4 ms·

> "Actually, Germany did not have a long term increase in coal/gas due to the nuclear shut down but a decrease" > "Gas production did grow but mainly to offset

> "Actually, Germany did not have a long term increase in coal/gas due to the nuclear shut down but a decrease" > "Gas production did grow but mainly to offset declines in coal" This is dishonest at two levels. First, nuclear power fell and, at the same time, renewables and gas sharply rose in Germany's energy mix. Power is fungible. It is not as if power generated by renewables substitutes for nuclear, but power generated by gas doesn't. Germany had to add up it's energy inputs to meet 100% of its needs, and it used both sources to do so. Second, everyone in Germany knew they were supposed to get rid of coal by 2030. That's the international deadline for coal in advanced economies. But the national phase-out law, until very recently, was eliminating coal at a far slower pace - aiming towards a terminal date of 2038. One reason why was the decline of nuclear.

jillesvangurp 4y ago
Renewables rose by far more than gas did. The overall market also grew. If you take coal and gas together and look at overall fossil based generation, it declined and continues to decline. The unspoken implication of nuclear proponents is that Germany started putting out more CO2 because they shut down nuclear. The reality is that there was a continuous decline in fossil fuel related emissions related to electricity production. So, who is being "dishonest" here? Gas "sharply" rose to much less than the coal and nuclear reductions combined. Renewables are on track to grow to about an order of magnitude more than the nuclear capacity Germany ever had. New gas plants might still happen as that is part of their plan to decommission coal. Or at least it was until a few months ago. But it will probably never grow to close to the level of coal production Germany had 12 years ago when it started shutting down nuclear plants. The decision to get rid of coal by 2030 is fairly recent. There are no international deadlines other than what was agreed at Cop 26, which thanks to China and India avoids any big explicit commitments. However, there is a lot of peer pressure especially in Europe to clean up the energy sector. Germany actually resisted that peer pressure quite long. E.g. the reason brown coal is still a thing in Germany is because until a few years ago, the CDU essentially blocked all attempts to kill that massively polluting industry to protect jobs. I think at the time of the Paris agreements they were thinking/hoping a 2050-2060 time frame. Germany even opened new coal plants as recent as two years ago. The ambition levels have of course increased dramatically in the last few years; mainly due to the success of renewables. Mostly this is driven by simple economics. People like cheap wind and solar energy. Nuclear they don't like for lots of reasons; including the bad economics.
- Emma_Goldman 4y ago
  > "If you take coal and gas together and look at overall fossil based generation, it declined and continues to decline." In absolute terms the combined capacity of coal and gas is the same now as it was in 2010. It has fallen as a share of the total because output has increased. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/paragraph_text_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig1-installed-net-power-generation-capacity-germany-2002-2021.png?itok=Ydea59zW https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/p... > "The unspoken implication of nuclear proponents is that Germany started putting out more CO2 because they shut down nuclear. The reality is that there was a continuous decline in fossil fuel related emissions related to electricity production." I am not a partisan in this argument. But clearly that's a strawman. The argument is that if Germany hadn't taken its nuclear capacity offline then it would have been in a better position to more rapidly decarbonise its energy mix. In one simple sense that's true: nuclear energy is clean, and so by getting rid of it you need to add more clean energy that you would have otherwise to decarbonise. That is, Germany would not have had to increase gas imports at the rate it did, and would not have had to drag out its coal phase-out. Showing that fossil fuels have decreased in relative terms as a share of the energy mix does not show that it would not have fallen faster with nuclear online. > "There are no international deadlines other than what was agreed at Cop 26, which thanks to China and India avoids any big explicit commitments." I was writing in a hurry. I meant that the most respected models of the pathways to net zero tell us that coal needs to be eradicated across advanced economies by 2030. The IEA's Net Zero scenario, which is widely taken as a benchmark by policymakers around the world, says just that. Everyone in Germany knew their original 2038 phase-out date flouted their responsibilities.
legulere 4y ago
I think we're discussing semantics there. Coal use fell, coal and gas combined fell, but gas alone has risen. Which goes against predictions that coal would replace nuclear, that somehow some people claim have come true when there is obvious data that shows the opposite. I agree with the point that we should have phased out coal before nuclear, but you have to state it like that and not cling onto some dream that nuclear and not renewables are the way forward for decarbonization. > 2030 That's the international deadline for coal in advanced economies Of the countries that have a pledge of a phase-out of coal, most have an even earlier deadline. However a lot of countries like the US or Poland don't even a deadline. https://beyond-coal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Overview-of-national-coal-phase-out-announcements-Europe-Beyond-Coal-January-2021.pdf https://beyond-coal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Overview-o...
- Emma_Goldman 4y ago
  > "Actually, Germany did not have a long term increase in coal/gas due to the nuclear shut down but a decrease" Arguably this is semantics. But that's because the semantics of your claim is unhelpfully ambiguous. In absolute terms coal and gas make up approximately the same share of Germany's capacity as it did in 2010. In relative terms, because the total output has increased, it's share has fallen. But I say it is unhelpful because one has fallen, the other increased. > "Gas production did grow but mainly to offset declines in coal" I don't think this is semantics. For the reasons given, it's just wrong. The statements together make it look like you're trying to misrepresent the facts to support a particular view about nuclear energy.
  - uecker 4y ago
    Assumptions are all wrong. Total output decreased from 632 TWh in 2010 to 588 TWh in 2021. Coal and lignite decreased substantially 117 TWh + 146 TWh in 2010 to 55 TWh + 110 TWh in 2021 (with a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions). gas use remained stable with 89 TWh in 2010 and 90 TWh in 2021. At the same time nuclear decreased from 141 TWh and 69 TWh and renewables increased from 105 TWh to 233 TWh.
    - 4y ago

jillesvangurp 4y ago

Renewables rose by far more than gas did. The overall market also grew. If you take coal and gas together and look at overall fossil based generation, it declined and continues to decline. The unspoken implication of nuclear proponents is that Germany started putting out more CO2 because they shut down nuclear. The reality is that there was a continuous decline in fossil fuel related emissions related to electricity production. So, who is being "dishonest" here? Gas "sharply" rose to much less than the coal and nuclear reductions combined. Renewables are on track to grow to about an order of magnitude more than the nuclear capacity Germany ever had. New gas plants might still happen as that is part of their plan to decommission coal. Or at least it was until a few months ago. But it will probably never grow to close to the level of coal production Germany had 12 years ago when it started shutting down nuclear plants. The decision to get rid of coal by 2030 is fairly recent. There are no international deadlines other than what was agreed at Cop 26, which thanks to China and India avoids any big explicit commitments. However, there is a lot of peer pressure especially in Europe to clean up the energy sector. Germany actually resisted that peer pressure quite long. E.g. the reason brown coal is still a thing in Germany is because until a few years ago, the CDU essentially blocked all attempts to kill that massively polluting industry to protect jobs. I think at the time of the Paris agreements they were thinking/hoping a 2050-2060 time frame. Germany even opened new coal plants as recent as two years ago. The ambition levels have of course increased dramatically in the last few years; mainly due to the success of renewables. Mostly this is driven by simple economics. People like cheap wind and solar energy. Nuclear they don't like for lots of reasons; including the bad economics.

Emma_Goldman 4y ago
> "If you take coal and gas together and look at overall fossil based generation, it declined and continues to decline." In absolute terms the combined capacity of coal and gas is the same now as it was in 2010. It has fallen as a share of the total because output has increased. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/paragraph_text_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig1-installed-net-power-generation-capacity-germany-2002-2021.png?itok=Ydea59zW https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/p... > "The unspoken implication of nuclear proponents is that Germany started putting out more CO2 because they shut down nuclear. The reality is that there was a continuous decline in fossil fuel related emissions related to electricity production." I am not a partisan in this argument. But clearly that's a strawman. The argument is that if Germany hadn't taken its nuclear capacity offline then it would have been in a better position to more rapidly decarbonise its energy mix. In one simple sense that's true: nuclear energy is clean, and so by getting rid of it you need to add more clean energy that you would have otherwise to decarbonise. That is, Germany would not have had to increase gas imports at the rate it did, and would not have had to drag out its coal phase-out. Showing that fossil fuels have decreased in relative terms as a share of the energy mix does not show that it would not have fallen faster with nuclear online. > "There are no international deadlines other than what was agreed at Cop 26, which thanks to China and India avoids any big explicit commitments." I was writing in a hurry. I meant that the most respected models of the pathways to net zero tell us that coal needs to be eradicated across advanced economies by 2030. The IEA's Net Zero scenario, which is widely taken as a benchmark by policymakers around the world, says just that. Everyone in Germany knew their original 2038 phase-out date flouted their responsibilities.

legulere 4y ago

I think we're discussing semantics there. Coal use fell, coal and gas combined fell, but gas alone has risen. Which goes against predictions that coal would replace nuclear, that somehow some people claim have come true when there is obvious data that shows the opposite. I agree with the point that we should have phased out coal before nuclear, but you have to state it like that and not cling onto some dream that nuclear and not renewables are the way forward for decarbonization. > 2030 That's the international deadline for coal in advanced economies Of the countries that have a pledge of a phase-out of coal, most have an even earlier deadline. However a lot of countries like the US or Poland don't even a deadline. https://beyond-coal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Overview-of-national-coal-phase-out-announcements-Europe-Beyond-Coal-January-2021.pdf https://beyond-coal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Overview-o...

Emma_Goldman 4y ago
> "Actually, Germany did not have a long term increase in coal/gas due to the nuclear shut down but a decrease" Arguably this is semantics. But that's because the semantics of your claim is unhelpfully ambiguous. In absolute terms coal and gas make up approximately the same share of Germany's capacity as it did in 2010. In relative terms, because the total output has increased, it's share has fallen. But I say it is unhelpful because one has fallen, the other increased. > "Gas production did grow but mainly to offset declines in coal" I don't think this is semantics. For the reasons given, it's just wrong. The statements together make it look like you're trying to misrepresent the facts to support a particular view about nuclear energy.
- uecker 4y ago
  Assumptions are all wrong. Total output decreased from 632 TWh in 2010 to 588 TWh in 2021. Coal and lignite decreased substantially 117 TWh + 146 TWh in 2010 to 55 TWh + 110 TWh in 2021 (with a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions). gas use remained stable with 89 TWh in 2010 and 90 TWh in 2021. At the same time nuclear decreased from 141 TWh and 69 TWh and renewables increased from 105 TWh to 233 TWh.
  - 4y ago