4 ms·

"Disastrous" by what metric? What are you even talking about? Germany went from >50% fossil fuel (mostly coal, not even gas!) to >60% renewables for electricity

"Disastrous" by what metric? What are you even talking about? Germany went from >50% fossil fuel (mostly coal, not even gas!) to >60% renewables for electricity within the last two decades. This is a huge success already.

hopw_roewur_ne 1y ago
I don't think it's a huge success, considering they're unable to meet their own demands for electricity, instead driving up energy prices in neighboring countries as well.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  It's a huge success considering where they would have been if not for doing that, and then energy prices would have been higher still.
- peterpost2 1y ago
  That is largely due to the war in Ukraine and Russian gas/oil being a big no-no in Europe right now. Continuing to burn fossil fuel is simply not an option. Not if we want to comfortable keep living on this planet.
- jamil7 1y ago
  The problem of meeting demand is in industrial use and residential heating, both of which aren’t typically electrified in Germany. The problem has more to do with an active war and an industrial sector built on cheap Russian gas.
  - aldonius 1y ago
    Yes, and if they want to net-zero all their energy, not just their electricity, they will need to do some mix of: 1. electrify those applications currently served by gas 2. import or manufacture carbon-neutral synthetic gas 3. buy a heck of a lot of offsets
    - prewett 1y ago
      And since we don't have the technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere efficiently, buying offsets is spending a lot of money fooling yourself.
- cycomanic 1y ago
  None of the European countries meat their energy demands by themselves. All of them regularly import and export electricity from/to their neighbors. That's a good thing and is driving down electricity prices not up. The reason countries buy electricity from their neighbors is because it's cheaper not because they couldn't meat the demands themselves. Now Germany is by no means perfect, heating is largely gas based which increases emissions. Ironically the law that was trying to change this, had a big counter campaign that likely contributed to the change of government. So while the greens energiewende are often blamed for Germanys dependency on gas (although the dependency had been going for much longer), it's the conservatives who likely had a much bigger impact on Germany sticking with gas by preventing to move heating to electricity.
- seec 1y ago
  This. Germany has been strong arming policies around electricity in the EU for quite a while. Forcing their neighbors to sell their electricity for cheap when it is the most expensive in the market while assuming none of the costs and risks. And they are disrupting neighbors' energy production economics when they offload their overproduction precisely when nobody wants it. That's German superiority complex in all it's "glory".
pfortuny 1y ago
It depends on how you measure success… Has that change improved the economy and well-being of the Germans? I do not know, I’m only pointing out that change to renewables does not necessarily mean “success”.
- myrmidon 1y ago
  First: This whole reneable thing was done to reduce negative externalities from pollution and CO2 emissions that were simply not paid for previously. Arguing that "the economy would be better of without pollution/emission limits" is a bit like arguing that dumping trash in the next river is cheaper than proper disposal: Sure, your industrialists are gonna save a few bucks right now, but someone will have to pick up the bill regardless-- with interest.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    Sure, but people's rent and bills are due now and if they can't pay up, you can't gaslighting them with "your sacrifice is necessary for the future of the environment" which is a luxury belief. Why haven't shareholders of energy companies also made sacrifices to save the environment? How come only the consumers have to? Do you understand why people are pissed off with the switch?
    - myrmidon 1y ago
      > Sure, but people's rent and bills are due now and if they can't pay up, you can't gaslighting them with "your sacrifice is necessary for the future of the environment" which is a luxury belief. My point of view is that "we have to curb emissions now before consequences grow too dire" is not a "luxury belief": the actual luxury is/was consuming fuel and fossil products without ever paying for the externalities. It was a luxury we could not actually afford at any point, basically just got it on credit in the past, and all that credit is coming due within the century. > Why haven't shareholders of energy companies also made sacrifices to save the environment? How come only the consumers have to? Because overall most of the benefit did go to consumers. People basically got a gallon of gas for 30 cents in 1960 when it probably needed to be a dollar or more, but companies like Shell only ever saw a small fraction of that retail price, and there is absolutely no way you could claw back that difference (or anything close, really) from them. > Do you understand why people are pissed off with the switch? I do understand the feeling of getting things denied that you took for granted, but I have little sympathy for selfishness.

hopw_roewur_ne 1y ago

I don't think it's a huge success, considering they're unable to meet their own demands for electricity, instead driving up energy prices in neighboring countries as well.

jacquesm 1y ago
It's a huge success considering where they would have been if not for doing that, and then energy prices would have been higher still.
peterpost2 1y ago
That is largely due to the war in Ukraine and Russian gas/oil being a big no-no in Europe right now. Continuing to burn fossil fuel is simply not an option. Not if we want to comfortable keep living on this planet.
jamil7 1y ago
The problem of meeting demand is in industrial use and residential heating, both of which aren’t typically electrified in Germany. The problem has more to do with an active war and an industrial sector built on cheap Russian gas.
- aldonius 1y ago
  Yes, and if they want to net-zero all their energy, not just their electricity, they will need to do some mix of: 1. electrify those applications currently served by gas 2. import or manufacture carbon-neutral synthetic gas 3. buy a heck of a lot of offsets
  - prewett 1y ago
    And since we don't have the technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere efficiently, buying offsets is spending a lot of money fooling yourself.
cycomanic 1y ago
None of the European countries meat their energy demands by themselves. All of them regularly import and export electricity from/to their neighbors. That's a good thing and is driving down electricity prices not up. The reason countries buy electricity from their neighbors is because it's cheaper not because they couldn't meat the demands themselves. Now Germany is by no means perfect, heating is largely gas based which increases emissions. Ironically the law that was trying to change this, had a big counter campaign that likely contributed to the change of government. So while the greens energiewende are often blamed for Germanys dependency on gas (although the dependency had been going for much longer), it's the conservatives who likely had a much bigger impact on Germany sticking with gas by preventing to move heating to electricity.
seec 1y ago
This. Germany has been strong arming policies around electricity in the EU for quite a while. Forcing their neighbors to sell their electricity for cheap when it is the most expensive in the market while assuming none of the costs and risks. And they are disrupting neighbors' energy production economics when they offload their overproduction precisely when nobody wants it. That's German superiority complex in all it's "glory".

pfortuny 1y ago

It depends on how you measure success… Has that change improved the economy and well-being of the Germans? I do not know, I’m only pointing out that change to renewables does not necessarily mean “success”.

myrmidon 1y ago
First: This whole reneable thing was done to reduce negative externalities from pollution and CO2 emissions that were simply not paid for previously. Arguing that "the economy would be better of without pollution/emission limits" is a bit like arguing that dumping trash in the next river is cheaper than proper disposal: Sure, your industrialists are gonna save a few bucks right now, but someone will have to pick up the bill regardless-- with interest.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  Sure, but people's rent and bills are due now and if they can't pay up, you can't gaslighting them with "your sacrifice is necessary for the future of the environment" which is a luxury belief. Why haven't shareholders of energy companies also made sacrifices to save the environment? How come only the consumers have to? Do you understand why people are pissed off with the switch?
  - myrmidon 1y ago
    > Sure, but people's rent and bills are due now and if they can't pay up, you can't gaslighting them with "your sacrifice is necessary for the future of the environment" which is a luxury belief. My point of view is that "we have to curb emissions now before consequences grow too dire" is not a "luxury belief": the actual luxury is/was consuming fuel and fossil products without ever paying for the externalities. It was a luxury we could not actually afford at any point, basically just got it on credit in the past, and all that credit is coming due within the century. > Why haven't shareholders of energy companies also made sacrifices to save the environment? How come only the consumers have to? Because overall most of the benefit did go to consumers. People basically got a gallon of gas for 30 cents in 1960 when it probably needed to be a dollar or more, but companies like Shell only ever saw a small fraction of that retail price, and there is absolutely no way you could claw back that difference (or anything close, really) from them. > Do you understand why people are pissed off with the switch? I do understand the feeling of getting things denied that you took for granted, but I have little sympathy for selfishness.