4 ms·

The myth is that Germany replaced nuclear with coal. This myth is false, and obviously false. How fast they did and could have weaned off coal is another quest

The myth is that Germany replaced nuclear with coal. This myth is false, and obviously false. How fast they did and could have weaned off coal is another question. I don’t know how fast they could have if they had kept the reactors running, perhaps more perhaps less. The energy market is a very dynamic system and one should avoid overly simplistic models and predictions. We could just as easily be arguing that Germany could have spent it’s excessive GDP to fund green infrastructure projects in poorer countries, and there for prevented even more green house gasses from polluting our climate. By several factors greater than by cleaning their domestic energy production. But they didn’t, so why would we talk about it?

kilotaras 4y ago
> The myth is that Germany replaced nuclear with coal. This myth is false, and obviously false. Starting point: nuclear + coal Option 1: nuclear + renewables Option 2 (selected): coal + renewables While this is true, that yes, Germany didn't replace nuclear with coal directly, the delta between option 1 and 2 (which was the choice made) is (-nuclear, +coal).
- runarberg 4y ago
  In 2013 (2 years after the decision to shut down nuclear) 45% of Germany's electricity production came from coal. In 2021 this was down to 30%. So -15% coal delta. The data does not support your narrative. I’m not aware of any specific policy about coal (which would be a justifiable criticism of German energy policy which has nothing to do with nuclear) but coal is down nonetheless even as nuclear power plants are being shut down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Germany_electricity_production.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:...
  - fsflover 4y ago
    My original comment above still stands.
    - runarberg 4y ago
      So does mine.
      - fsflover 4y ago
        Why does it matter that "The myth is that Germany replaced nuclear with coal"? I do not care. I care that the world has too much coal today, as a result of the Germany's policy, as I stated above.
        runarberg 4y ago
        I’m not aware of any policy related to the decision to shut down the nuclear power plants which mandates the use of coal. Germany could very well decrease coal with a more ambitious green infrastructure plan. However the lack of such policy has nothing to do with nuclear power. All I know is that Germany is able, and has demonstrated that they can reduce coal and shut down all nuclear power plants. Above it was stated that Germany replaced nuclear power with coal. We both agree this is false. So what are we arguing about now?
        fsflover 4y ago
        > Germany is able, and has demonstrated that they can reduce coal and shut down all nuclear power plants I disagree right here. The coal was reduced insignificantly, definitely not sufficiently to reach any climate goals. The reduction of the nuclear energy prevented that. Due to the latter, Germany simply has insufficient energy generation to fully exit coal, although they could probably do it, if chose nuclear. > We both agree this is false. So what are we arguing about now? I argue that, in the big picture, the consequences are the same as if Germany replaced nuclear power with coal.
        runarberg 4y ago
        It is easy to blame the nuclear policy for the lack of sufficient climate goals, however it is even easier to blame the climate goals them selves. A reduction from 45% to 30% of the whole German energy market in less than a decade is certainly a sizeable reduction, I would even call it significant. However I agree it wasn’t sufficient, anything above 0% is insufficient, we are in a climate emergency after all. But I fail to see how keeping the nuclear powerpants open is a guaranteed strategy while faster rollout of renewables isn’t. We have proof of the latter, and we also see different energy markets such as France where the renewable rollout is a lot slower, and so is coal reduction.

kilotaras 4y ago

> The myth is that Germany replaced nuclear with coal. This myth is false, and obviously false. Starting point: nuclear + coal Option 1: nuclear + renewables Option 2 (selected): coal + renewables While this is true, that yes, Germany didn't replace nuclear with coal directly, the delta between option 1 and 2 (which was the choice made) is (-nuclear, +coal).

runarberg 4y ago
In 2013 (2 years after the decision to shut down nuclear) 45% of Germany's electricity production came from coal. In 2021 this was down to 30%. So -15% coal delta. The data does not support your narrative. I’m not aware of any specific policy about coal (which would be a justifiable criticism of German energy policy which has nothing to do with nuclear) but coal is down nonetheless even as nuclear power plants are being shut down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Germany_electricity_production.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:...
- fsflover 4y ago
  My original comment above still stands.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    So does mine.
    - fsflover 4y ago
      Why does it matter that "The myth is that Germany replaced nuclear with coal"? I do not care. I care that the world has too much coal today, as a result of the Germany's policy, as I stated above.
      - runarberg 4y ago
        I’m not aware of any policy related to the decision to shut down the nuclear power plants which mandates the use of coal. Germany could very well decrease coal with a more ambitious green infrastructure plan. However the lack of such policy has nothing to do with nuclear power. All I know is that Germany is able, and has demonstrated that they can reduce coal and shut down all nuclear power plants. Above it was stated that Germany replaced nuclear power with coal. We both agree this is false. So what are we arguing about now?
        fsflover 4y ago
        > Germany is able, and has demonstrated that they can reduce coal and shut down all nuclear power plants I disagree right here. The coal was reduced insignificantly, definitely not sufficiently to reach any climate goals. The reduction of the nuclear energy prevented that. Due to the latter, Germany simply has insufficient energy generation to fully exit coal, although they could probably do it, if chose nuclear. > We both agree this is false. So what are we arguing about now? I argue that, in the big picture, the consequences are the same as if Germany replaced nuclear power with coal.
        runarberg 4y ago
        It is easy to blame the nuclear policy for the lack of sufficient climate goals, however it is even easier to blame the climate goals them selves. A reduction from 45% to 30% of the whole German energy market in less than a decade is certainly a sizeable reduction, I would even call it significant. However I agree it wasn’t sufficient, anything above 0% is insufficient, we are in a climate emergency after all. But I fail to see how keeping the nuclear powerpants open is a guaranteed strategy while faster rollout of renewables isn’t. We have proof of the latter, and we also see different energy markets such as France where the renewable rollout is a lot slower, and so is coal reduction.