3 ms·

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.
          • max002 5y ago
            They told edison and tesla theyre crazy too, dont stress and dont undermine power of human minds when it comes to working together on global solution (see vaccine).
            • morelisp 5y ago
              Well, today we also have the benefit of hindsight proving me right. Germany did in fact spend ten years offsetting the loss of nuclear with renewables while also increasing the amount of gas and biomass (which is renewable, but not at all clean) used. What have you got, ten year old hope?
      • max002 5y ago
        As you said, by next year they will close all nuclear plants.