5 ms·

Oh, sure they are reaping. 61.5% of Germany's electricity comes from renewable sources[1]. What nuclear generated has been replaced years ago, and they have a

Oh, sure they are reaping. 61.5% of Germany's electricity comes from renewable sources[1]. What nuclear generated has been replaced years ago, and they have a law to phase out coal completely. The only weird thing about it is that they're being hated on so much from the nuclear-bubble, while the bubble simultaneously drags the shield of innovation and environment protection. Meanwhile, there is negligible innovation in nuclear and saving the environment 2024 means acting fast. Nothing about nuclear is fast. [2] https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/ausbau-erneuerbare-energien-2225808 https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/ausbau-erne... PS. because it automatically comes up: no, Germany could not phase out coal before nuclear because there are much more jobs connected to coal and no politician would survive such a fast exit. How important it is, can be seen from the name of the commission tasked with the coal phase out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Growth,_Structural_Change_and_Employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Growth,_Structur...

Scarblac 2y ago
61.5% sounds like a lot, but how much electricity is needed to replace everything that fossil fuel is now used for? I think it needs to increase to 400% or so to do that.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  We don't need to replace primary energy with electric energy in a 1:1 ratio. An ICE car is 20-30% efficient, an EV is 90% efficient. Generally we are looking at a grid expansion, but it is not massive. See this amazing chart on rejected vs. useful energy: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/ https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > an EV is 90% efficient An EV is 85-90% efficient with power coming out of the batteries. However, the charging efficiency of the batteries is at about 80%. So the overall efficiency is 80% of 90%, or 72%.
    - heavenlyblue 2y ago
      For the sake of replacement, we should not include the charging efficiency, because the context is that of "how kuch energy the car can store" rather than "where it comes from"
      - Scarblac 2y ago
        It's "how much is needed to keep doing the same thing", I don't see why charging would be excluded.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        It is not about how much it can store. You cannot wish away the charging losses. There are no losses to pumping gas into a tank. Nor can you wish away the losses in the charger itself. Converting AC to DC is hardly 100% efficient.
        pfdietz 2y ago
        In that case, you should also not wish away refining losses, where petroleum is turned into gasoline and other fuels.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        If you want to get an accurate accounting of CO2 emissions, sure.
- _ph_ 2y ago
  Somewhere between 2-3x the electricity consumed right now (which is way down from the peak several years ago as efficiency increases, e.g. LEDs instead of light bulbs etc.). It would be crazy expensive to build nuclear reactors to produce so much electricity, with renewables it is still quite a task, but a much more manageable one.
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    in fact for germany building a similar renewable output will be much more expensive. Don't forget about transmission and balancing. Needless to say Germany doesn't have an actual plan to ditch gas, even h2-ready plants will either use a mix with gas(most probably) or pure h2(if it'll even be deployed) will still have huge NOx emissions
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> 61.5% of Germany's electricity comes from renewable sources Now. For years they switched to coal. Even today, Germany falls to the siren songs of the gas lobby, who promise a €1.5tn investment into gas infrastructure will be happily written off for the sake of the planet.
- Krasnol 2y ago
  FYI: In Germany the same companies who have nuclear reactors, have coal, gas and renewables. They do not lobby against themselves. Therefore, your "lobby" phrases do not work for Germany. You should stop repeating that. It only shows that you have not sufficient knowledge to participate in this discussion.
  - TheGamerUncle 2y ago
    ok but lol you are still obviously denying and acting blind to the fact that for many many years, that neither we will nor our lungs will get back, coal had to be ramped up and overused in Germany, Nuclear is safe and effective and until we actually solve the battery problem most of the world should switch to nuclear if we want to survive, Yale has tried to fit the numbers on many occasions but not even them can disagree that nuclear is required
    - locallost 2y ago
      > ok but lol you are still obviously denying and acting blind to the fact that for many many years, that neither we will nor our lungs will get back, coal had to be ramped up and overused in Germany This simply isn't true. Coal use for electricity has been declining consistently in Germany and especially since the first shutdowns of nuclear plants (cca 2011). And the replacement was not natural gas as in e.g. the US.
      - ludwigschubert 2y ago
        Here’s a chart of Germany’s energy mix over the last 30 years: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?time=1994..latest&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?time... Looks like coal usage for electricity production indeed only went up for ~3 years around 2011, probably we can consider that a mere blip within the downward trend. Wind and solar indeed seem to pick up what nuclear used to bring to the energy mix. Gas usage is only slightly up over 30 years, which doesn’t look like it’s directly substituting nuclear — but surely it could have gone down had nuclear be kept around? (Personally, I wish politics would have pushed harder against coal and simply ignored nuclear for a couple more decades. But political feasibility is important ofc, and I don’t know how hard of a sell that would have been in 2010.)
haconBagrid 2y ago
And here we can see how their electricity generation has fallen https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=year&year=-1 https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE...
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  And in France: https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&interval=year&year=-1 https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR... Note that France has lost more nuclear generation than Germany over this period.
  - chickenbig 2y ago
    Good news; France’s nuclear output is forecast to bounce back to the 340-365TWh range this year. https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journalists/all-press-releases/edf-estimates-higher-nuclear-power-generation-in-france-for-2024 https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journ...
- Krasnol 2y ago
  Where are all those rolling blackouts we've been promised by the fearmongering of the nuclear-astroturf? Weird eh? Maybe it's not always clever to use US-logic on the rest of the world. Germany is not Texas.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Texas, where new nuclear has been dead in the water for years. > “The cost of new nuclear is prohibitive for us to be investing in,” says Crane. Exelon considered building two new reactors in Texas in 2005, he says, when gas prices were $8/MMBtu and were projected to rise to $13/MMBtu. At that price, the project would have been viable with a CO2 tax of $25 per ton. “We’re sitting here trading 2019 gas at $2.90 per MMBtu,” he says; for new nuclear power to be competitive at that price, a CO2 tax “would be $300–$400.” Exelon currently is placing its bets instead on advances in energy storage and carbon sequestration technologies. (passage from Dec. 2018 Physics Today; Texas natural gas is even cheaper than that now)
littlestymaar 2y ago
> 61.5% of Germany's electricity comes from renewable sources[1]. What nuclear generated has been replaced years ago, and they have a law to phase out coal completely. 472g of C02 per kW/h as we speak[1]. 20 times more than France and its nuclear. A resounding success… [1]: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE
- _ph_ 2y ago
  Whether the number for France is correct, is debatable. While I like the electricitymaps app, they are quite optimistic about nuclear power. But that isn't the point. The point is: Germany is strongly reducing the usage of coal. Yes, historically we have burned far too much coal, but that cannot be changed retroactively. What can and is being done is to replace coal as quickly as possible and that is happening. Ironically there was a spike in coal usage in 2022, that was caused both by the war Russia started against Ukraine and even more so by France having to shut down too many nuclear reactors for repairs - German coal had to fill part of that gap.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    > Whether the number for France is correct, is debatable. While I like the electricitymaps app, they are quite optimistic about nuclear power. They aren't “optimistic”, nuclear simply doesn't emit CO2 directly, and indirect emissions are dwarfed by direct emissions of fossils fuel plants. > What can and is being done is to replace coal as quickly as possible and that is happening. It has been happening for the past 13 years, and there's no end in sight. We'll be able to have the same discussion in 13 years with only marginal progress (maybe they'll be around 200g/kWh at that point if we're being optimistic…). > and even more so by France having to shut down too many nuclear reactors for repairs - German coal had to fill part of that gap. And so what? French nuclear has been filling the gap for defunct German nuclear for more than a decade now … And Germany could have filled this gap with coal even if they had much less regular coal use thanks to their nuclear.
    - _ph_ 2y ago
MoreSEMI 2y ago
While this is true they are among the worst polluters in the EU. England, Spain, France, even italy has a better CO2 balance than Germany per kWH. The amount of energy that comes from renewables is a meaningless number. The only thing that matters is how much CO2 they emit per kWH and due to their coal power plants, the number is quite bad. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
- _ph_ 2y ago
  Yes, Germany has a historic debt there. However, the transition is working and in 2024 Germany has used less coal than any year after 1960. Coal power usage is in a strong decline. The nuclear reactors have been more than replaced.

Scarblac 2y ago

61.5% sounds like a lot, but how much electricity is needed to replace everything that fossil fuel is now used for? I think it needs to increase to 400% or so to do that.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
We don't need to replace primary energy with electric energy in a 1:1 ratio. An ICE car is 20-30% efficient, an EV is 90% efficient. Generally we are looking at a grid expansion, but it is not massive. See this amazing chart on rejected vs. useful energy: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/ https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > an EV is 90% efficient An EV is 85-90% efficient with power coming out of the batteries. However, the charging efficiency of the batteries is at about 80%. So the overall efficiency is 80% of 90%, or 72%.
  - heavenlyblue 2y ago
    For the sake of replacement, we should not include the charging efficiency, because the context is that of "how kuch energy the car can store" rather than "where it comes from"
    - Scarblac 2y ago
      It's "how much is needed to keep doing the same thing", I don't see why charging would be excluded.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      It is not about how much it can store. You cannot wish away the charging losses. There are no losses to pumping gas into a tank. Nor can you wish away the losses in the charger itself. Converting AC to DC is hardly 100% efficient.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        In that case, you should also not wish away refining losses, where petroleum is turned into gasoline and other fuels.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        If you want to get an accurate accounting of CO2 emissions, sure.
_ph_ 2y ago
Somewhere between 2-3x the electricity consumed right now (which is way down from the peak several years ago as efficiency increases, e.g. LEDs instead of light bulbs etc.). It would be crazy expensive to build nuclear reactors to produce so much electricity, with renewables it is still quite a task, but a much more manageable one.
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  in fact for germany building a similar renewable output will be much more expensive. Don't forget about transmission and balancing. Needless to say Germany doesn't have an actual plan to ditch gas, even h2-ready plants will either use a mix with gas(most probably) or pure h2(if it'll even be deployed) will still have huge NOx emissions

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> 61.5% of Germany's electricity comes from renewable sources Now. For years they switched to coal. Even today, Germany falls to the siren songs of the gas lobby, who promise a €1.5tn investment into gas infrastructure will be happily written off for the sake of the planet.

Krasnol 2y ago
FYI: In Germany the same companies who have nuclear reactors, have coal, gas and renewables. They do not lobby against themselves. Therefore, your "lobby" phrases do not work for Germany. You should stop repeating that. It only shows that you have not sufficient knowledge to participate in this discussion.
- TheGamerUncle 2y ago
  ok but lol you are still obviously denying and acting blind to the fact that for many many years, that neither we will nor our lungs will get back, coal had to be ramped up and overused in Germany, Nuclear is safe and effective and until we actually solve the battery problem most of the world should switch to nuclear if we want to survive, Yale has tried to fit the numbers on many occasions but not even them can disagree that nuclear is required
  - locallost 2y ago
    > ok but lol you are still obviously denying and acting blind to the fact that for many many years, that neither we will nor our lungs will get back, coal had to be ramped up and overused in Germany This simply isn't true. Coal use for electricity has been declining consistently in Germany and especially since the first shutdowns of nuclear plants (cca 2011). And the replacement was not natural gas as in e.g. the US.
    - ludwigschubert 2y ago
      Here’s a chart of Germany’s energy mix over the last 30 years: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?time=1994..latest&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?time... Looks like coal usage for electricity production indeed only went up for ~3 years around 2011, probably we can consider that a mere blip within the downward trend. Wind and solar indeed seem to pick up what nuclear used to bring to the energy mix. Gas usage is only slightly up over 30 years, which doesn’t look like it’s directly substituting nuclear — but surely it could have gone down had nuclear be kept around? (Personally, I wish politics would have pushed harder against coal and simply ignored nuclear for a couple more decades. But political feasibility is important ofc, and I don’t know how hard of a sell that would have been in 2010.)

haconBagrid 2y ago

And here we can see how their electricity generation has fallen https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=year&year=-1 https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE...

ZeroGravitas 2y ago
And in France: https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&interval=year&year=-1 https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR... Note that France has lost more nuclear generation than Germany over this period.
- chickenbig 2y ago
  Good news; France’s nuclear output is forecast to bounce back to the 340-365TWh range this year. https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journalists/all-press-releases/edf-estimates-higher-nuclear-power-generation-in-france-for-2024 https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journ...
Krasnol 2y ago
Where are all those rolling blackouts we've been promised by the fearmongering of the nuclear-astroturf? Weird eh? Maybe it's not always clever to use US-logic on the rest of the world. Germany is not Texas.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Texas, where new nuclear has been dead in the water for years. > “The cost of new nuclear is prohibitive for us to be investing in,” says Crane. Exelon considered building two new reactors in Texas in 2005, he says, when gas prices were $8/MMBtu and were projected to rise to $13/MMBtu. At that price, the project would have been viable with a CO2 tax of $25 per ton. “We’re sitting here trading 2019 gas at $2.90 per MMBtu,” he says; for new nuclear power to be competitive at that price, a CO2 tax “would be $300–$400.” Exelon currently is placing its bets instead on advances in energy storage and carbon sequestration technologies. (passage from Dec. 2018 Physics Today; Texas natural gas is even cheaper than that now)

littlestymaar 2y ago

> 61.5% of Germany's electricity comes from renewable sources[1]. What nuclear generated has been replaced years ago, and they have a law to phase out coal completely. 472g of C02 per kW/h as we speak[1]. 20 times more than France and its nuclear. A resounding success… [1]: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE

_ph_ 2y ago
Whether the number for France is correct, is debatable. While I like the electricitymaps app, they are quite optimistic about nuclear power. But that isn't the point. The point is: Germany is strongly reducing the usage of coal. Yes, historically we have burned far too much coal, but that cannot be changed retroactively. What can and is being done is to replace coal as quickly as possible and that is happening. Ironically there was a spike in coal usage in 2022, that was caused both by the war Russia started against Ukraine and even more so by France having to shut down too many nuclear reactors for repairs - German coal had to fill part of that gap.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  > Whether the number for France is correct, is debatable. While I like the electricitymaps app, they are quite optimistic about nuclear power. They aren't “optimistic”, nuclear simply doesn't emit CO2 directly, and indirect emissions are dwarfed by direct emissions of fossils fuel plants. > What can and is being done is to replace coal as quickly as possible and that is happening. It has been happening for the past 13 years, and there's no end in sight. We'll be able to have the same discussion in 13 years with only marginal progress (maybe they'll be around 200g/kWh at that point if we're being optimistic…). > and even more so by France having to shut down too many nuclear reactors for repairs - German coal had to fill part of that gap. And so what? French nuclear has been filling the gap for defunct German nuclear for more than a decade now … And Germany could have filled this gap with coal even if they had much less regular coal use thanks to their nuclear.
  - _ph_ 2y ago

MoreSEMI 2y ago

While this is true they are among the worst polluters in the EU. England, Spain, France, even italy has a better CO2 balance than Germany per kWH. The amount of energy that comes from renewables is a meaningless number. The only thing that matters is how much CO2 they emit per kWH and due to their coal power plants, the number is quite bad. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map

_ph_ 2y ago
Yes, Germany has a historic debt there. However, the transition is working and in 2024 Germany has used less coal than any year after 1960. Coal power usage is in a strong decline. The nuclear reactors have been more than replaced.