3 ms·

Your talking point was one of the outputs of that American shamefest I was referring to. They were furious at Germany and so said... what you just did. The gra

by pydry 3y ago

Your talking point was one of the outputs of that American shamefest I was referring to. They were furious at Germany and so said... what you just did. The graph of Germany's energy mix over time doesnt quite tell the this story, however: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/paragraph_text_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig1-installed-net-power-generation-capacity-germany-2002-2023.png?itok=LaIvtDSu https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/p... In fact it shows that nuclear power was never that relevant to Germany and that that loud hissy fit was about a change in < 5% of Germany's electricity mix. Why so controversial? Well, the reason for this political shamefest are a bit murky - possibly military related - but one thing is certain: it had less than nothing to do with environmentalism. That was a cover.

philwelch 3y ago
I’m looking at your graph. If you go back to 2010 when Germany had 20 GW of nuclear production, keeping that capacity online could have replaced more than half of the coal power Germany generates today. Meanwhile natural gas has grown from 23.8 to 34.8 GW, significantly more than the meager reductions in coal generation over that period.
- pydry 3y ago
  Nonetheless solar and wind have taken up the vast majority of the slack from decommissioned coal and nuclear power. The narrative that coal substituted for nuclear power is a very blatant lie, and motivated more by political/military concerns rather than any concern for the environment.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    > The narrative that coal substituted for nuclear power is a very blatant lie It’s not a lie. Germany has decommissioned 20 GW of nuclear power since 2010, according to the statistics you provided. Over 37 GW of coal power remains online. If Germany kept the nuclear plants online, they could have instead decommissioned an additional 20 GW of coal power. But they didn’t. Which means 20 out of the 37 GW of German coal power is directly substituting for nuclear power.

by pydry 3y ago

philwelch 3y ago

I’m looking at your graph. If you go back to 2010 when Germany had 20 GW of nuclear production, keeping that capacity online could have replaced more than half of the coal power Germany generates today. Meanwhile natural gas has grown from 23.8 to 34.8 GW, significantly more than the meager reductions in coal generation over that period.

pydry 3y ago
Nonetheless solar and wind have taken up the vast majority of the slack from decommissioned coal and nuclear power. The narrative that coal substituted for nuclear power is a very blatant lie, and motivated more by political/military concerns rather than any concern for the environment.
- philwelch 3y ago
  > The narrative that coal substituted for nuclear power is a very blatant lie It’s not a lie. Germany has decommissioned 20 GW of nuclear power since 2010, according to the statistics you provided. Over 37 GW of coal power remains online. If Germany kept the nuclear plants online, they could have instead decommissioned an additional 20 GW of coal power. But they didn’t. Which means 20 out of the 37 GW of German coal power is directly substituting for nuclear power.