3 ms·

I always find it weird that Germany persistently gets a LOT of flak for doing this: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/pu

by pydry 4y ago

I always find it weird that Germany persistently gets a LOT of flak for doing this: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2021.png?itok=15hkw6zI https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... ("not reducing CO2 emissions fast enough", because nuclear) While nobody really cares that Poland (along with so many other countries) is doing this: https://aleasoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/20190724-aleasoft-poland-installed-capacity.png https://aleasoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/20190724-ale... ("80% coal now and forever? meh, who cares?") It's almost as if Germany proving the model that you can reduce CO2 while turning off nuclear plants that is attracting flak.

Ericson2314 4y ago
Germany greenwashing stupidity is more irksome than other countries just dragging their feet. It's like being stabbed in the front vs the back. Germany's behavior also makes it harder for other countries to do what they do. Since it's a unified grid, Germany gets to virtue signal without getting serious about the centralized storage needed to make all renewables possible. Other countries hit the storage needs way sooner because the grid as a whole is already trying to buffer Germany's intermittent power.
- pydry 4y ago
  They've taken the low cost, fast approach to cutting CO2 emissions rather than the high cost, incredibly-so-very-slow approach of commission a bunch of nuclear plants and then burn a LOT of coal and send a lot of money to Russia until they're finally done, over-budget and over-time circa 2040. Storage is kind of a moot point when half of your grid energy is provided by burning gas. A megawatt provided by wind in 3 years time is 100 euros not sent to Putin - no matter how intermittently it is produced. The graph above refutes any idea of this being virtue signalling. % renewables is only going up, fast.
  - Ericson2314 4y ago
    > They've taken the low cost, fast approach to cutting CO2 emissions rather than the high cost, incredibly-so-very-slow approach of commission a bunch of nuclear plants and then burn a LOT of coal and send a lot of money to Russia until they're finally done, over-budget and over-time circa 2040. Stop being a stupid marginalist. The cost of renewables is only cheap when one doesn't both to do the grid storage and other serious steps that make it actually scale to a 100% solution. Then it balloons right back up again. Any country that cannot build a nuclear power plant on time will also hit delays trying to do other major infrastructure projects like grid-scale storage.
- arrrg 4y ago
  What greenwashing? We had a government that was actively dragging its feet and, in many ways, hindering progress. You can call that greenwashing, I would describe it as paying lip service to transformation while doing little to get ahead and also hindering progress in certain places when things got difficult. It never felt very virtue-signaly to me, though. I‘m all in favor of (critically) giving this new government at least a couple of years until we measure to what extent they were able to clean up that mess. This, for example, is a necessary step because many of the states have been actively hindering wind power expansion with overly broad regulation. That‘s why wind power expansion fell off a cliff during the last couple of years. Whether this measure can change that I do not know, but that’s the relevant background and with that context it makes sense why this is happening now.
shakow 4y ago
1. Because Germany is still producing 6× more energy with coal than Poland; 2. Because Germany deliberately shut down low-carbon footprint nuke powerplant to please their voters, then built coal-burning plants to compensate for the lack of production. 3. Because Germany is the first economy of Europe and arguably the top political power (which is not the case of Poland, far from it) and thus should be leading bby example. > It's almost as if Germany proving the model that you can reduce CO2 while turning off nuclear plants that is the underlying problem. Germany is not proving anything: today is a good day (https://app.electricitymap.org/map https://app.electricitymap.org/map), and her electricity is still 4× carbon heavier than France, and closer to Balkan-level than Western Europe level.
- pydry 4y ago
  >Because Germany is still producing 6× more energy with coal than Poland Not 6x more. They're producing about 150 TWh from coal for 84 million people while Poland does about 120 TWh for just 37 million people. Per capita, Germany uses far less coal and with current trends it'll use less actual coal for its 87 million people fairly soon. >Because Germany deliberately shut down low-carbon footprint nuke powerplant to please their voters, then built coal-burning plants to compensate That accounts for the slight blip on the graph I linked to above that lasted until 2014. This blip has received an overwhelming amount of attention given that it was relatively small, lasted a few years and coal usage started diving again in 2014. It was symbolically important to the nuclear industry, but for all the wrong reasons. >Because Germany is the first economy of Europe This is the only reasonable answer. >today is a good day (https://app.electricitymap.org/map https://app.electricitymap.org/map), and her electricity is still 4× carbon heavier than France Going back in time and building nuclear plants in the 1960-70s probably is the best way to have a relatively cheap, carbon free grid in 2020 but unfortunately it also means that there's an almighty gargantuan bill to pay when those same plants age out in 2030. France is sitting on either a financial ticking time bomb if they choose to rebuild or a potential nuclear disaster if they choose to extend their lifetimes well beyond viability. https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-trouble-with-europes-ageing-nuclear-power-plants/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-trouble-with-europes-ageing-... https://futurism.com/the-byte/nuclear-plants-renewable-energy-france https://futurism.com/the-byte/nuclear-plants-renewable-energ...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by pydry 4y ago

Ericson2314 4y ago

Germany greenwashing stupidity is more irksome than other countries just dragging their feet. It's like being stabbed in the front vs the back. Germany's behavior also makes it harder for other countries to do what they do. Since it's a unified grid, Germany gets to virtue signal without getting serious about the centralized storage needed to make all renewables possible. Other countries hit the storage needs way sooner because the grid as a whole is already trying to buffer Germany's intermittent power.

pydry 4y ago
They've taken the low cost, fast approach to cutting CO2 emissions rather than the high cost, incredibly-so-very-slow approach of commission a bunch of nuclear plants and then burn a LOT of coal and send a lot of money to Russia until they're finally done, over-budget and over-time circa 2040. Storage is kind of a moot point when half of your grid energy is provided by burning gas. A megawatt provided by wind in 3 years time is 100 euros not sent to Putin - no matter how intermittently it is produced. The graph above refutes any idea of this being virtue signalling. % renewables is only going up, fast.
- Ericson2314 4y ago
  > They've taken the low cost, fast approach to cutting CO2 emissions rather than the high cost, incredibly-so-very-slow approach of commission a bunch of nuclear plants and then burn a LOT of coal and send a lot of money to Russia until they're finally done, over-budget and over-time circa 2040. Stop being a stupid marginalist. The cost of renewables is only cheap when one doesn't both to do the grid storage and other serious steps that make it actually scale to a 100% solution. Then it balloons right back up again. Any country that cannot build a nuclear power plant on time will also hit delays trying to do other major infrastructure projects like grid-scale storage.
arrrg 4y ago
What greenwashing? We had a government that was actively dragging its feet and, in many ways, hindering progress. You can call that greenwashing, I would describe it as paying lip service to transformation while doing little to get ahead and also hindering progress in certain places when things got difficult. It never felt very virtue-signaly to me, though. I‘m all in favor of (critically) giving this new government at least a couple of years until we measure to what extent they were able to clean up that mess. This, for example, is a necessary step because many of the states have been actively hindering wind power expansion with overly broad regulation. That‘s why wind power expansion fell off a cliff during the last couple of years. Whether this measure can change that I do not know, but that’s the relevant background and with that context it makes sense why this is happening now.

shakow 4y ago

1. Because Germany is still producing 6× more energy with coal than Poland; 2. Because Germany deliberately shut down low-carbon footprint nuke powerplant to please their voters, then built coal-burning plants to compensate for the lack of production. 3. Because Germany is the first economy of Europe and arguably the top political power (which is not the case of Poland, far from it) and thus should be leading bby example. > It's almost as if Germany proving the model that you can reduce CO2 while turning off nuclear plants that is the underlying problem. Germany is not proving anything: today is a good day (https://app.electricitymap.org/map https://app.electricitymap.org/map), and her electricity is still 4× carbon heavier than France, and closer to Balkan-level than Western Europe level.

pydry 4y ago
>Because Germany is still producing 6× more energy with coal than Poland Not 6x more. They're producing about 150 TWh from coal for 84 million people while Poland does about 120 TWh for just 37 million people. Per capita, Germany uses far less coal and with current trends it'll use less actual coal for its 87 million people fairly soon. >Because Germany deliberately shut down low-carbon footprint nuke powerplant to please their voters, then built coal-burning plants to compensate That accounts for the slight blip on the graph I linked to above that lasted until 2014. This blip has received an overwhelming amount of attention given that it was relatively small, lasted a few years and coal usage started diving again in 2014. It was symbolically important to the nuclear industry, but for all the wrong reasons. >Because Germany is the first economy of Europe This is the only reasonable answer. >today is a good day (https://app.electricitymap.org/map https://app.electricitymap.org/map), and her electricity is still 4× carbon heavier than France Going back in time and building nuclear plants in the 1960-70s probably is the best way to have a relatively cheap, carbon free grid in 2020 but unfortunately it also means that there's an almighty gargantuan bill to pay when those same plants age out in 2030. France is sitting on either a financial ticking time bomb if they choose to rebuild or a potential nuclear disaster if they choose to extend their lifetimes well beyond viability. https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-trouble-with-europes-ageing-nuclear-power-plants/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-trouble-with-europes-ageing-... https://futurism.com/the-byte/nuclear-plants-renewable-energy-france https://futurism.com/the-byte/nuclear-plants-renewable-energ...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]