BERLIN, Sept 18 (Reuters) - Germany is likely to generate more than 50% of its power from renewable energy this year but needs to ramp up the speed of its transition towards the end of the decade, Economy Minister Robert Habeck said on Monday.
BERLIN, Sept 18 (Reuters) - Germany is likely to generate more than 50% of its power from renewable energy this year but needs to ramp up the speed of its transition towards the end of the decade, Economy Minister Robert Habeck said on Monday.
Germany of course is the country that recently shut down a bunch of nuclear plants + temporarily (we hope) replaced them with coal.
Ah yes. The coal replacement which gave us the lowest coal levels ever. https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&chartColumnSorting=default&year=-1&month=-1&stacking=stacked_absolute×lider%3D1&legendItems=000001010000000000000×lider=1
Nuclear output 12.2021: 5599.8 GWh
Brown coal output 8.2023: 5422.0 GWh
Black coal output 8.2023: 2049.2 GWh
So if you, y’know, hadn’t shut down those nuclear plants, you’d be burning 1/4 as much coal as you actually are.
Brown coal output 12.2021: 10100 GWh Black coal output 12.2021: 5391 GWh
Of course comparing August 2021 - August 2023 there’s less of a difference, but still a noticeable drop.
Sure, but nevertheless they’re burning a lot more coal than they would be if they hadn’t pointlessly shut down their nuclear plants.
“We were able to grow enough soybeans to replace half of the whale meat we were eating, but we can’t replace the other half yet because even though we have plenty of lentils, we hate lentils and don’t want to eat them anymore”
So you’d rather they instead got another round of fuel rods from the russians? Because afaik swapping out those fuel rods for american designs would not have worked without redesigns of the reactors (not feasible in the time available). Besides, the plants were scheduled to shut down for a while now, some of their safety certifications running out shortly after shutdown due to those plans. Renewing those certifications in time would have been a mammoth task better spent on more renewables.
There can be a discussion about the order of planned shutdowns here (coal before nuclear) but to argue the plants lifetime should have been emergency extended is pretty delusional. Such a thing was simply not possible given the constraints present.
The amount of astroturfing for the nuclear energy lobby is insane. Always the exact same talking points. Every. Single. Time. Anytime a post is made about a country switching to wind or solar energy, these nuclear bros bombard the thread saying the exact same shit. Must be a coincidence…
I don’t work for anybody, and I don’t know what list of talking points you think I’m repeating other than the specific assertion that Germany shouldn’t have shut down its nuclear plants.
I could just as well accuse you of astroturfing for the coal power lobby.
But since you’re accusing me of being a shill anyway: yes, nuclear power is clean and safe and our refusal to embrace it has cost us decades of progress in reducing carbon emissions + is continuing to do so now. The anti-nuclear lobby has a tremendous amount of blood on its hands and I’m not the least bit ashamed to be on the opposing side to them.
The nuclear plants that Germany shutdown were at end of life, with fuel rods only available from sanctioned Russia. They could not be retrofitted with other fuel rods, because nuclear technology isn’t flexible like that. These plants also had safety certs expiring, and certifying them with a new fuel rod “hack” would have been impossible.
In what way was it unreasonable for Germany to shut down EOL power plants that had no fuel source available?
Astroturfing isn’t just paid shills. It’s also useful fools parroting the same talking points, which makes it appear to be a grassroots-led initiative. It’s muddying the water, like framing the argument as renewables vs nukes instead of renewables vs oil/gas/coal as this article is talking about. Increasing solar and wind power is a good thing. Period. But every time there’s a discussion about how a country is investing in wind and solar, you nuclear bros make it about nukes vs renewables. Fossil fuels have to go. I do not endorse or support the use of fossil fuels of any kind. But nuclear energy is not a real solution, and all you are doing is derailing the conversation, which was about increasing renewable energy, which again, IS OBJECTIVELY A GOOD THING. Building NPPs take way too long and are way too expensive to save us from catastrophic climate collapse. Climate collapse is already happening. Crying about NPPs being decommissioned 30 years ago literally helps no one. It is spilled milk. It is nothing but a distraction that will prevent or delay the transition away from fossil fuels TODAY.
The truth never changes, sorry that you are so upset the sky is still blue despite your misguided beliefs.
I fully agree with you, and youre right.
… But belgium with its reactor in doel which should have shutdown before 2010, and constantly has issues, would like to chat :p
(This is why it should have been replaced with a new plant long ago, but i degress)
That’s not how reality works. The remaining reactors produced less than 5%. But the money needed to keep them running for a few more years -especially as the shut down was planned for years, checkups and revisions were skipped, no more fuel was ordered- would have come from the same budget that is now paying for grid upgrades and renewable build-up. So keeping them running would have had a minimal impact of a bit less co2 now but a massive damage to the transition to clean energy for the next 10+ years. But that’s of course a fact we don’t want to talk about in media as that doesn’t fit the narrative of stupid Greens having killed nuclear for ideological reasons.
For reference: The shutdown of all but 3 reactors was decided a decade ago, planned for years and came into effect 2 weeks before that new government came into office… the ones they were left with produced -up to their shutdown- ~1,5% of all electricity in 2023. But sure… keeping them alive for the sake of having nuclear reactors (they basically did not have any value other than as a talking point) would have totally made sense… in some alternative reality.
I always wonder where this “fact” comes from.
Because when you close down Nuclear plants and open up Coal plants the end result is that you now have fewer Nuclear plants and more Coal plants, thus a replacement has occurred.
But that’s not what happened, just look at the statistics. Why do you spread false information, what’s your source?
deleted by creator