Yeah well, that’s the conservative government for you. We could’ve just as easily transitioned from nuclear to renewables, which don’t have the nuclear waste problem that is still unsolved. And Germany was for a brief time leading renewable energy innovation. But when the conservative government was faced with the cost of providing the infrastructure for this up-and-coming industry branch of the future, they instead cut all funding. This directly lead to the downfall of the German renewable sector (“Altmaier-Delle”). So while you are correct, when taking into account the entire time span from 2002, that Germany increased its reliance on coal and natural gas especially, it is incorrect to say that not sticking with nuclear was the sole reason for this. Betting on renewables was absolutely feasible even back then, as the current boom of renewables aptly demonstrates. But the conservatives do what conservatives do best: Stifle the future by fearing the up-front investment cost and sticking to the old and familiar instead of betting on the new and future-proof, even when the old way of doing this has already been shown to be unsustainable.
Regardless how you see it, keeping nuclear plants running would have considerably reduced the need for coal and gas, which should be the damn absolute priority.
One actually infuriating thing is, the EU set targets and penalties over installed renewable capacity, not over emissions.
So while Germany is generating considerably more emissions that most of western Europe, they were the “good citizen”, but France had to pay penalties for not having installed enough renewables.
1.No. Most of the time they just reduce their power level, without shutting down completely. This is not a technical limitation of the plant. It’s to avoid heating too much the water locally, that would impact wildlife. But granted it will only get worse over time.
2.All water boiling based PP will have issues under extreme heat. Their efficiency depends on a difference of temperature with the outside. That’s valid for nuclear, gas and coal plants.
3.I’m not saying nuclear is the best ever solution. What I’m saying is given the urgency of climate change, shutting down nuke while installing more coal was absolutely criminal. If you wanted to get rid of nuclear, you should still have started by replacing coal and gas with renewable sources before replacing nuclear with renewable.
4.I’m pissed by that decision, but Germany is not even a bad actor compared to other countries.
Yeah well, that’s the conservative government for you. We could’ve just as easily transitioned from nuclear to renewables, which don’t have the nuclear waste problem that is still unsolved. And Germany was for a brief time leading renewable energy innovation. But when the conservative government was faced with the cost of providing the infrastructure for this up-and-coming industry branch of the future, they instead cut all funding. This directly lead to the downfall of the German renewable sector (“Altmaier-Delle”). So while you are correct, when taking into account the entire time span from 2002, that Germany increased its reliance on coal and natural gas especially, it is incorrect to say that not sticking with nuclear was the sole reason for this. Betting on renewables was absolutely feasible even back then, as the current boom of renewables aptly demonstrates. But the conservatives do what conservatives do best: Stifle the future by fearing the up-front investment cost and sticking to the old and familiar instead of betting on the new and future-proof, even when the old way of doing this has already been shown to be unsustainable.
Regardless how you see it, keeping nuclear plants running would have considerably reduced the need for coal and gas, which should be the damn absolute priority.
One actually infuriating thing is, the EU set targets and penalties over installed renewable capacity, not over emissions. So while Germany is generating considerably more emissions that most of western Europe, they were the “good citizen”, but France had to pay penalties for not having installed enough renewables.
You can see how much sense it makes at any time:
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/live/fifteen_minutes
That’s what I call a cynical policy written by people who want to score points but don’t give a flying fuck about climate.
France has to shut down NPPs every summer because the rivers used for cooling overheat.
1.No. Most of the time they just reduce their power level, without shutting down completely. This is not a technical limitation of the plant. It’s to avoid heating too much the water locally, that would impact wildlife. But granted it will only get worse over time.
2.All water boiling based PP will have issues under extreme heat. Their efficiency depends on a difference of temperature with the outside. That’s valid for nuclear, gas and coal plants.
3.I’m not saying nuclear is the best ever solution. What I’m saying is given the urgency of climate change, shutting down nuke while installing more coal was absolutely criminal. If you wanted to get rid of nuclear, you should still have started by replacing coal and gas with renewable sources before replacing nuclear with renewable.
4.I’m pissed by that decision, but Germany is not even a bad actor compared to other countries.