4 ms·

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.
    • throwaway98721 3y ago
      [dead]