Could you just, you know, not?
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
33 points (71.4% liked)
World News
32328 readers
115 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, we could instead reduce coal to a historic low while building renewables...
Oh, wait. That is what is actually happening. But people keeping lying and pretend that there is an increase in coal instead because that's what propagandists pay for.
Incredible stupid that they shutdown nuclear reactors, instead of these coal plants.
If you care to google for even one minute you will see that Germany has reduced coal to a historic minimum even while reducing nuclear power.
But that doesn't make as good of a headline to rave over.
And if the conservative former government of 16 years hadn't slowed actual green energy infrastructure as much as they did Germanys energy bill could look way better even.
Nuclear and green energy go hand-in-hand. For a stable and most CO2 efficient power network, nuclear provides the stable base energy, and green provide the changing load on top of it. If grid is only made of green energy, you will always have to have reserve of coal/oil/gas which is started when green production is not enough. You cannot resolve this by increasing the green capacity, because all of them have same dependencies.
Coal is the stupidest one, but gas/oil are not really that much better.
You won't convince me by just making statements as if they were facts.
You cannot resolve this by increasing the green capacity, because all of them have same dependencies.
If this were true you might be correct but it simply is not.
If you increase cheap green capacities enough and build a strong large area grid with some form of energy storage there could easily be enough enough energy in the system to last over any natural fluctuation.
And the nice thing is that if we at some point enter a state where the sum of green energy produced becomes vastly higher than the energy need it becomes less important that different forms of energy storage like water turbines are not very efficient and the storage can be ramped up to make the whole ecosystem even more stable.
This is all perfectly possible and quite possibly cheaper than building new nuclear reactors.
So even if you think nuclear energy is safe and the management of the waste products is not a problem (which are two things I would disagree with, but let's not get into that for now) I still don't see why any country should invest in nuclear energy over green energy.
Robust large scale energy grids and some form of energy storage are things that society wants (and probably needs) anyway, so even just from a strictly economic view green is just the way to go.
World isn't so black and white. Like I said they go hand-in-hand, both should be invested in. And all money should be taken away from fossil.
I live in a country that will this year over produce green energy, which is awesome, because cheap green energy will enable many great things. But the challenge is that our energy price goes between 0 and a lot, because there just isn't any tech to store it. Also green doesn't produce heat, which in here Nordics causes that we need to create it somehow. Nuclear and CHP produce it as side effect.
They literally shut down nuclear to then power up coal...
What in the actual fu.......
No, they didn't. But as this lie needs to be parroted at least twice a week you are at least in good company and having friends that tell the same lie is always more important than the truth.
Explain?
Germany increased renewables while decreasing nuclear and coal. When they shut down the last reactors that had to this point contributed less than 1,6% of the produced electricity coal instantly decreased more. Because those reactors contributing basically nothing still got renewables shut off at times. Germany's coal use is at an historic low.
And at the same time everyone tells the fairy tale about the insane Germans trying to kill the planet by using more coal. That's bullshit but it's very well paid bullshit. Because the nuclear lobbyists pay to promote the story of how there is no alternative to nuclear power and fossil fuel lobbyists promote the story of how reducing coal isn't working and you should stop trying.
PS: Also every country is restarting reactors in autumn as a reserve (and barely running) should they be needed in winter at some point. France for example did restart coal power plants last year at the same time as they weren't sure they can get everything nuclear in order until winter (after they burned massive amounts of gas and forced neighbours to do the same to keep their grid stable... in the middle of a gas crisis). But that isn't reported, because it's not the desired narrrative.
For Reference:
Germany power production 1990-2020
That's the reality.
But hey... Germany is increasing coal use! They are insane! Cheer for me for parroting our most popular lie about the evil Germans!
And some fun facts for good measure:
Germany's nuclear power production at its peak was never above 30% and given the increase in electricity demand in those 30 years even if they kept all those reactors forever it would still be irrelvant low today. But it's good for propaganda to pretend otherwise
Germany while actively exiting nuclear power reduced nuclear power generation by less than France in the same time frame, just because they couldn't keep all old their old reactors alive.
France today has not nearly enough nuclear power just to cover the minimal required base load of projected demand by 2050. (They also will need 14 completely new big reactors -not the 6 with optionally another 8, but the full set- to get there.) That's the actual amount necessary to invest in nuclear.
Which also means basically any single country claiming to go for a nuclear solution is bullshitting you. Because they all don't plan to build even remotely enough to ever cover base load. Why aren't they? Because nobody has a clue how to foot that bill.
Also every nuclear model is actually a nuclear base load plus renewable model. Yet for some reason the exact same countries talking loudly about nuclear also lack the necessary renewables. Totally not caused by propaganda of course...
And at the end the not-so-fun fact: There is actually one thing you can criticise. The priority of reducing hard coal before lignite. But that's caused by geopolitical factors (it's domestic) and the fact that we inherited East Germany where lignite is sadly a big economic factor in some regions. One of the few relevant economy factors remaining in Eastern Germany. Just like cutting off Russian pipeline oil wasn't a problem of oil per se but of Eastern German industries who build their existence on those deliveries even before the reunion.
Any level of coal use at this point should be criticized. Many other grids have found ways to eliminate. We can argue about whether or not it was caused by nuclear policy but those are the facts and I will continue to do so until they start taking this seriously.
No, not "until" they take this seriously. There was a new government taking office in 2021 and it happened two years ago.
And guess what also happened exactly two years ago with a government not delaying and sabotaging the energy transition anymore... Yeah, the narratives started of how Germany is complete failing and actually increasing coal use (although numbers show the opposite) because that insane new government is trying a green transition that will never work. And how renewables are actually increasing energy prizes because they got rid of cheap coal and nuclear... the latter out out their insane ideology and totally not because it was planned for a decade and was a done deal when they came into office... yadda, yadda...
And now take a step back and look at what narratives are actually pushed constantly... and you might understand what is happening and why it's rediculous. People who claim to want green energy are in reality used to parrot the proven lies spread by coal lobbyists that only want people to give up on changes and nuclear lobbyists that will never actually have a part in decarbonisation in the next decade unless a country started building nuclear decades ago.
I assume you are okay with me making a note on congratulating you personally in about 2 more years for being part of a 4 year propaganda campaign that brought the retarded morons back into office to stop that failing energy transtion project and stay with coal for another 20 years at least. Yes, the exact same guys who actually spend the last decades shutting down nuclear, while -also purely accidently of course- this gets blamed on a daily basis on brain-damaged green ideology by people who actually came into office less than 2 weeks before the final shutdown started. The same guys that spread the fairy tales about Germany increasing coal mining when those mining projects were also contracted more than 10 years ago and the new government actually renegotiated the whole deal to stop now and not demolish another dozen villages in the next decade... I wonder why again this wasn't the actual news earlier this year and everyone worked so hard here to parrot the tale of how Germany demolished the village of Lützerath to increase their coal use. Just like I wonder if anyone of those people can name the villages before or all the ones not destroyed now. Isn't propaganda impressive...
I have personally been saying exactly this for many years ago so it’s not something that magically appeared two years ago. If the new government was really serious about changing course they could have stopped the most recent shutdowns earlier this year. But like every other ruling party in Germany (and to be fair, in the rest of the world too), they are not taking the climate emergency as seriously as is needed.
None of this should be taken as excusing or supporting the far more dangerous policies of the conservative parties. But their existence does not make anyone immune to criticism.
Due to Russia's war, Germany's oil and gas supply is compromised. They're spinning these coal plants up so people don't freeze to death this winter.
OTOH, shutting down their nuclear plants is pants-on-head retarded. Nuclear energy is green energy. The best in my opinion.
I’m familiar with the issue but OP seemed to be saying that it was a lie that the nuclear plants had been shut down. Since they haven’t replied I’m assuming they’re full of shit but I wanted to give them the chance to explain just in case I’m missing something.
I think Germany deserves harsh criticism for their consistent failure to develop fossil fuel alternatives. This has been brought up as an issue for many years prior to the conflict yet those warnings were all ignored. I don’t have much sympathy at this point but I do have anger for any country that is increasing its coal use at this point. Burning coal should be seen as a crime against humanity. Many people will suffer and die as a result of this decision. Far more in my opinion than the fuel shortage would. Germany would rather the world burn than their citizens be a little chilly.
Because it is. You are brainwashed by the nuclear lobby trying to tell the fairy tale of how every plan without nuclear will fail and the fossil fuel lobby telling the tale of how it's hopeless and reducing coal isn't working. And both just tell you the same lie about some magical increase in coal use in Germany that doesn't exist.
The idea above is basically the epitome of cluelessness and just parroting narratives. Nobody is freezing in winter because there isn't enough electricity. Because the amount of heating via electricty is low and nobody is heating with coal either. That what gas is mainly used for and why people are talking about gas storage... and no, that doesn't have much to do with electricity either as gas use in electricity production is also low and only used as a peak burner to adapt to quick changes in demand.
It's one big ball of lies while conflating primary energy, heating and electricity to disguise that the underlying facts are already false.
See the linked actual stats above.
Germany power production 1990-2020
So every one using the same public data is wrong but the BBC... Got it.
What I see here is that Germany is still burning fossile fuels to produce more than half its energy. And even more so during winter. Good job Germany. Do you want a medal?
How long has Germany been building renewables? For what result? It is pitiful a'd German ecologist should be ashamed of themselves.
Germany too the wrong fight. Nuclear is not the threat, fossile fuels are. But keep convincing yourself you did nothing wrong while the world is burning. Hopefully in 50 years you'll stop burning fossile fuels.
if the reason to not build nuclear is political or economic, then I'm going to build nuclear
A lot of misleading words to try to escape the fact that coal and nuclear largely fill the same role in electrical grids. Every megawatt of nuclear power you turn off is a megawatt of coal you cannot without risking grid stability. That is the fundamental math here until you’ve eliminated coal from your power grid. Germany has failed to do so as a direct result of their policies around nuclear power, while numerous other electrical grids have successfully phased out or nearly phased out coal.
You mean other countries like the UK burning gas in a gas crisis and now opening new gas and oil drilling? Or countries like France who restarted their coal power plants about a year ago as a reserve should they not manage to bring all reactors back online in time. Or Ireland running on gas, coal and even oil? Or Poland (mostly coal)? Or Czechia with coal and nuclear but zero renewables because that doesn't fit with the nuclear agenda? Or Slovakia (nuclear and imported coal power from Poland)?
Are these the numerous countries you are talking about? Countries btw that don't actually have a grid... it's all one grid. Guess who they all fall back to in emergencies? Yes, not France who can only export a steady amount of excess energy in warm months but the other big electricity exporter in Europe.
The only countries with an actual working plan are the lucky ones with massive hydro potential. All the others are failing. Those with a reneable plan because they are drowned in propaganda and those with a nuclear plan because they lie to themselves and don't build even close to enough nuclear power to ever base their electricity production on it. But that's okay. In 20, 30 or 50 years they can still all get their deficit covered by imports because nobody actually has a choice with a connected European grid or everything breaks. With some good lobbying they might even force Germany to still burn fossil fuels for them while pointing fingers.
The third quarter used a record low of coal for electricity production in Germany.
If you jump through enough hoops you can try to say "aksually the nuclear shutdowns were decided for this or that other reason and the acceleration of shutdowns was from this other thing", missing the forest for the trees that more nuclear power would mean less coal.
russian gas was too good to pass up, I guess.
Fucking great. From the summary let's hope they only use it if they actually run out of NG.
A coal plant takes weeks to start up, so I assume those reactivated plants from the emergency reserve will have to run the whole winter duration at least at low power. So in case of a very cold winter and gas shortage, the emergency plants can be turned up.
They are already in use and currently producing 2x the amount of energy as our gas plants. This is about starting up additional ones for winter.
Article is behind a registration wall.
But, it actually loads. If your browser has something like a reader mode, turn that on. I wanted to put the article into the comment, but I am not sure about issues with copyright.
True, that works.
As is tradition.