• SheeEttin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s basically what Germany did. They recently shut down their nuclear plants and restarted their coal plants.

      • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Germany still has a very long way to go to be carbon neutral.

        Almost 79% of its primary energy consumption is fossil fuel. 17% is renewable.

        For comparison in France 46% of the primary energy consumption is fossil fuel, 14% renewable and 40% nuclear.

        • Arcturus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Look at the industry’s growth in France though. Renewables has been growing at the expense of nuclear. This is happening in Germany as well.

      • Zippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Germany is now using coal as base load. The main reason coal has not increased considerably is because all this new generation and loss of nuclear baseload along with limited ng generation has resulted in average energy prices doubling from 2017 to 2021 prices. Simply put the cost of energy is now so high that people and industry is using less. Done large industries shut down with loss of jobs. Solar and wind had been very expensive even with government subsidies. Subsidies that take money out of government coffers resulting in less services. This ignoring the increase in energy importation of which some may be from coal generation.

        Shutting down nuclear simply denied millions of people a clean energy source unless they were willing to pay nearly double that of past years.

        https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/germany-goes-all-energy-transition-with-nuclear-shutdowns-2023-04-19/#:~:text=The steep climb in electricity,hydropower output due to drought.

        • DerGottesknecht@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You know that with merit order pricing the cost of electricity only depended on the cost of the most expensive producer? So nuclear plants have close to 0 Influence on the price.

    • notapantsday@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is just blatant misinformation. Name one single coal plant that has been restarted since nuclear power was phased out.

        • notapantsday@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They were extended specifically because of natural gas supply issues, caused by the war in Ukraine. Not because of nuclear shutdowns.

        • Grimpen@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understood it as coal was phased in as nuclear was phased out. The thing that astounds me still though is how recent the last 3 were shut down.

          • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think they were planning on natural gas, but that went down the tubes because they were planning on buying from Russia. Coal plants were restarted to fill the gap.

            What the plan is now, I don’t know.

            • Sodis@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              The end goal was always renewables with smart net, storage and hydrogen plants to offset spikes. Gas prices are dropping again, so it will be used as a bridging solution. Energy production in Germany is actually on track of its climate goals compared to transportation.

    • shapesandstuff@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The actual problem was stopping to fund solar, smashing a hundred thousand jobs in renewables under the pretense of “saving workers”. ~20k jobs in coal heroically saved.

      • Ooops@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        But they could easily do it (and get paid by fossil fuel lobbyists) because the discussion is completely twisted anyway. And most constructive discussion of the topic will be drowned in fairy tales about renewables not working, nuclear being our only savior and other bullshit.

        Basically this whole thread is a perfect example. We discuss electricity production because that’s the direction the nuclear social media cult is pushing every discussion into…

        The actual report linked in this thread is for a German report of construction and traffic sectors not meeting their emission reduction goals… and I’m pretty sure neither coal nor nuclear is used to power cars nowadays. And the electrification bottle neck for transport is the production pace of electric cars, their still too high prize, limits on loading infra-structure etc., not actually energy per se.