5 ms·
> The myth is that Germany replaced nuclear with coal. This myth is false, and obviously false. Starting point: nuclear + coal Option 1: nuclear + renewables
by kilotaras 3y 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 3y agoIn 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 3y agoMy original comment above still stands.
- runarberg 3y agoSo does mine.
- fsflover 3y agoWhy 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 3y agoI’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 3y 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 3y agoIt 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.
- fsflover 3y ago> I fail to see how keeping the nuclear powerpants open is a guaranteed strategy while faster rollout of renewables isn’t This is a false dichotomy. Nuclear powerplants should not have been stopped. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464.