2 ms·

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 del

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.
        fsflover 4y 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.
        runarberg 4y ago
        You put the dichotomy there, and I refuted it. So far my points have been: a) Coal did not replace nuclear power b) Coal was reduced during a policy to shut down nuclear power c) The policy to shut down nuclear power has nothing to do with coal The first two are facts you can see in the data. The third one is a matter of simple policy. If it were up to me I would have replaced this policy with. “Nuclear power will be shut down as well as all coal power plants”. The data seems to suggest this is possible. Looking at different energy markets whether they decided to keep their nuclear power plants (like USA) or to do away with them (like Germany) coal is down everywhere. Nuclear policy seems completely irrelevant to coal usage. What seems relevant is renewable policy and coal policy. Countries which have a policy to reduce coal do so faster, countries that have a green energy policy replace coal with green energy, and countries that don’t (like USA) replace coal with gas. From the data, what I can gather, is that nuclear policy is simply a decision about country’s willingness to keep operating these plants. Germany didn’t want to so they got rid of theirs. If a country wants to get rid of coal, they do so with a different policy. Alas Germany has a renewable policy, so you see that the nuclear power was replaced with wind + solar. And now that the nuclear plants are all gone, we shall see coal increasingly being replaced by these two power sources in the coming years.

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.
        fsflover 4y 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.
        runarberg 4y ago
        You put the dichotomy there, and I refuted it. So far my points have been: a) Coal did not replace nuclear power b) Coal was reduced during a policy to shut down nuclear power c) The policy to shut down nuclear power has nothing to do with coal The first two are facts you can see in the data. The third one is a matter of simple policy. If it were up to me I would have replaced this policy with. “Nuclear power will be shut down as well as all coal power plants”. The data seems to suggest this is possible. Looking at different energy markets whether they decided to keep their nuclear power plants (like USA) or to do away with them (like Germany) coal is down everywhere. Nuclear policy seems completely irrelevant to coal usage. What seems relevant is renewable policy and coal policy. Countries which have a policy to reduce coal do so faster, countries that have a green energy policy replace coal with green energy, and countries that don’t (like USA) replace coal with gas. From the data, what I can gather, is that nuclear policy is simply a decision about country’s willingness to keep operating these plants. Germany didn’t want to so they got rid of theirs. If a country wants to get rid of coal, they do so with a different policy. Alas Germany has a renewable policy, so you see that the nuclear power was replaced with wind + solar. And now that the nuclear plants are all gone, we shall see coal increasingly being replaced by these two power sources in the coming years.