9 ms·

You may want to read something like "Common misconceptions about Germany's energy transition"[0] for a fuller picture of the situation there. In particular, it

• mannerheim 4y ago
  > 29.2 TWh of reduction of Russian coal imports, vs 12.2 TWh increase of Russian gas imports. > The Energiewende made Germany less dependent on Russia than if it had never taken place! This is moronic, a total apples to oranges comparison. First, coal is much cheaper than gas, so whatever they were paying for Russian coal doesn't necessarily cancel out the gas increase. Second, coal is way easier to transport than gas. The latter needs a pipeline or liquefaction, both of which require extensive capital outlays that make it much more difficult to switch from one supplier to another. Third, coal and nuclear are both base load, while natural gas is used as peakers. The entire argument for nuclear over renewables was that renewables would require more peakers (i.e., gas).
• def_true_false 4y ago
  1. German coal usage went up since the war started. Their needs for transporting coal are up so much so that it's causing problems for passenger rail. 2. In 19 years, they could have moved most of their power generation to nuclear, like France did, *checks notes*, 40 years ago.