4 ms·
> Germany would have had to burn coal that night anyway But much, much less coal. > The output of the remaining 3 reactors would have been only a fraction of
by illiarian 3y ago
> Germany would have had to burn coal that night anyway
But much, much less coal.
> The output of the remaining 3 reactors would have been only a fraction of the electricity requirements anyway.
That is s great way to say: we killed our stable source of electricity because of populism, and now we're burying our head in the sand justifying our decision.
> production capacity will be filled in soon.
Soon when? And the question of quiet nights remains
- _ph_ 3y agoSomewhat less coal. We are talking about 3 GW less nuclear in a Grid which draws like 50. And yes, that were only the last nuclear reactors. But a lot of them would have had to be decommissioned anyway and there are still the problems of cost, especially of the nuclear waste etc. A large part of these 3 GW will be replaced even in 2023 and that will continue through the years. The current plans aim for 80 renewables in 2030.
- illiarian 3y ago> We are talking about 3 GW less nuclear in a Grid which draws like 50. 6% > A large part of these 3 GW will be replaced even in 2023 0% of solar generation and 5% of wind generation will be replaced with what exactly?
- illiarian 3y agoI forgot to mention in the sibling comment: > in a Grid which draws like 50. Installed wind capacity in Germany is 65GW. Seems to be much higher than what grid demands. And yet, on April 15th it was producing only 5% of that. And solar was producing zero. Guess where the power to cover that came from? Even today on a reasonably windy day (at least in Hamburg where I am right now) wind production is at 20% capacity, solar at 36 capacity. Busy burning coal for 21% of electricity even on a windy day.
- Schroedingersat 3y agoYou sure are fixated on nameplate numbers for those renewables that replaced all of the nuclear fleet and a third of the coal fleet already.
- TestingUser123 3y ago[flagged]