6 ms·
One Year Since Germany's Nuclear Exit: Renewables Expand, Fossil Fuels Reduced
- L-four 2y agoHug of death
- rednafi 2y ago[flagged]
- epanchin 2y agoThe article is dead. Can anyone tell me whether fossil fuels have reduced more than they would have done had nuclear continued? I suspect not.
- GTP 2y agoReading the article, I'm not able to answer your question. But the decrease in fossil fuels consumption doesn't seem to have any link with the abandonment of nuclear power. They cite other things as the driving factors. Archived article is here https://web.archive.org/web/20240515172653/http://ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2024/status-quo-one-year-since-germanys-nuclear-exit-renewable-capacity-expands-electricity-from-fossil-fuels-significantly-reduced.html https://web.archive.org/web/20240515172653/http://ise.fraunh...
- froh 2y ago> The analysis covering the period from mid-April 2023 to mid-April 2024 shows that the loss of nuclear power in Germany could be well compensated. Contrary to claims, the increase in imports was not due to a lack of generation capacity in Germany, but rather due to the favorable electricity generation prices of renewable power plants in the Alps and Scandinavia. see sibling comments for access to the article. also > "In fact, electricity generation from nuclear power was replaced by renewable electricity generation. In the first year without nuclear power, around 270 TWh of renewable electricity was generated, 33 TWh more than in the same period last year. Our electricity mix is cleaner than ever before," explains Prof. Bruno Burger, who is responsible for Fraunhofer ISE's energy-charts data platform. Between April 2023 and April 2024, renewable energy accounted for 58.8 percent of the electrical load, the sum of net public electricity consumption and grid losses, in Germany.
- tiri 2y agohttps://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2024/status-quo-one-year-since-germanys-nuclear-exit-renewable-capacity-expands-electricity-from-fossil-fuels-significantly-reduced.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/... the ml at the end of the link is missing
- throw0101c 2y agoThe PR was release in April, so archived: * https://web.archive.org/web/20240515172653/http://ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2024/status-quo-one-year-since-germanys-nuclear-exit-renewable-capacity-expands-electricity-from-fossil-fuels-significantly-reduced.html https://web.archive.org/web/20240515172653/http://ise.fraunh...
- throw0101c 2y agoIf nuclear was kept around, would its capacity allow for fossil fuels to be reduced more? Going by this chart: * https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c... * Also: https://www.iea.org/countries/germany https://www.iea.org/countries/germany * Also also: https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/emissions#what-are-the-main-sources-of-co2-emissions-in-germany https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/emissions#what-are-the... Nuclear was previously providing 22 GW (2022) to 20 GW (2010) of capacity, down to 12.1 GW (2011), then 8 (2019): currently (2023) lignite can output 18.6 GW of capacity, and hard coal is providing 18.9 GW. For output (per first link), at its peak nuclear provided ~150 TWh, while coal (lignite+hard) provided 120 TWh in 2023. So AFAICT, coal capacity could have been cut in half (perhaps even not running that often) if existing nuclear was kept around. (New nuclear did not have to be constructed, just keep around the current stuff longer until (a) fossils are retired, and (b) more renwwables are built out).
- epanchin 2y agoI was recently arguing with a German who thought burning coal was completely fine as long as you were burning less than you used to. He didn’t see the reason for nuclear at all.
- josefx 2y agoMeanwhile we had significant protests over the ever expanding surface mines feeding those coal plants.
- ernst_klim 2y agoWhat do they think about paying much higher electricity bills than in most other EU countries? https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics#Electricity_prices_for_household_consumers https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
- croes 2y agoThis wouldn't change with nuclear energy because the price is bound to the most energy source. There is a reason the energy companies still keep coal power plants. Without the price and profit would go down.
- CraftingLinks 2y agoMeanwhile in France...
- roenxi 2y agoOne of my favourite pages on the internet is https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/germany https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/germany . It suggests Germany's electricity production was at a 40 year low last year. And I've seen elsewhere that Germany is competing to have the highest cost electricity in the EU (possibly globally? I don't recall how they stack up globally). That tinges the interpretation of this press release. It isn't all smiles and sunshine in the German electricity market. EDIT In fact, you can add China to the graphs and note that OWID thinks China generates more electricity per-capita than Germany does as of last year. Who'd have thought that was possible 40 years ago!
- wiz21c 2y agoReducing fossil fuel is a good thing for the climate, hence for humanity. This will help to avoid very costly consequences. So the fact that germans pay their electricity costlier should be seen as an investment. And electricity is now sold by private companies. Let's change that to make prices lower.
- roenxi 2y ago25% of humanity lives in China and India. They've benefted more from increasing fossil fuels than they've suffered from poor climate. The sky over China sounded like a scene from a Tolkien novel for a while there (which, well, such scenes were probably what he drew inspiration from). And they've made more meaningful progress on renewable and nuclear tech than Germany managed. Between Germany and China, I feel I'd rather be copying China's policies.
- eigenspace 2y ago1) Looking at Germany's domestic electricity production without accounting for cross border trading is not meaningful. Germany is in the centre of the biggest international electricity grid in the world. There's an insane amount of electrical connectors between Germany and all of its neighbours. In particular, Germany has gone from being a net exporter of electricity to a net importer, particularly from France, Switzerland, Austria, and Sweden (through Denmark). Total electricity used in Germany has barely decreased. 2) Germany's electricity prices have come down and stabilized. They're actually lower than before the war now. No longer the highest in the EU, though there is still room for it to come down more, but it'll take time as more renewables, batteries, and long-distance grid connectors are built out.
- pstrateman 2y agoGermany did two things to cope with the loss of nuclear plants. First they simply use less power than before. Second they import nuclear power from France for reliability. Seems kinda silly to me.
- froh 2y agothe article states we imported renewables from the alps and scandinavia, and produced more renewables ourselves. neither are silly.
- CraftingLinks 2y agoIt's not the relatively clean nuclear you needed to replace it's the coal and gas. You effectively neutralized your renewable energy efforts by shutting down nuclear.
- practicemaths 2y agoYeah but then Russia could not have sold them as much oil & gas.
- kjeldsendk 2y agoThat's not true, nuclear was never the main source of power in Germany and it's been replaced by a constantly growing sustainable energy sector.
- CraftingLinks 2y ago30 TWh nuclear, replaced by 30 TWh renewables, from the article.
- josefx 2y ago> we imported renewables from the alps and scandinavia How large are those power lines going from scandinavia to Germany? Afaik we already have issues getting north and south Germany properly connected. It doesn't help that there where reports of "greenwashing" in the past where power companies would trade local coal power for hydroelectric power from the other side on the planet so they could put a 100% green energy seal on their offering.
- eigenspace 2y agoThe nuclear exit was a stupid idea, but how bad it was its also overstated a lot by pro-nuclear types and understated a lot by anti-nuclear types. Germany has built a tremendous amount of solar and wind in the past few years, but the amount of energy they're generating is exaggerated a lot when one talks about percentages. In reality, over the past 5 or so years as the last of the nuclear reactors were decommissioned and solar/wind installations have ramped up, the total amount of electricity produced in Germany has decreased, and Germany has moved from on average being an electricity exporter to being an electricity importer. The reduction in total electrical power generated in Germany is about equal to the power lost from nuclear reactors, while the reductions in fossil fuels was more or less balanced by the increase in renewables. This is pretty promising, and in my opinion, it's actually somewhat good that Germany is a net electricity importer rather than exporter. They shouldn't be selling power generated with coal when they could be buying power generated with nuclear (France) or hydroelectric (Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Austria).
- firesteelrain 2y ago> it's actually somewhat good that Germany is a net electricity importer rather than exporter. Not from a national security perspective.
- loire280 2y agoPost WWII, interdependence between European nations has generally been considered good for national security.
- throw0101c 2y ago> Post WWII, interdependence between European nations has generally been considered good for national security. Except that Germany was importing energy from the Soviet Union since (at least) the 1980s: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhhorod_pipeline#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhhorod_pipeli... and then Russia. Was that good for national security?
- 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- GaggiX 2y agoStill, the gCO₂eq/kWh is 10 times higher than in France when the sun is strong, and much, much worse when it's not.
- dralley 2y agoThe decrease in fossil fuels is likely caused by geopolitical factors moreso than policy ones. Between the conflict with Russia and the Houthis shutting down the Suez, prices are up.
- evanlivingston 2y agoWhenever power in Germany comes up, I have a hard time interpreting anything because of the reaction the HN crowd has against the Germany's resistance to Nuclear. But from what I can tell, they're doing a pretty good job reducing their usage of fossil fuel? Can someone clarify. Yes, power is more expensive in Germany. Yes they have periods where they don't produce all the power they consume, yes the import nuclear power. But for their goals of reducing fossil fuel consumption and not building nuclear power plants they seem to be doing well?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- locallost 2y agoIt comes up frequently, but the price of electricity in Germany is not high in reality, mostly because traditionally the costs have been covered by the actual bills paid. The exception now is the renewables surcharge which will in the future be covered by taxes. The surcharge fills the fund for cases where the guaranteed price for renewables is higher than the market price. But even this used to be on the bill. There are hundreds of companies that sell electricity and it has a market economy there. On the other hand France as the complete opposite example, it has a nationalized electricity company because it can't survive otherwise. They lobbied hard (successfully) for rule changes in the EU so they are able to fund their nuclear plants through government subsides. We are talking hundreds of billions for their plans to keep old plants alive and build new ones. This will not be on the bill, so the prices are not a realistic comparison. But even with all that, the price in France is 24c as far as I know. In Germany you can get it for as low as 19c per kwh [1], but you only get a two month price guarantee and can get hit if the market prices spike again. Your choice. [1] http://energie.check24.de/strom/vergleich/check24/?product_id=1&zipcode=10115&city=Berlin&totalconsumption=4000&customertype=private&eco=no&paymentperiod=month&considerdiscounts=yes&pricegu http://energie.check24.de/strom/vergleich/check24/?product_i...
- bhouston 2y agoInteresting. I guess with renewables, their growth can be a lot faster than nuclear because building nuclear power plants is a massive centralized undertaking, where as renewables, especially solar, is nimble and incrementally deployable. So while nuclear seems good, it is logistically a nightmare and it is inflexible. Where as renewables is decentralized and nimble. I hadn't thought about it that way before.
- k__ 2y agoWould probably have been faster if it wasn't for all the NIMBYs.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- neuronic 2y agoNot sure why this discussion persists? Nuclear energy exit did not lead to more coal consumption - that was due to sudden switching off of Russian gas in response to their illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. In the end, there is exactly ONE reason why Germany really went through with leaving nuclear and it is not the anti-nuclear crowd. It is simply cost and money in the face of much cheaper, less risky and heavily abundant renewable energy. You cannot make an argument for building new plants which will take 10-20 years of realization and billions of Euros when nobody is going to insure it and when we can add massive amounts of MWh of cheap, reliable and safe energy in the mean time. It is economically irresponsible and makes no sense at all. The mistake of leaving nuclear before coal was made long ago, and yes it was a mistake based on anti-nuclear ideology. But it is equally irrational to try and fix that now in face of clearly better alternatives. You have to actively deny cost analysis data and developments in energy tech over the last decade to keep arguing for nuclear power.
- Chiron1991 2y ago> It is simply cost and money in the face of much cheaper, less risky and heavily abundant renewable energy. Adding to that, Germany still has no suitable location for a final depot for storing nuclear waste, and the unquantifiable cost to maintain such a depot for tens of thousand of years is often swept under the rug by nuclear supporters.
- ptero 2y agoI am not a German and while I have been in the country many times things look different from the outside, so take my impressions with a grain of salt. First, the Germany indeed has significantly reduced its reliance on fossil fuels. But this is not a one-parameter optimization for the country. For decades, Germany was also a center of advanced manufacturing in Europe, one of the very few places able to compete with Chinese manufacturing due to the quality of its manufacturing. It was everywhere: national champions, large factories, small companies, interconnected into a web of excellence. That, I think, is slowly unraveling and expensive energy is a strong reason for it although definitely not the only one. I have recently met (on hikes and trips) three former owners of small-ish German manufacturers who sold their businesses "because running manufacturing in Germany is not great now" and expected the new owners to move production overseas. New owners bought for established, multi-year orders and being able to stamp the old company name on the products. This is a very slow process that runs over decades and while the numbers in the study are undoubtedly correct, the reduction in availability of inexpensive, predictably priced energy from the nuclear exit likely accelerates the reduction of Germany manufacturing might. I would love to be wrong, we shall see in another 10-15 years. My 2c.