4 ms·

Germany's output is almost irrelevant in this context: it amounts to a mere 1.4% of the global output. To add to that: there are no good alternatives to coal a

Germany's output is almost irrelevant in this context: it amounts to a mere 1.4% of the global output. To add to that: there are no good alternatives to coal as the stabilizer in a renewables-fed grid, for Germany. They don't have hydro and don't have nuclear. Even Spain now runs some coal despite having near-100% renewable grid for a year. That big blackout was a big lesson for all grid operators. Please don't shame countries for running a small percentage of their grids on coal.

throwaway2037 3mo ago
> there are no good alternatives to coal as the stabilizer in a renewables-fed grid, for Germany. Why not natural gas?
- spwa4 3mo ago
  From different perspectives: 1) political: the only economical natural gas comes from Russia, which means it's a betrayal of Ukraine (especially after the many German, and worldwide promises not to do so) Obviously that hasn't stopped Germany. Neither the promises nor the betrayal aspect. Hasn't stopped Spain either. 2) physical: the lines got bombarded, so Germany does not have physical access to Russian gas ("kinetic sanctions"), at any price (oh and, not that it actually matters, but Germany is not willing to invest in rebuilding the lines, and before you say it can't be done, Ukraine is rebuilding Russian oil lines that Russia bombed on Ukrainian soil. Germany can rebuild, for example, Nord Stream, they just don't) 3) second political reason: only LNG is doable. There is Qatarese gas, except not right now due to Iran war, and US gas, which Germany doesn't want (it's a little more expensive). So it's buying US LNG for at least the next decade (they had to sign long term contracts to get it at all). 4) ecological. Coal is 750g-1000g CO2 per kWh, but less than half that (ie. 300g per kWh with carbon capture, which is widespread in Germany). LNG, due to the many inefficient processing steps is 350g-750g CO2 per kWh. Qatar hides their numbers, but US LNG is certainly 650g per kWh. Canadese LNG is actually worse. So LNG natural gas is not better than coal (anymore) and it's the only kind accessible to Germany (same goes for Spain and EU) But let's not pretend Germany cares in the slightest, after all the German Green party supported switching to coal in 2023 and again in 2026 rather than switching back to nuclear. This is not the only choice Germany has, it is the one they decided on. Btw: in order for CO2 to reduce, fossil fuel producers (ie. Russia and Saudi Arabia mostly) need to stop digging up oil. Other posts correctly point out that if Germany just stopped, or even absorbed the amount of CO2 it currently produces, that would be a rounding error. Or we could spread aerosols in the atmosphere (because oil will run out, which means atmospheric CO2 will start reducing by itself, according to IEA predictions, around 2050)
  - throwaway2037 3mo ago
    Ok, overall, this is a pretty good reply. My only issue is this part: > Coal is 750g-1000g CO2 per kWh, but less than half that (ie. 300g per kWh with carbon capture, which is widespread in Germany). The last part is definitely not true. I did some research. Germany has no commercial coal-fired power plants operating with carbon capture and storage (CCS), and CCS is not widespread in the German power sector.
    - tialaramex 3mo ago
      Imagined numbers are crucial to the increasingly unhinged fossil fuel lobby. They need you to stop believing facts and listen to them explain how up is down and actually there's not a problem or if there was it's not their fault and actually they're the solution.
      - spwa4 3mo ago
        Ahhh, right. I get it. You are now "part of the unhinged fossil fuel lobby", because the Green party in Germany and it's adherents: 1) have a 20 year history of increasing fossil fuel use, and on a dozen occasions, when choosing between a nuclear compromise and more CO2, systematically choose "no compromise!" 2) technically part of 1, but so serious it deserves it's own point, when this decision turned out in 2014 to be far more disastrous than initially expected, the Greens doubled down choosing to warm the climate further 3) Again, technically part of ... but after 2023 and the "kinetic sanctions" in 2024, progressively worsening with now also the Iran war making it worse, the Green's decision is responsible for not just massively worsening Germany's CO2 output but doing so WHILE causing a doubling of energy prices. 4) this total lack of willingness to compromise guarantees yet another fight over global warming in parliament. The Green's party actual politics are: grandstanding and demanding HUGE compromises "in the name of global warming". In reality the tactic is different: they cause big problems, everywhere (nothing on the scale of the nuclear closure, but you'd think they would compromise to ease the effect of the factory closures. The opposite is true). They do this so there's fights, and they appear to be "fighting for global warming". The opposite is closer to the truth. 5) this then caused emergency reactivation of coal power plants ... no objection of the Greens and even a further statement that they WILL NOT COMPROMISE ... okay. And there's "a lobby" because everyone else points out ... but Green policy, and their total lack of willingness to compromise is responsible for half of Germany's CO2 output, and now $other_party has to compromise to fix that? WTF? Of course the answer? "The lobby is unhinged". Because we all know further Green party policy will only lead to further disaster (for example further destroying the auto industry [1]). The only thing the Green party sees is a chance for more votes. You will not catch them doing any sort of discussion about policy, or the policy's effects. Just shouting about how necessary it is, fight, distract, obstruct, sabotage. Shout, shout, shout. And every adult in the room realizes what the situation is, but adults don't vote Green in the first place, work in factories, and will soon be fired and unemployed anyway. I just don't understand how you a political party can be that deeply evil, playing on pure identity politics, willing to damage everything, the climate, the environment, society and politics JUST to get votes and power. [1] https://www.gruene.de/artikel/merz-draengt-eu-kommission-und-autoindustrie-auf-irrweg-beim-sogenannten-verbrenner-aus?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.gruene.de/artikel/merz-draengt-eu-kommission-und...
tonfa 3mo ago
> Germany's output is almost irrelevant in this context: it amounts to a mere 1.4% of the global output. Conveniently Germany is about 1% of the world population. You realize that if most countries use the same argument nothing ever change? (It's only 1% how can it make a difference)
tialaramex 3mo ago
> Even Spain now runs some coal despite having near-100% renewable grid for a year. In fact Spain has less coal now than it did in 2025, or 2024, or 2023 and so on. And no their grid isn't "near 100% renewable", they do have a lot more than most European countries but they have large gas imports too to run some of their conventional thermal power plants - what they're getting rid of, sensibly, is coal. There's a 4x seasonal swing between summer and winter for Spain's solar power, and obviously the maximal swing (clear summer's day versus overcast mid-winter) is much larger, but they're nowhere close to being rid of fossil fuels even in July, much less January. This whole "blackout was caused by renewables" stuff was crap when it was first spouted and didn't get any more plausible once we had more information.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- ricardobayes 3mo ago
  No, I agree renewables didn't cause the blackout themselves. Spain due to not having hydro power had to use renewables that were inverter-based and didn't have rotating mass to dampen any oscillations. The Entso-E report said there was a direct consequence between not having this inertia and the resulting blackout. There is absolutely nothing wrong with renewables themselves, although it also has to be said if they never used renewables or not to this extent, this event simply wouldn't have occurred.
  - tialaramex 3mo ago
    > The Entso-E report said there was a direct consequence between not having this inertia and the resulting blackout That isn't what it said > if they never used renewables or not to this extent, this event simply wouldn't have occurred This is an entirely speculative counter-factual and so is even more useless than it appears.
    - ricardobayes 2mo ago
      Yes, I see that now. That excerpt I took paraphrasing a google summary which apparently used a youtube video as its source. But I see it now it's not true, thanks. However I do stand by the part where I said if renewables were never used this likely wouldn't have happened - even though, as you say, it is a useless argument.

throwaway2037 3mo ago

> there are no good alternatives to coal as the stabilizer in a renewables-fed grid, for Germany. Why not natural gas?

spwa4 3mo ago
From different perspectives: 1) political: the only economical natural gas comes from Russia, which means it's a betrayal of Ukraine (especially after the many German, and worldwide promises not to do so) Obviously that hasn't stopped Germany. Neither the promises nor the betrayal aspect. Hasn't stopped Spain either. 2) physical: the lines got bombarded, so Germany does not have physical access to Russian gas ("kinetic sanctions"), at any price (oh and, not that it actually matters, but Germany is not willing to invest in rebuilding the lines, and before you say it can't be done, Ukraine is rebuilding Russian oil lines that Russia bombed on Ukrainian soil. Germany can rebuild, for example, Nord Stream, they just don't) 3) second political reason: only LNG is doable. There is Qatarese gas, except not right now due to Iran war, and US gas, which Germany doesn't want (it's a little more expensive). So it's buying US LNG for at least the next decade (they had to sign long term contracts to get it at all). 4) ecological. Coal is 750g-1000g CO2 per kWh, but less than half that (ie. 300g per kWh with carbon capture, which is widespread in Germany). LNG, due to the many inefficient processing steps is 350g-750g CO2 per kWh. Qatar hides their numbers, but US LNG is certainly 650g per kWh. Canadese LNG is actually worse. So LNG natural gas is not better than coal (anymore) and it's the only kind accessible to Germany (same goes for Spain and EU) But let's not pretend Germany cares in the slightest, after all the German Green party supported switching to coal in 2023 and again in 2026 rather than switching back to nuclear. This is not the only choice Germany has, it is the one they decided on. Btw: in order for CO2 to reduce, fossil fuel producers (ie. Russia and Saudi Arabia mostly) need to stop digging up oil. Other posts correctly point out that if Germany just stopped, or even absorbed the amount of CO2 it currently produces, that would be a rounding error. Or we could spread aerosols in the atmosphere (because oil will run out, which means atmospheric CO2 will start reducing by itself, according to IEA predictions, around 2050)
- throwaway2037 3mo ago
  Ok, overall, this is a pretty good reply. My only issue is this part: > Coal is 750g-1000g CO2 per kWh, but less than half that (ie. 300g per kWh with carbon capture, which is widespread in Germany). The last part is definitely not true. I did some research. Germany has no commercial coal-fired power plants operating with carbon capture and storage (CCS), and CCS is not widespread in the German power sector.
  - tialaramex 3mo ago
    Imagined numbers are crucial to the increasingly unhinged fossil fuel lobby. They need you to stop believing facts and listen to them explain how up is down and actually there's not a problem or if there was it's not their fault and actually they're the solution.
    - spwa4 3mo ago
      Ahhh, right. I get it. You are now "part of the unhinged fossil fuel lobby", because the Green party in Germany and it's adherents: 1) have a 20 year history of increasing fossil fuel use, and on a dozen occasions, when choosing between a nuclear compromise and more CO2, systematically choose "no compromise!" 2) technically part of 1, but so serious it deserves it's own point, when this decision turned out in 2014 to be far more disastrous than initially expected, the Greens doubled down choosing to warm the climate further 3) Again, technically part of ... but after 2023 and the "kinetic sanctions" in 2024, progressively worsening with now also the Iran war making it worse, the Green's decision is responsible for not just massively worsening Germany's CO2 output but doing so WHILE causing a doubling of energy prices. 4) this total lack of willingness to compromise guarantees yet another fight over global warming in parliament. The Green's party actual politics are: grandstanding and demanding HUGE compromises "in the name of global warming". In reality the tactic is different: they cause big problems, everywhere (nothing on the scale of the nuclear closure, but you'd think they would compromise to ease the effect of the factory closures. The opposite is true). They do this so there's fights, and they appear to be "fighting for global warming". The opposite is closer to the truth. 5) this then caused emergency reactivation of coal power plants ... no objection of the Greens and even a further statement that they WILL NOT COMPROMISE ... okay. And there's "a lobby" because everyone else points out ... but Green policy, and their total lack of willingness to compromise is responsible for half of Germany's CO2 output, and now $other_party has to compromise to fix that? WTF? Of course the answer? "The lobby is unhinged". Because we all know further Green party policy will only lead to further disaster (for example further destroying the auto industry [1]). The only thing the Green party sees is a chance for more votes. You will not catch them doing any sort of discussion about policy, or the policy's effects. Just shouting about how necessary it is, fight, distract, obstruct, sabotage. Shout, shout, shout. And every adult in the room realizes what the situation is, but adults don't vote Green in the first place, work in factories, and will soon be fired and unemployed anyway. I just don't understand how you a political party can be that deeply evil, playing on pure identity politics, willing to damage everything, the climate, the environment, society and politics JUST to get votes and power. [1] https://www.gruene.de/artikel/merz-draengt-eu-kommission-und-autoindustrie-auf-irrweg-beim-sogenannten-verbrenner-aus?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.gruene.de/artikel/merz-draengt-eu-kommission-und...

tonfa 3mo ago

> Germany's output is almost irrelevant in this context: it amounts to a mere 1.4% of the global output. Conveniently Germany is about 1% of the world population. You realize that if most countries use the same argument nothing ever change? (It's only 1% how can it make a difference)

tialaramex 3mo ago

> Even Spain now runs some coal despite having near-100% renewable grid for a year. In fact Spain has less coal now than it did in 2025, or 2024, or 2023 and so on. And no their grid isn't "near 100% renewable", they do have a lot more than most European countries but they have large gas imports too to run some of their conventional thermal power plants - what they're getting rid of, sensibly, is coal. There's a 4x seasonal swing between summer and winter for Spain's solar power, and obviously the maximal swing (clear summer's day versus overcast mid-winter) is much larger, but they're nowhere close to being rid of fossil fuels even in July, much less January. This whole "blackout was caused by renewables" stuff was crap when it was first spouted and didn't get any more plausible once we had more information.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
ricardobayes 3mo ago
No, I agree renewables didn't cause the blackout themselves. Spain due to not having hydro power had to use renewables that were inverter-based and didn't have rotating mass to dampen any oscillations. The Entso-E report said there was a direct consequence between not having this inertia and the resulting blackout. There is absolutely nothing wrong with renewables themselves, although it also has to be said if they never used renewables or not to this extent, this event simply wouldn't have occurred.
- tialaramex 3mo ago
  > The Entso-E report said there was a direct consequence between not having this inertia and the resulting blackout That isn't what it said > if they never used renewables or not to this extent, this event simply wouldn't have occurred This is an entirely speculative counter-factual and so is even more useless than it appears.
  - ricardobayes 2mo ago
    Yes, I see that now. That excerpt I took paraphrasing a google summary which apparently used a youtube video as its source. But I see it now it's not true, thanks. However I do stand by the part where I said if renewables were never used this likely wouldn't have happened - even though, as you say, it is a useless argument.