4 ms·

> Imagine how much better carbon emissions would be in Germany if they hadn't dismantled nuclear! Germany has 15.4 GW of hard coal generation, and 14.7 GW of l

> Imagine how much better carbon emissions would be in Germany if they hadn't dismantled nuclear! Germany has 15.4 GW of hard coal generation, and 14.7 GW of lignite, for a total of 30.1 GW: * https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c... In 2010, before the shutdowns started, it had 21.5 GW of nuclear. So if all the other rollouts (renewables, etc) had stayed the same, but the shutdown of nuclear and coal was swapped, Germany could have reduced its emission generation capacity by an extra 66%. (Focusing mainly on coal, since that is (AIUI) the worst of the carbon emitters.)

throw0101d 2mo ago
(Meta: I understand some folks aren't a fan of nuclear. I disagree, but recognize people have different values and weighing of priorities. But I just find it fucking stupid that coal was left to keep running by people who claim that climate change is a priority. Certainly a discussion can be had about pros/cons of new nuclear, but why the fuck would you prioritize closing current nuclear over coal?)
- patall 2mo ago
  Who are those people that kept coal running but claim climate change is a priority? Because they are not the german green party, that much I know.
- bildung 2mo ago
  Well first, coal went down, too, if we are still discussing Germany. In parallel with shrinking nuclear generation. See the cleanenergywire link upthread for the numbers. So the coal vs. nuclear discussion is baseless already (again, if we still talk about Germany). Secondly, energy != electricity. Coal is mostly used for central heating (a plant heats water, water is then transported to a whole neighborhood). Electricity is sometimes also produced, but usually not the primary reason for the plant to exist in the first place. Nuclear plants are usually used for generating electricity (in Germany). Germanys carbon problem is the heating infrastructure being dependant on fossil fuels (mostly gas), but it has no lack of electricity sources. Thanks for stating your openmindedness re/ nuclear discussion, BTW, IME statements like this can really lift the whole level of discourse.
  - throw0101d 2mo ago
    > Well first, coal went down, too, if we are still discussing Germany. Yes, but when it comes to coal more down is more better. And if nuclear was still around I would hazard to guess that's what would have happened. The graph I'm looking at is labelled "Installed net electricity generation capacity in Germany". Lower down there's a pie graph with shares, and coal makes up ~20% in gross electrical production.
- pydry 2mo ago
  Germany was shamed endlessly for not shutting down coal plants fast enough by the same nuclear fans who didn't make a peep about Poland making a decision to be 80% coal for ages. It raised some interesting questions about priorities.
  - bob001 2mo ago
    Some people know how to look up GDP per capita numbers.
purerandomness 2mo ago
The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011. The Greens actually prolonged their life time during Covid, after RWE, EON and EnBW argued that it does not make sense economically to let them run longer. No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear. Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off first.
- throw0101d 2mo ago
  > The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011. Schröder was talking about it in 2000: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Domestic_policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Domestic_poli... Oh, and he was appointed to Gazprom (and other Russian energy companies) after leaving politics: * https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at-russias-gazprom/a-1949349 https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at... (He did encourage renewables as well.) > No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear. The German government(s) helped kickstart the global solar price drop by their subsidy programs in the early 2000s that allowed for economies of scale, so I'm surprised that—if they're really worried about climate change—they would not subsidize the alleged expenses of running the low-carbon generation of nuclear. > Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off first. It's so expensive that prices in France, which generates >60% of power with nuclear, are at the same levels (or lower) as Germany, while producing less carbon per kWh than Germany (a quarter from some articles I've found). See perhaps: > […] Alternatively, Germany could have kept the existing nuclear power in 2002 and possibly invest in new nuclear capacity. The analysis of these two alternatives shows that Germany could have reached its climate gas emission target by achieving a 73% cut in emissions on top of the achievements in 2022 and simultaneously cut the spending in half compared to Energiewende. Thus, Germany should have adopted an energy policy based on keeping and expanding nuclear power. * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#abstract https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2...
patall 2mo ago
And Europe would be in even bigger black-out trouble right now as half of those 20 GW of nuclear power would not be running due to missing cooling water, just like is the case in the other European countries. The german green part certainly isn't perfect, but they had a plan. A plan that included far more renewable energies than currently build. The ones that orchestrated the ultimate end of nuclear energy while shutting down build up of renewables are the conservatives. Blaming someone for a half executed plan is childish. Especially when it is from a party that supposedly had economic competence yet killed tens of thousands of jobs.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- leonidasrup 2mo ago
  If look up the original plan from 1980s, you will see that the German Green idea was to replace nuclear power and oil with renewable and coal and natural gas. Climate change was not very important, the most important was to remove nuclear power. (The founding idea of German Greens, as was for many anti-nuclear groups, was that by removing nuclear power they will remove the danger of nuclear weapons.) Energie-Wende: Wachstum und Wohlstand ohne Erdöl und Uran [Energy transition: growth and prosperity without petroleum and uranium] https://web.archive.org/web/20160914043645/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sachbuchforschung/CONTENT/SBDB/pix/PDF/Krause-Energie-Inhalt.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160914043645/http://www2.hu-be...

throw0101d 2mo ago

(Meta: I understand some folks aren't a fan of nuclear. I disagree, but recognize people have different values and weighing of priorities. But I just find it fucking stupid that coal was left to keep running by people who claim that climate change is a priority. Certainly a discussion can be had about pros/cons of new nuclear, but why the fuck would you prioritize closing current nuclear over coal?)

patall 2mo ago
Who are those people that kept coal running but claim climate change is a priority? Because they are not the german green party, that much I know.
bildung 2mo ago
Well first, coal went down, too, if we are still discussing Germany. In parallel with shrinking nuclear generation. See the cleanenergywire link upthread for the numbers. So the coal vs. nuclear discussion is baseless already (again, if we still talk about Germany). Secondly, energy != electricity. Coal is mostly used for central heating (a plant heats water, water is then transported to a whole neighborhood). Electricity is sometimes also produced, but usually not the primary reason for the plant to exist in the first place. Nuclear plants are usually used for generating electricity (in Germany). Germanys carbon problem is the heating infrastructure being dependant on fossil fuels (mostly gas), but it has no lack of electricity sources. Thanks for stating your openmindedness re/ nuclear discussion, BTW, IME statements like this can really lift the whole level of discourse.
- throw0101d 2mo ago
  > Well first, coal went down, too, if we are still discussing Germany. Yes, but when it comes to coal more down is more better. And if nuclear was still around I would hazard to guess that's what would have happened. The graph I'm looking at is labelled "Installed net electricity generation capacity in Germany". Lower down there's a pie graph with shares, and coal makes up ~20% in gross electrical production.
pydry 2mo ago
Germany was shamed endlessly for not shutting down coal plants fast enough by the same nuclear fans who didn't make a peep about Poland making a decision to be 80% coal for ages. It raised some interesting questions about priorities.
- bob001 2mo ago
  Some people know how to look up GDP per capita numbers.

purerandomness 2mo ago

The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011. The Greens actually prolonged their life time during Covid, after RWE, EON and EnBW argued that it does not make sense economically to let them run longer. No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear. Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off first.

throw0101d 2mo ago
> The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011. Schröder was talking about it in 2000: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Domestic_policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Domestic_poli... Oh, and he was appointed to Gazprom (and other Russian energy companies) after leaving politics: * https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at-russias-gazprom/a-1949349 https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at... (He did encourage renewables as well.) > No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear. The German government(s) helped kickstart the global solar price drop by their subsidy programs in the early 2000s that allowed for economies of scale, so I'm surprised that—if they're really worried about climate change—they would not subsidize the alleged expenses of running the low-carbon generation of nuclear. > Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off first. It's so expensive that prices in France, which generates >60% of power with nuclear, are at the same levels (or lower) as Germany, while producing less carbon per kWh than Germany (a quarter from some articles I've found). See perhaps: > […] Alternatively, Germany could have kept the existing nuclear power in 2002 and possibly invest in new nuclear capacity. The analysis of these two alternatives shows that Germany could have reached its climate gas emission target by achieving a 73% cut in emissions on top of the achievements in 2022 and simultaneously cut the spending in half compared to Energiewende. Thus, Germany should have adopted an energy policy based on keeping and expanding nuclear power. * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#abstract https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2...

patall 2mo ago

And Europe would be in even bigger black-out trouble right now as half of those 20 GW of nuclear power would not be running due to missing cooling water, just like is the case in the other European countries. The german green part certainly isn't perfect, but they had a plan. A plan that included far more renewable energies than currently build. The ones that orchestrated the ultimate end of nuclear energy while shutting down build up of renewables are the conservatives. Blaming someone for a half executed plan is childish. Especially when it is from a party that supposedly had economic competence yet killed tens of thousands of jobs.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
leonidasrup 2mo ago
If look up the original plan from 1980s, you will see that the German Green idea was to replace nuclear power and oil with renewable and coal and natural gas. Climate change was not very important, the most important was to remove nuclear power. (The founding idea of German Greens, as was for many anti-nuclear groups, was that by removing nuclear power they will remove the danger of nuclear weapons.) Energie-Wende: Wachstum und Wohlstand ohne Erdöl und Uran [Energy transition: growth and prosperity without petroleum and uranium] https://web.archive.org/web/20160914043645/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sachbuchforschung/CONTENT/SBDB/pix/PDF/Krause-Energie-Inhalt.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160914043645/http://www2.hu-be...