3 ms·
Doesn't matter if you follow that logic, it's what the numbers say. Maybe it becomes clearer if you look at them, e.g. chart 3 on that page: https://www.cleane
by hannob 3y ago
Doesn't matter if you follow that logic, it's what the numbers say.
Maybe it becomes clearer if you look at them, e.g. chart 3 on that page:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
- faeriechangling 3y agoYes that's pointing out the correlation once again, but it doesn't shed any light on what I'm confused by, which is why reducing nuclear power usage would have a causative link to reducing fossil fuel usage.
- ZeroGravitas 3y agoI think the key word you missed was "replacing". Yes switching off nuclear and doing nothing else would have that effect. But that's not what they did, they pivoted to a renewable heavy grid.
- faeriechangling 3y agoIf they pivoted to a renewable heavy grid, could it not be the same governmental policies which depreciated nuclear also depreciated coal/oil? From what I can see Germany started giving governmental support to renewables in 2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Sources_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Source... Also renewables simply just became far more economically viable relative to nuclear/coal/oil on a technological level in that time. So to me, the more natural conclusion is "why, renewables became more economically feasible, so they pushed out all these other forms of energy" not "Take out nuclear energy - and coal/oil fall like dominos". I really don't understand the basis for the causation being drawn in the article.