6 ms·
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
by 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 agoThey absolutely were counterfactually. If nuclear power hadn't been shut down, much less coal energy would have been needed.
- locallost 3y agoThey 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 agoPeople 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.
- fsflover 3y ago> If Germany is producing a lot more than France, and this concerns you, you should complain even more bitterly about Poland Whataboutism. Upd: I see you also do it elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36599216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36599216.
- locallost 3y agoPeople should complain about emissions and emission reduction. Are emissions too high in Germany? Yes. Are they going down? Yes. Does it have a set date to remove coal from electricity production? Yes. So good things and a bright future, yet a lot of complaints. In case of Poland neither is the case. I have yet to see an article complaining about Poland, despite it being neither good, nor it having a bright future. Why is that?
- fsflover 3y agoWe do complain about Poland. But this is a thread about Germany. > Does it have a set date to remove coal from electricity production? Yes. The date is simply ridiculous. 2030 or so AFAIK? We expect much more effort from such a developed country.
- locallost 3y agoI am very interested in this topic and I assure you that nobody complains about Poland. I've seen even praise for their decision to prolong this situation and build nuclear plants. On the other hand, a country very much in deserve of praise like Germany is a constant target of criticism by various nuclear lobby groups, astroturfers and the like. You can see the effect even here on HN, it's a very common topic that "Germany replaced nuclear with coal", which is just simply false.
- fsflover 3y agoI do praise Poland for building nuclear plants. This is the only existing solution to the climate catastrophe. Also, it's one of the the most safe energy sources. This is not "simply false". This is effectively true, even though it might not be the intention. There are many similar discussions about it on HN. See for example this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35819870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35819870.
- ffgjgf1 3y agoYou can build both nuclear and solar and wind at the same time. Poland will stick to coal because of local economic interests, it has nothing to do with nuclear. > They were not, there is even less coal used since nuclear plants were shut down than before. Well.. there is no reason why there shouldn’t be zero coal use before anyone starts shutting sown nuclear power plants. For one thing the issues with nuclear waste storage are a joke compared to the radiation and other pollution continuously emitted by burning coal…
- locallost 3y agoIf your resources are infinite you can. But they are not so you can't.
- ffgjgf1 3y agoGrids in Europe are interconnected. So you can build nuclear and and import wind/solar from the surrounding countries which would effectively be the same.
- locallost 3y agoOr you can build solar and wind, which is what Germany is doing to replace coal. Successfully. Don't really see your point.
- ffgjgf1 3y agoSolar and wind alone can’t provide 100%. Not yet anyway.. > Successfully Yet the amount of energy generated by burning coal has only increased. *https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Energy/Production/Tables/gross-electricity-production.html https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris...
- locallost 3y agoThe data on that link says: 2019: 114.0 + 57.4 2020: 91.7 + 42.8 2021: 110.1 + 54.6 2022: 116.2 + 64.4 When the first wave of decomissions came in 2011, the number was 2011: 150 + 112 [1] Straight question, to see if you can answer it: is it going up or down? Furthermore, even in the data you are posting, it's going down every year except last. And it went up last year because France's nuclear energy failed and needed to be supported [2]. About 100%: perhaps, but the proof is in the pudding. Historically, the naysayers have been incorrect for decades. Here [3], an advertisement from the German nuclear lobby from the 90s, that makes a case for young people: don't be against nuclear, we need it, renewables can NEVER account for more than 4% of our total production. Fortunately nobody listened to them. [1] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/156695/umfrage/brutto-stromerzeugung-in-deutschland-nach-energietraegern-seit-2007/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/156695/umfrag... [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/even-crisis-germany-extends-power-exports-neighbours-2023-01-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/even-crisis-germany-... [3] https://twitter.com/wolfibey/status/1370115862523416577 https://twitter.com/wolfibey/status/1370115862523416577
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago> The country people should be complaining about is Poland. It's the worst emitter of co2 in Europe I don't have the numbers with me so I cannot check this right now, but I believe your comment to be incorrect. Germany must have more CO2 emissions than Poland from Coal alone since Germany is the largest user of energy from coal burning in Europe.
- locallost 3y agoSorry, no. Check the data.
- the_mitsuhiko 3y agoI looked up some data on this now, and Germany is ahead of Poland in CO2 emissions from Coal: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1014423/co2-emissions-from-coal-combustion-in-selected-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1014423/co2-emissions-fr... There is also a page on the German Wikipedia showing CO2 emissions from Gas, Coal and Oil burning and again Germany is significantly above Poland: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_gr%C3%B6%C3%9Ften_Kohlenstoffdioxidemittenten#Emissionsmaximum_nach_L%C3%A4ndern https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_gr%C3%B6%C3%9Ften_Ko...
- locallost 3y agoThose are absolute numbers. Germany's population is more than twice that of Poland. Germany's electricity production is 25% coal where as it is over 70% coal in Poland.
- the_mitsuhiko 3y agoSure, but we are not talking about per capita co2 emissions but the worst emitter, and that is Germany and not Poland. The world does not care about per capita anything, it cares about absolutes.
- 3y ago
- DeathArrow 3y agoWhat's wrong in building nuclear power plants? And before teaching lessons to Eastern European countries, remember that the West had 50 years after the WWII to build up the economy and infrastructure. It would be only fair to let Eastern European countries to develop for the same period, without demanding them pay the costs of higher energy prices.
- locallost 3y agoWhat's wrong in terms of emissions is that they take forever to plan and build. During which time, Poland will continue to produce its electricity almost exclusively from coal. These are real emissions that can't be made up for once the nuclear plants are finished. The alternative is to replace a lot of the coal really fast with renewables. Further more, it's cheaper so you can replace a lot more than with nuclear.
- llampx 3y agoThere was a very good article on HN about how nuclear reactors only seem to have gotten harder to plan and execute in Western countries since the 1980s due to ever-increasing regulations. Building a nuclear reactor doesn't have to take decades.
- Timon3 3y agoBut regulations are what makes nuclear energy supposedly safe. Faster build times aren't worth it if we risk nuclear meltdowns.
- fsflover 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias
- Timon3 3y agoIt's easy to posit yourself as taking the "necessary risks", but you haven't demonstrated that: - nuclear energy is the only way to fend off the climate crisis - unsafe nuclear energy is the only way for nuclear energy to fend off the climate crisis - the risk of unsafe nuclear energy is lower than the risk of the climate crisis Until you do that I will prefer the lower risk option.
- mahkeiro 3y agoElectricity generation is decreasing year over year in Germany since 2015… but the fact is that it should be increasing to electrify heating and transportation. What is really happening is that industries are moving out of Germany to help pretend that the country CO2 emissions are better as no one really count imported CO2 in finished product.
- locallost 3y agoPerhaps, but it was until now not electrifying heating and transportation, so reduction is obviously a positive thing. Nothing beats emissions of a kWh you saved. The question might be, was there something sacrificed to do that, e.g. did economy suffer? This would be bad, but it's not the case, the GDP is still going up. The savings are related to energy efficiency and this will reap benefits basically forever.
- mahkeiro 3y agoThere is no saving (or marginally) it’s just heavy industries and energy consuming process leaving Germany (BASF for instance). Overall just a displacement of the problem. We don’t care about GDP, what matters is global CO2 emission. In 2023 13.4% of new cars are electric in Germany but electricity production is the lowest in 15 years, go figure.
- locallost 3y agoSorry, but this is total nonsense. I realize it's not in the spirit of HN, but it's obvious you did not check any data at all.
- mahkeiro 3y agoOk energy-charts.info is providing all info regarding installed power and electricity generation for Germany. For heavy industries leaving Germany: * https://cen.acs.org/business/finance/BASF-cutting-back-main-site/101/web/2023/02 https://cen.acs.org/business/finance/BASF-cutting-back-main-... * https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/24/basf-cut-jobs-energy-crisis-germany-recession https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/24/basf-cut-jo... * https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2022-10-20/germanys-glass-industry-sees-bleak-future https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2022-10-20/germanys-glas... * https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-industry-europe-energy-prices-basf/ https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-industry-europe-ener... Here you can see that industrial part of the GDP is shrinking: * https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/manufacturing-value-added-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/manufacturing-value-add... What are your sources?
- danhor 3y agoThe renewable push in germany came because the greens (and other parties) wanted to shut down nuclear and replace it. If the exit from nuclear was never started, germany would have been much less willing to invest in renewables. German invesments in the early 2000s were one of the steps towards renewables being viable. If germany kept nuclear as-is the counterfactual might look worse due to the expansion of renewables not happening.
- cubefox 3y ago> The renewable push in germany came because the greens (and other parties) wanted to shut down nuclear and replace it. If the exit from nuclear was never started, germany would have been much less willing to invest in renewables. Investment in renewable energy is not a value in itself. France has much lower CO2 emissions because they invested in nuclear energy which can replace both coal and renewable energy. > If germany kept nuclear as-is the counterfactual might look worse due to the expansion of renewables not happening. But an expansion of nuclear could have happened, replacing coal. Wind and solar themselves are highly volatile and require an additional stable energy source like coal or nuclear.
- locallost 3y agoAs Germany went into renewables, France doubled down on nuclear, creating the EPR program and starting to build Flamanville 3 as a prototype that would lead to development of replacements for their current plants. 20 years later Flamanville 3 is still not finished and the EPR has been a disaster overall. Their current plants are starting to fail, they are producing less and less every year and had to rely on neighbors to supply electricity for them last year. So there is quite a real and possible alternate timeline where Germany invests in nuclear instead of renewables and now it's still producing more than half of its electricity from coal because the nuclear plants are not finished and at huge cost. I'm taking the current reality in a heartbeat.
- danhor 3y ago> But an expansion of nuclear could have happened Very unlikely. Nuclear (in the West) hasn't been expanded in the last 30 years, partially due to overblown safety concerns but also due to cost issues. There has been no hugely successful nuclear build, all that tried took almost as long as the renewable industry has existed in any real sense and cost absurd amounts of money. Looking at other large german projects during that timeframe, it's unlikely there would have been more than one plant opening. The hope of nuclear advocates is that by increasing economies of scale in production and reducing it on the individual plant level the economics of NPP will work out in future. I'm highly doubtful but hope they're successful. > Wind and solar themselves are highly volatile and require an additional stable energy source like coal or nuclear. For wind and solar to make sense, you need complimentary power sources. Wind and solar do have very complimentary characteristics (night/day as well as winter/summer), but not perfectly. This means "base load" power sources which should run as much as possible like (lignite and somewhat black) coal or especially nuclear work very badly (economically), due to the high cost of the plant and low utilization factor. B In a fully renewable grid, most of the day power will solely come from wind and solar, probably with batteries filling the gaps during morning and evening and some form of long term storage like P2G/Hydrogen/... will cover dunkelflauten (time spans without solar nor wind) during winter. There should be overproduction during most of the time. In an almost fully nuclear grid, solar might be used during summer to cover ACs or similar things, but storage is still required to avoid needing build enough NPPs to supply peak power usage. France uses large amounts of hydrostorage on the alps and the european power grid to reduce the NPP overcapacity needed during the day. This is in contrast to gas, most forms of hydroelectricity, batteries or (hopefully) P2G/Hydrogen, whose costs primarily scale with the amount of energy, not power. Building an grid almost only based on nuclear and wind/solar without some form of flexible generation is economically nonsensical. Both can be used in the same grid to some amount, but don't complement each other well. EDIT: https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/the-duck-in-the-room-the-end-of-baseload/ https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/the-duck-in-the-room-the... explains the duck curve and the issues for base load power sources because of it nicely
- ffgjgf1 3y ago> Coal use Should be at zero before anyone even starts thinking about closing nuclear power plants.
- locallost 3y agoStrong disagree. That would imply that Germany should be criticized more than the US, but this cannot be. The US did not close its nuclear plants, but is still at 60% fossil fuels. I don't think this is a coincidence because when Diablo Canyon was extended, the first thing that happened is that they asked for a billion dollars so they are able to even run. Nuclear is an expensive distraction and a hog of resources (time and money)
- ffgjgf1 3y agoIs it that more expensive if you take into account all the externalities from burning coal? Increased cancer risk due to high radiation, other pollution etc. CO2 is just the cherry on top.. > That would imply that Germany should be criticized more than the US, but this cannot be. This is tangential and there is also no need to resort to whataboutism for no reason.
- locallost 3y agoThere's no whataboutism, I wasn't saying Germany might be bad, but look at someone else. I'm asking a question about the logical conclusion of what you're saying: the most important thing is to keep nuclear plants alive before coal is removed. Sure, but it can't be right. Many countries are doing that, e.g. the US, and failing to decarbonize as quickly as Germany. So it's illogical and irrational. Furthermore there can't be whataboutism because Germany is a leader in fossil fuel reduction this century. So there's nothing "bad" to accept and to do whataboutism about.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago> Sure, but it can't be right. I don’t follow. I mean you might be right. But using US as an example hardly make sense because they didn’t really try to ‘decarbonize’ that hard.. > because Germany is a leader in fossil fuel reduction this century Germany was emitting ~500 grams per kWh back in 2000 and 385 in 2022. That not that spectator at all considering they weren’t at all trying to change this until the mid 2010s. EU wide CO2 emissions have continuously decreased from around 520 grams to less than 250 in the same period. So not only Germany wasn’t a leader throughout 90%+ of this century, they it was much worse than average…