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.
So 25 years ago Germany decided to “phase out Nuclear,” why didn’t they decide to “phase out coal” instead?
Also if you are doing 50% renewables and 50% lignite, you aren’t really helping since total consumption will be growing, thus consumption of coal will be growing more and more every year.
Because the actual plan was to build-up solar and wind, then phase out nuclear and coal.
But the conservatives intentionally sabotaged solar power and wind (see here and here) and also blocked grid imporvements and extensions to keep their beloved coal alive. After more than a decade we should long be past the point to not need coal anymore (Just look at the graphs and extrapolate the amount of solar and wind without their de facto destruction of the solar (2012) and wind (2016) industry via overregulation), it's still a big chunk of the produced energy.
Nuclear was simply phase out because the existing capacities were rediculous low (~5% of the production top), the shutdown was already decided and planned for years and keeping them few reactors alive would have costed rediculous amounts compared to their value. And completely restarting nuclear basically from scratch makes zero sense today, when you won't need it in 15 years anymore.
This is pure and simple the result of corrupt conservatives pushing coal and their propaganda (killing 100k jobs in solar production to protect 10k coal miners for example). And instead everyone now eats up their propaganda again and blames the current government, not only for the problems but also for a nuclear pahse out that was actually decided and prepared since a decade ago.
why didn’t they decide to “phase out coal” instead?
23 years ago, under Schröder they wanted to phase out both and massively subsidize renewables.
Later those plans were largely axed under Merkel.
The reason why coal has a strong standing in Germany is that it is one of the few natural resources the country has.
It has long been a staple in certain political circles to justify coal subsidies by pointing to the many jobs tied to coal mining.
Nevermind that they had no problem throwing jobs in the solar industry under the bus when they cut subsidies for that.
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.
… 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.
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.
It’s good and I hope more and more country ramp up they renewables production but without following Germany’s example.
I feel like Germany forgot that the goal is not to install renewables energies, the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions. Renewables energies are just a mean to this goal.
Rather than seeing that
renewables would have to account for 80% by 2030.
I would prefer to see something like
“CO2 emissions for electrical production should be down by 80% by 2030 compared to 19xx levels.”
I feel like Germany forgot that the goal is not to install renewables energies, the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions
And how do you come to this statement? Do you define what Germanys Goal is? Reducing CO2 Emissions certainly is the main target but it is surely not the only one. Renewable energies solve a lot more problems than just CO2 emissions.
Interesting idea. Have you already asked any single country going for nuclear power instead, that indeed are the ones not actually having a plan (they plan/build too few reactors to ever cover the minimum base load, some are even lacking the complementing renewables, too), why they don't want to reach zero co2 emissions ever.
Yeah, wait. That's not fitting the narrative so we will ignore the math (~35% minimum base load, rising demand of at least a factor of 2,5 until 2050... so if you don't build at the very least enough capacities to cover at least 80% of today's total demand you don't actually have any plan beyond burning fossil fuels or importing from other countries that actually had a working plan).
In this case I think the renewables target is better. CO2 reduction is the goal, but having it as a single target can lead to lock-ins. Especially when the target is only low CO2 and not zero.
E.g. you could reach an 80% goal, while still expanding the use of fossil gas to replace coal and lignite. But we need a system that goes to 100% renewables by 2035. And first ramping up gas to then switch to renewables after is what got Germany in this mess.
And first ramping up gas to then switch to renewables after is what got Germany in this mess.
It’s the other way around, first it was going after renewables and now due to the coal exit ahead, gas capacities will be ramped up by a targeted 25GW over the next years.
But here is the fun fact: Basically all countries going for nuclear instead (with the exception of France, and even they need to scrap the bullshit about 6 new reactors and admit that the full set of 6 plus the 8 optional ones is their required minimum) are doing exactly that: having no actual plan for zero co2 emissions but just building some for symbolic reductions. If they actually had any workable plan they would need to plan and build much more (often by a factor of 10 even) just to cover the minimum base load for their projected demand in 2050+.
And no, what Germany got into this mess is intentional sabotage by conservatives to keep coal alive. Please look at thesegraphs and extrapolate the amount of renewables we would have if first the solar, then the wind power industry wasn't destroyed intentionally via overregulation. Gas as a transition energy and switching the existing plans over to hydrogen used for storage is a perfectly well plan. Even with today's gas prize as they -unlike other countries- don't use gas for regular production anyway. It's only used for short-term peak production to adapt to fluctuations. The actual problem is the screwed up European energy market that makes you pay the gas price for all energy, no matter how few (or much) you actually use.
Contrary to popular narrrative a potential gas shortage was never a problem for Germany's electricity production. The problem was heating. And the bottle neck there is not electricity but the ability so get and install the amount of heat pumps needed alternatively (I have personally seen waiting times of nearly a year 5 years ago already...). We like do forget that Germany alone makes up nearly 20% of the EU in households.
Add comment