3 ms·

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 hap

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
    Yes, there is less coal and less nuclear: 45% to 25% and 10% to 0%, respectively. The missing coal is probably replaced by the renewables. How does it matter? The 25% value is too high, and it could be much lower if not decreasing the nuclear. That's all I want to tell you. If you don't like the wording, you can change it as you wish. It's wrong to let coal go to 25% and not lower while removing nuclear. Nuclear should not have been removed before coal. Same thing is said here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890760.
    - locallost 5y ago
      Now we've made full circle because this question of yours is how we started the discussion. To this I can only repeat my answer: it matters because the exact opposite is being told, even in this thread in the top comment. If it didn't matter, this lie wouldn't be repeated ad nauseam. I think it matters that Germany's fossil fuel use for electricity went from 60% in 2010 to 40% in 2020. I also think it matters the US went from 60% in 2010 to 60% in 2020 (although I didn't check the US numbers in detail, so I might be slightly off). So in this regard, what Germany is doing is an obvious success, but reality does not fit to agendas. If everybody was doing this, the world would be in much better shape. Instead those that do well, are criticized for not doing better, mostly on wrong assumptions and bad data. That's just weird.
      - fsflover 5y ago
        > I think it matters that Germany's fossil fuel use for electricity went from 60% in 2010 to 40% in 2020. I also think it matters the US went from 60% in 2010 to 60% in 2020 This is whataboutism. The fact that someone else is doing worse, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for the better. There is no reason to switch off nuclear in Germany before switching off coal, except propaganda and irrational fear.

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
  Yes, there is less coal and less nuclear: 45% to 25% and 10% to 0%, respectively. The missing coal is probably replaced by the renewables. How does it matter? The 25% value is too high, and it could be much lower if not decreasing the nuclear. That's all I want to tell you. If you don't like the wording, you can change it as you wish. It's wrong to let coal go to 25% and not lower while removing nuclear. Nuclear should not have been removed before coal. Same thing is said here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890760.
  - locallost 5y ago
    Now we've made full circle because this question of yours is how we started the discussion. To this I can only repeat my answer: it matters because the exact opposite is being told, even in this thread in the top comment. If it didn't matter, this lie wouldn't be repeated ad nauseam. I think it matters that Germany's fossil fuel use for electricity went from 60% in 2010 to 40% in 2020. I also think it matters the US went from 60% in 2010 to 60% in 2020 (although I didn't check the US numbers in detail, so I might be slightly off). So in this regard, what Germany is doing is an obvious success, but reality does not fit to agendas. If everybody was doing this, the world would be in much better shape. Instead those that do well, are criticized for not doing better, mostly on wrong assumptions and bad data. That's just weird.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      > I think it matters that Germany's fossil fuel use for electricity went from 60% in 2010 to 40% in 2020. I also think it matters the US went from 60% in 2010 to 60% in 2020 This is whataboutism. The fact that someone else is doing worse, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for the better. There is no reason to switch off nuclear in Germany before switching off coal, except propaganda and irrational fear.