3 ms·

> without considering the direct consequences of these actions And the best example of that in Germany is Hambacher Forst. Return to coal is a direct result of

> without considering the direct consequences of these actions And the best example of that in Germany is Hambacher Forst. Return to coal is a direct result of moving away from nuclear. Nuts.

emsign 5y ago
Germany did not return to coal. That's simply not true. The coal under Hambacher Forest isn't even needed and it won't be used up either.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >Germany did not return to coal. Germany's buying cheap energy from coal burning Poland so it might as well have. Call it outsourcing of coal burning if that makes it easier to take in.
  - zuzun 5y ago
    A net import of 250,000 MWh in the past month. That's not even 1% of Germany's electricity production. Germany produced 4x as much electricity from photovoltaics even though the sun wasn't shining.
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  And because it won't be used and is not needed, the mine will operate until 2038? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambach_surface_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambach_surface_mine > Begun in 1978, the mine's operation area currently (as of end of 2017) has a size of 43,8 km2, with the total area designated for mining having a size of 85 km2. So there's still a bit to dig.
cycomanic 5y ago
It's not, really. You can actually see that both nuclear and coal have been replaced by wind and solar in Germany. The issue about Hambacher Forst is politics and political lobbies. The area is owned by RWE since the 1960s and the open pit mine next door exists for much longer than the decision to get out of nuclear. It's simply convenient to blame this on the "Atomaustieg" as part of a lobbying campaign. It's also interesting that nobody was saying that the Atomaustieg was responsible for increased coal use in 2020. Because it's only last year that was an exceptional year, which saw a uptick in coal vs wind.
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  The area was purchased by RWE in 1978.
- Faelian2 5y ago
  Coal is still the primary source of energy for Germany. https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/long-series/germany/ https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/long-series/germa...
  - patall 5y ago
    ??? Your link says that oil is (in 2017) the primary source of energy. Followed by gas. Then coal. Edit: When I ignoring wood.

> without considering the direct consequences of these actions And the best example of that in Germany is Hambacher Forst. Return to coal is a direct result of moving away from nuclear. Nuts.

emsign 5y ago

Germany did not return to coal. That's simply not true. The coal under Hambacher Forest isn't even needed and it won't be used up either.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>Germany did not return to coal. Germany's buying cheap energy from coal burning Poland so it might as well have. Call it outsourcing of coal burning if that makes it easier to take in.
- zuzun 5y ago
  A net import of 250,000 MWh in the past month. That's not even 1% of Germany's electricity production. Germany produced 4x as much electricity from photovoltaics even though the sun wasn't shining.
rad_gruchalski 5y ago
And because it won't be used and is not needed, the mine will operate until 2038? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambach_surface_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambach_surface_mine > Begun in 1978, the mine's operation area currently (as of end of 2017) has a size of 43,8 km2, with the total area designated for mining having a size of 85 km2. So there's still a bit to dig.

cycomanic 5y ago

It's not, really. You can actually see that both nuclear and coal have been replaced by wind and solar in Germany. The issue about Hambacher Forst is politics and political lobbies. The area is owned by RWE since the 1960s and the open pit mine next door exists for much longer than the decision to get out of nuclear. It's simply convenient to blame this on the "Atomaustieg" as part of a lobbying campaign. It's also interesting that nobody was saying that the Atomaustieg was responsible for increased coal use in 2020. Because it's only last year that was an exceptional year, which saw a uptick in coal vs wind.

rad_gruchalski 5y ago
The area was purchased by RWE in 1978.
Faelian2 5y ago
Coal is still the primary source of energy for Germany. https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/long-series/germany/ https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/long-series/germa...
- patall 5y ago
  ??? Your link says that oil is (in 2017) the primary source of energy. Followed by gas. Then coal. Edit: When I ignoring wood.