3 ms·

It boggles my mind that Germany can decarbonize so much and so fast and so cheaply over 10 years and yet the story it is routinely spun into is that it is a sha

by pydry 4y ago

It boggles my mind that Germany can decarbonize so much and so fast and so cheaply over 10 years and yet the story it is routinely spun into is that it is a shameful abject failure because in the process of doing that they switched off an aging, overpriced source of green energy that comprised just 6% of their usage. I think the respective attitudes pro nuclear advocates have to Poland (80% coal->80% coal) and Germany (10%->50% renewables) kind of underscores that nobody is shaming Germany for climate reasons.

illiarian 4y ago
> It boggles my mind that Germany can decarbonize so much and so fast Compare it to France which didn't have to decarbonize to begin with. Because of those bad-bad-bad no-good reactors.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  France needs to and is decarbonising. Electricity is perhaps the most important (because of electrification) but it's not the only sector. Plus France's electricity has always had the last 20% to deal with.
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > France needs to and is decarbonising. In Europe only Sweden and Norway have lower carbon emissions from electricity generation than France.
- pydry 4y ago
  France didn't decarbonize deliberately and they did it 50 years ago decades before anybody paid any attention to global warming. Meanwhile theyre becoming progressively more aware of the extreme costs of staying nuclear - costs they kept halfway reasonable by neglecting maintenance which is now biting them back.
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > costs they kept halfway reasonable by neglecting maintenance. That is not how you keep costs reasonable. You're just postponing them until they become unreasonable.
  - locallost 4y ago
    Correct. France built its reactors after the oil crises of the early 70s to guarantee its energy independence. The irony being those same plants failed at the time of the biggest energy crises since then.
    - illiarian 4y ago
      > The irony being those same plants failed at the time of the biggest energy crises since then. They didn't fail.
      - locallost 4y ago
        They failed. A quarter was out because of faulty pipes and another quarter was out because of planned maintenance. France had to rely on its neighbors to keep its lights on, and became a net importer of electricity for the first time in decades. And I repeat during the biggest energy crisis in 50 years, which was the entire reason for their existence. Can't fail in a worse way.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    > France didn't decarbonize deliberately and they did it 50 years ago decades before anybody paid any attention to global warming. Whether or not France did or did not decarbonize deliberatly is secondary to the fact that they DID decarbonize. On the other hand, when Germany set out to decarbonize, they SHOULD look have looked at historical data for what actually produced the desired outcome. But instead they chose to replace their nuclear power with wind power, while keeping fossil power the same.
    - pydry 4y ago
      >keeping fossil power the same. This is a lie. By all measures it has reduced.

by pydry 4y ago

illiarian 4y ago

> It boggles my mind that Germany can decarbonize so much and so fast Compare it to France which didn't have to decarbonize to begin with. Because of those bad-bad-bad no-good reactors.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
France needs to and is decarbonising. Electricity is perhaps the most important (because of electrification) but it's not the only sector. Plus France's electricity has always had the last 20% to deal with.
- illiarian 4y ago
  > France needs to and is decarbonising. In Europe only Sweden and Norway have lower carbon emissions from electricity generation than France.
pydry 4y ago
France didn't decarbonize deliberately and they did it 50 years ago decades before anybody paid any attention to global warming. Meanwhile theyre becoming progressively more aware of the extreme costs of staying nuclear - costs they kept halfway reasonable by neglecting maintenance which is now biting them back.
- illiarian 4y ago
  > costs they kept halfway reasonable by neglecting maintenance. That is not how you keep costs reasonable. You're just postponing them until they become unreasonable.
- locallost 4y ago
  Correct. France built its reactors after the oil crises of the early 70s to guarantee its energy independence. The irony being those same plants failed at the time of the biggest energy crises since then.
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > The irony being those same plants failed at the time of the biggest energy crises since then. They didn't fail.
    - locallost 4y ago
      They failed. A quarter was out because of faulty pipes and another quarter was out because of planned maintenance. France had to rely on its neighbors to keep its lights on, and became a net importer of electricity for the first time in decades. And I repeat during the biggest energy crisis in 50 years, which was the entire reason for their existence. Can't fail in a worse way.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > France didn't decarbonize deliberately and they did it 50 years ago decades before anybody paid any attention to global warming. Whether or not France did or did not decarbonize deliberatly is secondary to the fact that they DID decarbonize. On the other hand, when Germany set out to decarbonize, they SHOULD look have looked at historical data for what actually produced the desired outcome. But instead they chose to replace their nuclear power with wind power, while keeping fossil power the same.
  - pydry 4y ago
    >keeping fossil power the same. This is a lie. By all measures it has reduced.