Meanwhile in Germany:
You are aware that this is over 5 years old data (2017!) for the German electricity mix, right?
Please don’t get me wrong, the scale up of renewable energy sources is certainly not going fast enough in Germany (thanks to our conservative government that ruled the country for 16 years until 2021!), but please argue this position using the real data for 2023 (57.7% renewables in the German electricity mix)!
our conservative government that ruled the country for 16 years
and the next 16 years, if everything works well Ü
!please kill me!<
The past 16 years have been conservative. The next 16 are for the far-right populists. There’s a difference.
You keep repeating this point but renewable energy HAS to be exported when production is over the grid absorption rate. And coal plants have to be on continuously to guarantee baseload due to you moronic energy policies. You can’t bring up a (cherripicked for a single extraordinary year) graph you don’t understand and think it’s a gotcha. Not even mentioning the fact that France exports its energy too.
This year is an anomaly because nuclear production was low because some power plants had to shut down for maintenance. Germany typically imports power from France.
Good for providing up to date data.
But damn, Germany could have been 65% fossil free if they hadn’t closed the nuclear plants prematurely.
Such a waste of carbon budget.
Anyway, you’re probably going to have a conservative government again after this one. Hope you don’t become the big laggards.
Noooooooo… The decision to get out of nuclear was made over ten years ago. It is done. The last three nuclear plants that shut down this and last year were not serviced, not licensed, had no fuel and no newly trained operators. Stop reviving this debate. What is the real crime here is that the conservative government did next to nothing to push renewables as an alternative. They were bought/lulled by cheap russian gas. Even now, conservative governments in the south and the east of the country refuse to build up renewable energy production for purely ideological reasons. Even if those decisions hurt their own economy.
The decision to get out of nuclear was made over ten years ago.
Nope, at least over 20, in 2000. Quick overview:
- Starting approximately with the 68 movement anti-nuclear sentiment began to become common, also tied up with opposition to stationing of nuclear warheads, the general peace movement, etc. Every single new nuclear plant was protested heavily, as such
- By the 90s, it was clear that no new plants would be built: It was political suicide.
- That then was made law in 2000, alongside with giving all existing reactors expiry dates, based on age and security record
- Then a Merkel came along and gave extensions to the remaining reactors. She didn’t touch the ban on new construction.
- Then Fukushima happened and she took back that extension.
- Then Ukraine happened and the three last remaining reactors got a 4 1/2 month extension to help tiding over the whole no gas from Russia situation: Originally (as planned in 2000) they should have shut down on the 31st of December last year, they actually shut down 15th of April this year. Some politicians wanted more but the operators themselves were opposed as they were already winding down the plants, would have to do another round of maintenance and inspections, procure more fuel etc. It was an “either at least five more years or forget it” type of attitude.
Sorry I still don’t get it: why not reviving this debate? It’s never too late to kick-off construction of new nuclear plants.
If the approval process continues as it currently does and solar installations do not slow down massivly, by the end of the term the approved renewbales projects should bring Gemany above 80% renewables. Practically speaking that would be the coal exit done. Maybe not fully, but they would not matter much.
As for the rest, the current plan for hydrogen power plants is currently being negotiated with the EU. The good news it looks like a deal has been reached and if the plans shown by the current government are implemented, that would basicly mean a full coal exit and the starategic storage question being answered.
Basicly the current German government has passed laws for an estimated 64% redcution of emissions by 2030 compared to 1990. The current target is 65%. So with a bit of luck it will work out.
Yes, I see the advantage of CO2 neutrality, but:
The amount of active Nuclear repository sites for spent nuclear fuel and high level waste is… underwhelming.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
60 years time to find a suitable hole to drop the waste into and very limited success so far. Nobody wants it in the own backyard (even if it would be suited.).
The other end of the chain (mining and enrichment) doesn’t look like an environmental success story either, or does it? Poisoned groundwater looks like an issue to me… also if it happens in Canada or Kazakhstan.
The dots in between… One meltdown around every 20 years (worldwide) ? - the area here is just too densely populated to risk one here. They started to dismantle the first plant in Germany in 89 - still not done.
Edit: in my eyes the cons (I just named a few of them) outweigh the advantages. I mean the co2- neutrality is a big plus, but is it enough to justify the risks and damages? Aren’t there better alternatives? Am I wrong? Please bring facts.
Edit again: thinking further, for me the question to answer is not, either add more CO2 to the atmosphere or have (more) nuclear fission plants. It is the question, how to remove fossils from the energy mix without having to use nuclear fission. With the one extreme to only use what you have and its many backdraws.
Not true. One big problem in Germany is that the grid can’t handle all the electricity generated by renewables so they often shut them down. Something you can’t do with nuclear l. Since nuclear got of the grid it got more capacity for renewables hence the share jumped this year.
You can shut down or scale back energy/electricity produced from nuclear power plants as well by controlling the reaction rate. What would have been ideal was if nuclear had remained and the renewables took the production capacity share from fossil fuels
That’s not how that works, mate. Nuclear is the highest priority of energy generation because it’s ultra cheap to produce and completely stable (once you have the reactors built, that is). If Germany still had those power plants, they could’ve dumped fossil and kept renewables, all while investing in energy storage.
This is for sure fantastic, don’t get me wrong, but Europe has also exported some of its most polluting industries abroad. And then we also wag our finger at places like China and India.
China and India are great with solar: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capacity
You know France is the largest exporter of electricity right?
It’s not because you’ve picked one period to prove your point that it’s the truth over a longer period. And France has been a net exporter to Germany for much longer than the opposite.
We have a deep-seated problem with corruption. Most politicians are just cockpuppets of the economy, and fossil fuel corporations have plenty of politicians stuck on their cocks. We were the forerunners of green energy, now we’re just cum-soaked whores.
And last year was an anomaly as well? Next year, the French nuclear plants will be repaired and their rivers will carry sufficient amounts of water again?
I mean, isn’t that the core of the intermitancy argument for fossil fuels? Consumers wouldn’t be willing to accept a 100% renewable grid which only met demand 95% of the time.
if it didn’t have to export electricity to “97% fossel-free” France.
I mean, it doesn’t HAVE to, does it? Presumably it’s a voluntary trade?
Edit: Lol. Just like Reddit, get downvoted for asking a neutral question.
Gritinks from Poland!
Consumption by source
Weird way to put it… also wtf is hydro storage generating?
Electricity? Like, you use excess power to lift water and generate power from letting it descend when you need power. The latter is generated. Or am I not getting something?
I know. It never generates more than it consumes so it has negative production overall. Or is this a real-time chart despite saying “past 12 months”?
I’ve been to a hydro storage plant and I know how it works. It stores power by pumping water into an upper reservoir when there is excess power and then letting it through turbines at peak demand. Overall, it achieves about 80% efficient energy storage whose capacity scales very cheaply as opposed to battery storage, and can respond to demand in a minute.
However, it never generates power in the usual sense so it should show up negative on an overall chart. Is this a real time one? I don’t think so because it says “past 12 months”.
Schleswig-Holstein is at 100% wind since 2014. It’s Southern Germany that lags behind. https://spd-geschichtswerkstatt.de/wiki/Energiewende
Mein niederbayrisches Dach hat gestern Solarzellen bekommen. Sind zwar noch nicht angeschlossen, aber immerhin…
So macht ma des, Maggus!
Like most of the time, the answer is complex: Yes, there is less wind in the south, but also yes, the south could approve more wind turbines. Yes, the south slows down the construction of high voltage power lines from the wind-rich north to the energy-hungry south, but the states that have to be crossed also do “their part”.
In the end a couple different electricity-pricing regions would help in balancing all of this.
So you say they would also be at 100% wind energy if they only had more wind? And it has nothing to do with the miniscule amount of wind turbines?
