3 ms·

No, coal as a percentage of their electricity production went down from 45% to 25% in 10 years. They removed nuclear and coal and replaced both with renewables

No, coal as a percentage of their electricity production went down from 45% to 25% in 10 years. They removed nuclear and coal and replaced both with renewables (coal is the bottom two). Data: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/styles/800w400h/public/medien/384/bilder/3_abb_bruttostromerzeugung-et_2021-05-10.png?itok=ePAY3Zf4 https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/styles/80...

fsflover 5y ago
> coal as a percentage of their electricity production went down from 45% to 25% in 10 years. Couldn't it go to 5% by using nuclear?
- locallost 5y ago
  See, so as usual we land in goalpost shifting land. First comes the shock that somebody would replace nuclear with coal, but when this is refuted, instead of relief comes further criticism why it's still wrong. I won't bother anymore, since there were other things to consider in the nuclear phase out, and the goalpost shifting will continue until judgement day. I will leave you with a thought: If you wonder how bad Germany is doing, imagine that the US was at 60% fossil fuels 2010, and stayed there 2020. Germany is doing way more for the climate.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > First comes the shock that somebody would replace nuclear with coal, but when this is refuted No, my original argument was about stronger reduction of coal by using nuclear, no matter that it's already decreasing. You just didn't understand me (or shifted the goalpost?). Upd: I see that you avoid answering this question all the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29768086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29768086.
    - locallost 5y ago
      You asked why does it matter that coal use is drastically down, when it could be even less. I answered that it's because people don't get that this actually happened, and repeat the opposite of what is true. As proof for this, check the top comment in this thread that makes the false claim nuclear power was replaced by coal. So obviously it is important. Apparently there are enough people to not only write that Germany's coal use went up, but also to upvote it. To this you replied with a link that you did not understand, and again repeated the claim that nuclear was replaced by coal. Quote: "The removed nuclear energy is replaced with coal." False. If the removed nuclear was replaced by coal, coal % of the produced electricity would go up. In reality nuclear % went down, was replaced by renewables, and coal % also went down, also replaced by renewables. As a result of this, carbon emissions are way down, despite the nuclear phase out. Yet another thing that people like to falsely claim. And of course as usual, once we establish what is actually going on, the goal posts get shifted to "well it could be even better". There is nothing to avoid really, my position on that I've posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29770486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29770486. But don't pretend you're having a rational debate. You don't check the numbers to form an opinion, you google for links to prove your point which is based on the wrong data, don't adjust your opinion when you see the data and instead shift the topic to something else. So there is nothing to discuss there.
      - fsflover 5y ago
        > If the removed nuclear was replaced by coal, coal % of the produced electricity would go up. False. Coal went from 45% to 25%. The remaining 25% are needed to cover closing nuclear. This is what people mean when they say about coal replacing nuclear. We could remove coal completely (or significantly more) if not stopping nuclear. Total coal percentage doesn't matter. Compare two possibilities: 1. Coal 45% to 25%, nuclear 10% to 0%. 2. Coal 45% to 0%, nuclear 10% to 55%. In both cases coal usage is decreasing, but in the first case, nuclear is (partially) replaced with coal. In the second case, coal is replaced with nuclear.
        locallost 5y ago
        There is less coal produced electricity and less nuclear. How on earth is coal replacing nuclear? What is replacing the missing coal? Wishful thinking? By that logic you could also make the case that nuclear replaced coal.

fsflover 5y ago

> coal as a percentage of their electricity production went down from 45% to 25% in 10 years. Couldn't it go to 5% by using nuclear?

locallost 5y ago
See, so as usual we land in goalpost shifting land. First comes the shock that somebody would replace nuclear with coal, but when this is refuted, instead of relief comes further criticism why it's still wrong. I won't bother anymore, since there were other things to consider in the nuclear phase out, and the goalpost shifting will continue until judgement day. I will leave you with a thought: If you wonder how bad Germany is doing, imagine that the US was at 60% fossil fuels 2010, and stayed there 2020. Germany is doing way more for the climate.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > First comes the shock that somebody would replace nuclear with coal, but when this is refuted No, my original argument was about stronger reduction of coal by using nuclear, no matter that it's already decreasing. You just didn't understand me (or shifted the goalpost?). Upd: I see that you avoid answering this question all the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29768086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29768086.
  - locallost 5y ago
    You asked why does it matter that coal use is drastically down, when it could be even less. I answered that it's because people don't get that this actually happened, and repeat the opposite of what is true. As proof for this, check the top comment in this thread that makes the false claim nuclear power was replaced by coal. So obviously it is important. Apparently there are enough people to not only write that Germany's coal use went up, but also to upvote it. To this you replied with a link that you did not understand, and again repeated the claim that nuclear was replaced by coal. Quote: "The removed nuclear energy is replaced with coal." False. If the removed nuclear was replaced by coal, coal % of the produced electricity would go up. In reality nuclear % went down, was replaced by renewables, and coal % also went down, also replaced by renewables. As a result of this, carbon emissions are way down, despite the nuclear phase out. Yet another thing that people like to falsely claim. And of course as usual, once we establish what is actually going on, the goal posts get shifted to "well it could be even better". There is nothing to avoid really, my position on that I've posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29770486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29770486. But don't pretend you're having a rational debate. You don't check the numbers to form an opinion, you google for links to prove your point which is based on the wrong data, don't adjust your opinion when you see the data and instead shift the topic to something else. So there is nothing to discuss there.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      > If the removed nuclear was replaced by coal, coal % of the produced electricity would go up. False. Coal went from 45% to 25%. The remaining 25% are needed to cover closing nuclear. This is what people mean when they say about coal replacing nuclear. We could remove coal completely (or significantly more) if not stopping nuclear. Total coal percentage doesn't matter. Compare two possibilities: 1. Coal 45% to 25%, nuclear 10% to 0%. 2. Coal 45% to 0%, nuclear 10% to 55%. In both cases coal usage is decreasing, but in the first case, nuclear is (partially) replaced with coal. In the second case, coal is replaced with nuclear.
      - locallost 5y ago
        There is less coal produced electricity and less nuclear. How on earth is coal replacing nuclear? What is replacing the missing coal? Wishful thinking? By that logic you could also make the case that nuclear replaced coal.