliminate nuclear by 2022 and coal by 2038 should have been swapped. And lignite should've been banned a decade ago.
        cycomanic 5y ago
        > The government's commitment to not open any new coal plants predates the opening of Datteln 4. That's correct, but more relevant is when the build started. There are likely all sort of legal reasons why they could not stop the plant going into operation at this stage. Saying that Germany is going back to coal based on this is a bit factitious though. Germany was in fact planning more new coal plans previously, most of them did not get built. https://www.greenpeace.de/klimaschutz/energiewende/kohleausstieg/geplante-kohlekraftwerke-deutschland https://www.greenpeace.de/klimaschutz/energiewende/kohleauss... > They are still claiming a victory because they are opening one and shutting down multiple. Of course those four were going to shut down anyway, but by any normal meaning of words this is "going back to coal". No it is not. They put into operation a plant that was planned 15 years ago (im not arguing that they should have done this, but they did) . Should they instead have kept operating one of the older plants just to say "we haven't build a new one"? > The plan to eliminate nuclear by 2022 and coal by 2038 should have been swapped. And lignite should've been banned a decade ago. Completely agree on lignite, and they should (and likely could) have phased out both coal and nuclear by now.
        morelisp 5y ago
        I mean yeah, I want everything on wind/solar, and a pony too. but that was never going to happen. When the nuclear shutdown was announced in 2011 it was incredibly obvious we would not be able to compensate with renewable sources. We have wasted an entire decade offsetting our drop in nuclear power and a minute amount of nuclear waste with renewables, when we could have kept nuclear on to offset coal and gas instead. Germany "proving that you can go without nuclear without going back to coal" is not a reality-based opinion. Nuclear waste is a problem, but we have chosen one of the few paths even worse than that.
llampx 5y ago
Germany is not particularly independent from fossil fuels
scotty79 5y ago
They are now going into gas at huge climatic and geopolitical cost.
- max002 5y ago
  This cost is nothing if you compare it to cost of sagely storing waste from plants for thousands of years.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    Amortized over thousands of years is miniscule when compared to pollution from fossil fuels that gets "stored" in the atmosphere we breath in.
    - max002 5y ago
      There's still 100x more ideas to clean coal pollution, bot nowhere near that to remove atomic solution. Saying something is viable over thousand of years is just dreaming.
      - scotty79 5y ago
        Nuclear waste is dealt with https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio...
        cycomanic 5y ago
        That's sarcasm isn't it? When an article about nuclear waste starts out with "All human activities produce waste" one can be pretty sure that one is in for a treat.
        scotty79 5y ago
        Did you know that in France that gets most of its energy from nuclear only 60% of nuclear waste per capita comes from nuclear power plants? And only 200g per person per year of total radioactive waste has half life of more that 30 years. I know this might be a bit challenging knowledge for someone with strong beliefs, but it's worth it to realign your beliefs with reality.
bellyfullofbac 5y ago
Ah Germany, the country who's outer image is so much better than the reality... The Merkel government was just a unprincipled opportunistic one, although I do credit her for having the guts to say "Syrian refugees can stay"; she took the morally correct decision, not the politically expedient one. But her previous steps before that like championing austerity (anyone remember the PIIGS problem?) ensured that her populace got really pissed off, imagine seeing your conservative government stripping away money for social programs for decades (while the elite get richer), and then suddenly saying "we can afford to host refugees"...

by max002 5y ago

Germany is proving that you can go without nuclear without going back to coal. Instead they went into renewables. Im not sure if any other country in Europe/on continent did it. Love them for that.

morelisp 5y ago

Germany energy composition in 2021 literally went back to coal. 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...

YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
It was the primary source of energy in Germany since the beginning of the industrial age we had a few years which favored renewables so they went ahead. Nuclear was never over 25% of power generation.
max002 5y ago
Yes, the production is one thing, but whaat i wantex to say is: 1. Germany is plan to shutdow all atomic 2. They dont plan to build any new coal
- dzikimarian 5y ago
  Not true https://www.powermag.com/germany-brings-last-new-coal-plant-online/ https://www.powermag.com/germany-brings-last-new-coal-plant-...
  - detaro 5y ago
    What is that article supposed to show is not true?
    - dzikimarian 5y ago
      Ok, maybe "not true" is an overstatement. However this power plant was planned and built after Germany declared to go away from coal, contrary to the earlier statements.
    - morelisp 5y ago
      The government's commitment to not open any new coal plants predates the opening of Datteln 4. They are still claiming a victory because they are opening one and shutting down multiple. Of course those four were going to shut down anyway, but by any normal meaning of words this is "going back to coal". The plan to eliminate nuclear by 2022 and coal by 2038 should have been swapped. And lignite should've been banned a decade ago.
      - cycomanic 5y ago
        > The government's commitment to not open any new coal plants predates the opening of Datteln 4. That's correct, but more relevant is when the build started. There are likely all sort of legal reasons why they could not stop the plant going into operation at this stage. Saying that Germany is going back to coal based on this is a bit factitious though. Germany was in fact planning more new coal plans previously, most of them did not get built. https://www.greenpeace.de/klimaschutz/energiewende/kohleausstieg/geplante-kohlekraftwerke-deutschland https://www.greenpeace.de/klimaschutz/energiewende/kohleauss... > They are still claiming a victory because they are opening one and shutting down multiple. Of course those four were going to shut down anyway, but by any normal meaning of words this is "going back to coal". No it is not. They put into operation a plant that was planned 15 years ago (im not arguing that they should have done this, but they did) . Should they instead have kept operating one of the older plants just to say "we haven't build a new one"? > The plan to eliminate nuclear by 2022 and coal by 2038 should have been swapped. And lignite should've been banned a decade ago. Completely agree on lignite, and they should (and likely could) have phased out both coal and nuclear by now.
        morelisp 5y ago
        I mean yeah, I want everything on wind/solar, and a pony too. but that was never going to happen. When the nuclear shutdown was announced in 2011 it was incredibly obvious we would not be able to compensate with renewable sources. We have wasted an entire decade offsetting our drop in nuclear power and a minute amount of nuclear waste with renewables, when we could have kept nuclear on to offset coal and gas instead. Germany "proving that you can go without nuclear without going back to coal" is not a reality-based opinion. Nuclear waste is a problem, but we have chosen one of the few paths even worse than that.

llampx 5y ago

Germany is not particularly independent from fossil fuels

scotty79 5y ago

They are now going into gas at huge climatic and geopolitical cost.

max002 5y ago
This cost is nothing if you compare it to cost of sagely storing waste from plants for thousands of years.
- scotty79 5y ago
  Amortized over thousands of years is miniscule when compared to pollution from fossil fuels that gets "stored" in the atmosphere we breath in.
  - max002 5y ago
    There's still 100x more ideas to clean coal pollution, bot nowhere near that to remove atomic solution. Saying something is viable over thousand of years is just dreaming.
    - scotty79 5y ago
      Nuclear waste is dealt with https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio...
      - cycomanic 5y ago
        That's sarcasm isn't it? When an article about nuclear waste starts out with "All human activities produce waste" one can be pretty sure that one is in for a treat.
        scotty79 5y ago
        Did you know that in France that gets most of its energy from nuclear only 60% of nuclear waste per capita comes from nuclear power plants? And only 200g per person per year of total radioactive waste has half life of more that 30 years. I know this might be a bit challenging knowledge for someone with strong beliefs, but it's worth it to realign your beliefs with reality.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago

Ah Germany, the country who's outer image is so much better than the reality... The Merkel government was just a unprincipled opportunistic one, although I do credit her for having the guts to say "Syrian refugees can stay"; she took the morally correct decision, not the politically expedient one. But her previous steps before that like championing austerity (anyone remember the PIIGS problem?) ensured that her populace got really pissed off, imagine seeing your conservative government stripping away money for social programs for decades (while the elite get richer), and then suddenly saying "we can afford to host refugees"...