13 ms·

Actually Germany recently shut down all of it's nuclear plants and replaced them with the dirtiest fuel possible: lignite coal burning plants. Statistics are a

• sirwitti 3y ago
  Do you have a source for that?
  • littlecranky67 3y ago
    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-extends-run-times-coal-fired-power-plants-boost-supply-2022-09-28/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-extends-run-...
  • ejb999 3y ago
    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/15/europe/germany-nuclear-phase-out-climate-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/15/europe/germany-nuclear-phase-...
  • ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    A source for a piece of popular news that was covered by every single media out there and is only a quick google search away? https://www.google.com/search?q=germnay+nuclear+lignite https://www.google.com/search?q=germnay+nuclear+lignite I swear, sometimes HN users can be so pedantic, they'll demand source that the earth is round or that the water is wet. I used to be afraid that ChatGPT would make our jobs redundant, but seeing how people can't find basic info by themselves and need to ask humans to spoon feed them, I think I can breathe easily that our jobs are safe.
    • sgbeal 3y ago
      > I swear, sometimes HN users can be so pedantic, they'll ask for the source that the earth is round or that the water is wet. Without a citation, any statement of ostensible fact is just unfounded rumor.
      • ChuckNorris89 3y ago
        The poster can't know what is ostensible to you and what isn't, and nor does everyone here have the time to post sources for absolutely every single statement they make as if they're writing a university research paper. As a reader, if you're unsure of something, use common sense and in the age of powerful internet search engines and LLM chat bots at your fingertips, it's up to you to quickly check for yourself, and only ask the poster for sources when you were unable to find the corect information by yourself, otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time.
      • shakow 3y ago
        Source?
        • sgbeal 3y ago
          Touché!
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • Glawen 3y ago
    Why does OP need to provide a source? Why you don't look for the info yourself? It is common knowledge in Europe that Germany shut down its nuclear plant (15/04/23 the last one), and they compensated with a lot of coal this winter.
    • PurpleRamen 3y ago
      Just that those things have no relation to each other. Coal is used to replace gas, not nuclear plants. And AFAIK in mid of April there is no winter any more anyway. The question is valid, as there is a huge amount of misinformation going around those topics.
      • ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > have no relation to each other. How? Surely you wouldn’t need to burn as much coal if nuclear plants were still running?
        • PurpleRamen 3y ago
          Nuclear plants in Germany only deliver electricity, and only where the grid is connected. But coal is used also used for heat and chemical processes, and outside the grid. No source of electricity can cover that yet in a short timeframe. And even if we are just talking about electricity in grid-connected locations, with the high cost of nuclear plants, it makes more sense to just buy it from others, and wait until new renewables sources were added to the grid, and long term build other replacements for heat and the chemical processes.
          • ffgjgf1 3y ago
            isn’t coal more expensive if you take all the negative externalities into account? Specifically increased rates of cancer and other diseases caused by pollution on top of CO2 emission?
            • PurpleRamen 3y ago
  • sparkling 3y ago
    https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/energy-crisis-fuels-coal-comeback-germany-2022-12-16/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/energy-crisis-fu... ... or, if you prefer that, straight from the German government statistical office itself: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Energie/Erzeugung/_inhalt.html#sprg260602 https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Energ...
    • locallost 3y ago
      That was December last year, the last plants were closed this year, the comeback of coal was minimal an mostly caused by the need of France to import electricity, since their nuclear plants failed.
      • shakow 3y ago
        > the comeback of coal was minimal As the moment of writing, Germany is producing 12% of its electricity with coal. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE
• looping__lui 3y ago
  Oh, we also started importing nuclear electricity from France at scale to bridge the gap. So, it’s not as bad as you put it. Nuclear waste is now somebody else’s problem…
  • dmos62 3y ago
    You might not be serious, but, for others' benefit, nuclear waste is not a problem. One just has to not be a complete moron about it. And, most of the spent nuclear fuel will be reusable in the future.
  • Gwypaas 3y ago
    France have been importing electricity all winter due to woes with their nuclear plants. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...
    • edhelas 3y ago
      Yes, winter 2022. And exporting during winter 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, ... 199... France is now exporting like it was doing before winter 2022. An exception doesn't make a rule.
    • Moldoteck 3y ago
      those didn't appear out of the thin air, but because of underfunding driven by the greens. Problems were fixed, and now, just like in the past, France is exporting energy
  • mahkeiro 3y ago
    The total amount of electricity generation is decreasing which is a sign that energy transition is not taking place in Germany (it's just displacement). In 2019 the first half of year Germany produced 264000GWh vs 224000GWh in 2023. In fact total electricity production is decreasing since 2015 when it was over 273000GWh. You can increase your renewable share if you are producing less. If you look carefully you will see that nuclear generation was just not replaced.
• akino_germany 3y ago
  Given the lower amount of energy generated by coal compared to when the nuclear plants were still running, it would be more accurate to say that they were replaced by solar and wind power since they are the only forms of energy creation that increased their output since nuclear was shut down.
• hurril 3y ago
  And also by buying electricity from Sweden, which causes my bills to explode. (Because we've also shuttered half of our nuclear facilities.) So when Germany buys enough, we start our oil powerplants to cover :)
• DrBazza 3y ago
  Germany is second only to Russia in Europe for coal powered electricity. Followed by Poland. No wonder this map usually has the worst air over those countries: https://aqicn.org/map/europe/ https://aqicn.org/map/europe/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-power-plants-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-po...
  • Aachen 3y ago
    I see more yellow streaks in France and BE/NL than in Germany. Not sure what you mean about there being bad air in Germany An averaging feature would be nice instead of having to compare hundreds of potential outliers manually, though
    • DrBazza 3y ago
      Generally when there's a high pressure system over Europe, the bad air stays trapped over Germany and Poland. Even right now you can see that Germany is about 10pts higher than the rest of Europe, and Poland another 10pts on top of that. It's a shame that map doesn't have historic data as it would be easier to see.
  • KptMarchewa 3y ago
    We have much bigger coal share in Poland... and guess what we're doing to phase it out? We're building nuclear reactors.
    • Moldoteck 3y ago
      wow, didn't know Poland is building nuclear
  • melling 3y ago
    But… but…but the statistics… say 57% 1.5C is guaranteed within a decade. People need to quit telling themselves silly narratives.
• PurpleRamen 3y ago
  Not really. Coal was just a temporary replacement, and mostly not for nuclear plants.
  • __tmk__ 3y ago
    Coal is 30% currently: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/06/PD23_220_43312.html https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/06... and I don't see this going away soon. The argument is that we could have kept nuclear running and shut down all coal. In 1990, nuclear power plants were producing 153TWh in Germany. Today, coal+nuclear together is producing about as much.
    • PurpleRamen 3y ago
      > Coal is 30% currently: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/06 https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/06... and I don't see this going away soon. 5 years ago it was significant higher. And in 5 years it will significant lower again. Germany is in a process of change. > The argument is that we could have kept nuclear running and shut down all coal. Which is wrong. Nuclear can't replace gas, which coal is replacing. And Nuclear plants have no fuel anymore and lacking up-to-date certification. There was zero chance to continue running since 2019, even if we ignore all the other problems.
  • shawabawa3 3y ago
    Temporary or not, coal is being burned to produce electricity in Germany > and mostly not for nuclear plants. electricity is fungible. It doesn't matter what electricity the coal is intending to replace, as long as _any_ coal is being turned into electricity, that's coal that could not have been burned if a nuclear plant was generating that electricity instead
    • PurpleRamen 3y ago
      > electricity is fungible. Which is irrelevant. Electricity is not the main purpose of coal.
• Taig 3y ago
  Germany actually replaced the nuclear energy with wind & solar. The argument that remains is that instead of phasing out nuclear, reducing coal would have been preferred. The decision to phase out nuclear has long been made (for good reasons). Keeping them active or even building new reactors of that kind is not an economically viable solution. The price Germany pays for this is higher carbon emissions for the time being until renewables push coal out of the mix. What Germany gains, on the other hand, is the removal of the most expensive form of energy from its production and one big step towards a fully renewable and modern electricity grid.
  • mahkeiro 3y ago
    Germany didn't replace nuclear energy at all. Germany is producing less electricity than when nuclear reactors were running.
    • Taig 3y ago
      And what conclusion do you draw from this, or rather, how is this relevant to this thread?
      • ambyra 3y ago
        By bringing back coal, they killed thousands more of their own people people than if they stayed with nuclear. Reminds me of my gf who picked cigarettes back up to help her quit vaping.
      • mahkeiro 3y ago
        That this is a big pretend game to make the people responsible of the closing of nuclear power look not that bad in regard of the climate issue. Electricity generation should be increasing as we electrify transportation and heating. If this not what is happening then it means that globally the problem is just displaced. (Which doesn’t work at the planet scale)
        • Taig 3y ago
• matthewmacleod 3y ago
  Are you disagreeing with the numbers cited in some way?
  • fsflover 3y ago
    No.
• locallost 3y ago
  Coal use is at a historic low in Germany, thus it is not possible that nuclear plants were replaced with coal. Statistics are reflecting reality, your facts are actually just guesses and opinions.
  • cubefox 3y ago
    They absolutely were counterfactually. If nuclear power hadn't been shut down, much less coal energy would have been needed.
    • locallost 3y ago
      They were not, there is even less coal used since nuclear plants were shut down than before. Nuclear and coal are getting continuously replaced by renewables. Coal end date is set to either 2030 or 2038 (I forget). The country people should be complaining about is Poland. It's the worst emitter of co2 in Europe and it will not do anything about it for 10-20 years because it wants to build nuclear plants.
      • cubefox 3y ago
        > They were not, there is even less coal used since nuclear plants were shut down than before. They were counterfactually. This means that if nuclear hadn't been shut down, much less coal energy would have been needed. > The country people should be complaining about is Poland. It's the worst emitter of co2 in Europe and it will not do anything about it for 10-20 years because it wants to build nuclear plants. No, people should complain about Germany. Nuclear power can replace coal. Which is why France produces much less CO2 than Germany: https://abload.de/img/img_20230705_133511_84efdp.jpg https://abload.de/img/img_20230705_133511_84efdp.jpg
        • locallost 3y ago
          People should complain about emissions and the lack of emission reduction. If Germany is producing a lot more than France, and this concerns you, you should complain even more bitterly about Poland because their emissions are 1) 2x as bad as Germany 2) in contrast go Germany they are not going down since the country is dreaming of nuclear energy. Renewables can and do replace coal, as they obviously did in Germany. It does not really matter if you are ideologically aligned with another energy source, for whatever reason.
• cubefox 3y ago
  This is why Germany produces almost 10 times as much CO2 per kWh as France. https://abload.de/img/img_20230705_133511_84efdp.jpg https://abload.de/img/img_20230705_133511_84efdp.jpg It's mind boggling.
  • lopis 3y ago
    It's.. complicated. Nuclear is super clean at the consumption site, but not super clean at the mining site [0]. And then there's the problem that France's access to cheap uranium is a relic of extractive colonialism, and these countries don't exactly see the fair profits from France's hunger for energy [1]. So yes, France's energy is cleaner, but it's a complicated picture. [0] https://meta.eeb.org/2017/10/18/french-state-owned-company-creates-ecocide-in-niger-to-fuel-its-nuclear-plants/ https://meta.eeb.org/2017/10/18/french-state-owned-company-c... [1] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/161954185.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/161954185.pdf
    • cubefox 3y ago
      > It's.. complicated. Nuclear is super clean at the consumption site, but not super clean at the mining site [0]. It's almost certainly not complicated. The CO2 produced by mining uranium is irrelevant compared to the CO2 produced by burning coal fuel. > And then there's the problem that France's access to cheap uranium is a relic of extractive colonialism, and these countries don't exactly see the fair profits from France's hunger for energy [1]. Uranium is not a large contributor to nuclear energy cost anyway, so this is no argument against nuclear energy. > So yes, France's energy is cleaner, but it's a complicated picture. I don't see how it is "complicated". Nuclear is clearly much better than Germany's coal+renewable. (Renewable-only was not an option since wind and solar are extremely volatile.)
      • lopis 3y ago
        It's complicated in the political sense. They are spelunking former colonies to meet green energy targets, while those same countries struggle to progress.
• lars_francke 3y ago
  Some more stats (in german): https://www.pv-magazine.de/2023/07/03/atomausstieg-anteil-der-erneuerbaren-am-strommix-steigt-auf-57-prozent/ https://www.pv-magazine.de/2023/07/03/atomausstieg-anteil-de...
• neuronic 3y ago
  This is a misinterpretation of what happened and this comment is just weird. Coal has been added after nuclear was stopped but what you said is not happening at all. Look at the actual data instead of random Internet comments and populist articles by biased journalists: https://imgur.com/9GLhuSs https://imgur.com/9GLhuSs Source: https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&legendItems=0010011000000001100000&interval=year&stacking=stacked_absolute_area https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c... While lignite was in fact re-added, Germany only slowed the reduction of overall coal power and did not stop or reverse it as constantly proclaimed by commenters who care more about politics than engineering. So Germany displaced nuclear mostly by renewable energy - WHILE ONLY SLOWING THE REDUCTION OF COAL when they added lignite. So still less coal than before, just not as fast as before.
• jillesvangurp 3y ago
  That last part of the sentence is not true. Coal usage is down overall since they started closing nuclear plants over a decade ago. There are a few new gas plants though. There was a shift from gas to coal last year for cost reasons. And coal is scheduled to be decommissioned completely. We'll see if Germany can stick to the schedule of doing that by 2035. But that's the official plan so far.
• starbugs 3y ago
  The 57.7% figure seems to be a bit misleading in this context. I searched for statistical data on how much idle coal power is held on standby and not included in these statistics, for example, but I didn't find any. Does anyone know where to get full raw data?
• _ph_ 3y ago
  No, we didn't. Germany constantly reduced the am amount of coal in the mix. Admittedly starting at a way to high level, but it was constantly reduced. One can argue that the reduction could have been faster, but that are the mistakes of the past. Germany is now aggressively expanding renewables and as the article shows, successfully so.