Archived link

Laying out key priorities for the EU’s upcoming Clean Industrial Deal, German Economy State Secretary Sven Giegold said on Monday (30 September) he wants the Commission to prioritise renewable energy, taking a tough line on nuclear power and France’s renewable targets.

Alongside a quicker roll-out of renewable energy facilitated by “further exemptions from [environmental impact] assessments,” Giegold outlined several other German priorities for the EU’s upcoming strategy.

Based on the 2030 renewable energy targets, the EU should also set up a 2040 framework, complemented by new, more ambitious targets for energy efficiency, he said.

“It should include new heating standards, a heat pump action plan and a renovation initiative,” he explained, noting a heat pump action plan was last shelved in 2023.

Hydrogen, made from renewables, should be governed by a “a pragmatic framework,” the German politician stressed, reiterating calls from his boss, Economy Minister Robert Habeck (Greens), to delay strict production rules into the late 2030s.

65 points

This comment is a preventative measure:
No, Germany didn’t replace nuclear with coal. They replaced it with renewables.
Coal power production is now much lower than before they shut off their nuclear power plants, and shutting off nuclear was an important incentive to build more renewables.

permalink
report
reply
35 points

Here are some charts on Germany’s energy mix and long-term development (April 2024), it supports @superkret@feddit.org’s statement:

Germany’s energy consumption and power mix in charts

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

No, Germany didn’t replace nuclear with coal. They replaced it with renewables.

That’s… One way of looking at it. Another way to look at it is: “the closing of nuclear power plants has allowed gas and oil plants to stay in operation”.

Coal power production is now much lower than before they shut off their nuclear power plants

But it could have been even lower.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

Actually, the plan was to phase out coal and nuclear while building up wind and solar and using gas as a bridge. That was 2004. Then a coalition of conservatives and social democrats took over from the coalition of social democrats and greens in 2005 and coal was back on the menu and the exit from.nuclear was postponed, over time devastating the renewable industries almost completely. 2011 with Fukushima happened, nuclear was to be exited sooner again, but nobody cared about renewables anymore under a coalition of conservatives and libertarians. Meanwhile, Merkel said something about “Wandel durch Handel” (change by trade) and made the german power supply dependent on Russia and Putin by buying too much gas there, which backfired completely in 2022 (because nobody in Europe cared in 2014) and the now again green minister of economics had to deal with it, but the nuclear exit was done by now, without having build up renewables in the meantime as planned almost 20 years before.

So no, shutting down nuclear was not the reason gas plants kept working as long as they did, conservatives (and socdems and libertarians as their junior partners) shutting down renewables are the reason.

Coal power production is now much lower than before they shut off their nuclear power plants

But it could have been even lower.

Yes, but not because of exiting nuclear.

Edit: also, gas power plants and nuclear power plants have different tasks.

Second edit: nuclear isn’t exactly clean either.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

No, because specific power levels need to be available at specific moments. The flat production curve of nuclear does not pair well with varying production from solar/wind. Gas sucks for climate-change reasons but at least you can regulate it up/down in a matter of half hours to react to variability of your other production. While we still had nuclear, wind parks needed to shut down more often.

In the longer run, batteries will shift solar peaks over the day and H2 will likely be used to replace methane.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

You make it sound like the completely predictable power output of nuclear is a problem and unpredictable variation in output of the wind/solar is great.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

There are ways to modulate production even with “flat” production. A clever way is to use water as energy accumulator: you pump water into a dam during the night, that you later let flow through turbines during the day.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

No it couldn’t because nuclear power plants are much too inflexible in their power output to fit into a grid designed for renewables. Wind power often had to be shut down when its output was too high for the grid cause you couldn’t shut down the nuclear power plants.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

This is a myth, most of the nuclear reactors can be throttled down, it is not instant but they can go as low as 20% in around 30 min.

The thing is it is much easier to stop a wind turbine than to throttle a nuclear reactor, and unlike fossil fuel power turbines most of the cost of the nuclear reactor is fixed cost, whether the reactor is running or not it still costs the same.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Don’t even bother. The crowd “informed” by big nuclear doesn’t care about facts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

Additional interesting stats, especially regarding statement on the safety of nuclear energy and waste:

IAEA-database of nuclear and radiological incidents

Note that although the list which is linked above gives an impression of the spread, diversity and frequency of incidents and accidents with nuclear power plants radioactive transports, it is not a complete list of all nuclear incidents and accidents; different national regulators have different regimes as to which incidents to report to the IAEA and which not.

One article on nuclear energy in the UK from May 2024 says:

A vast subsea nuclear graveyard planned to hold Britain’s burgeoning piles of radioactive waste is set to become the biggest, longest-lasting and most expensive infrastructure project ever undertaken in the UK. The project [UK’s nuclear waste dump] is now predicted to take more than 150yrs to complete with lifetime costs of £66bn in today’s money…The waste itself includes 110,000 tonnes of uranium, 6,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuels & about 120 tonnes of plutonium. – Source

[Edit typo.]

permalink
report
reply
6 points

A related article with interesting stats on the world’s nuclear power plants: the U.S. and France have the largest fleet, but China Is rapidly building new nuclear power plants as the rest of the world stalls

“There are probably not more than seven countries that have the capability to design, manufacture and operate nuclear power plants,” Cui Jianchun, the Chinese foreign ministry’s envoy in nearby Hong Kong, said during an official visit to the plant. “We used to be a follower, but now China is a leader.”

permalink
report
reply
10 points
*

And yet, China is still building out solar, wind, and coal faster.

That’s despite nuclear having a lot of advantages in China:

  • high level of centralization (even SMRs produce 0.5TW)
  • high level of governmental involvement in economy (which means huge investments can be a lot easier)
  • low level of governmental transparency (which means you don’t have to deal with NGOs or Nimbys)
  • rapidly increasing demand for electricity (which creates an incentive to build as much supply as possible)
  • first-class universities (for independent R&D)
  • large land mass (which is useful both for mining and disposal)
  • lax environmental policy (same)
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Seems more like a german french beef.

I’m all for renewables and let’s kick nuclear out when we have enough of them (and the tech tunuse them ofc.) to scrap oil, coal & gas.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

That german french beef sounds delicious.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points
*

And my personal wishlist would be to kick the German lobbyists out of the room. Solar is great, but wind is a dead end. Nuclear is clean enough and the waste hysteria is overblown, there isn’t all that much radioactive waste to manage.

It’s one of the few things the Chinese government actually got right.

permalink
report
reply
10 points
*

Wind energy covered 19% of EU electricity production. More than twice as much as solar. The total costs per energy produced are on the same level like coal and nuclear is more than twice as expensive.

It is the strongest renewable energy source. It seems like you know very little about energy production.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

I don’t doubt the energy production of wind, only the (non monetary) cost of area.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Wind power has a very low area impact. The existing impact mainly affects birds. Otherwise wind turbines can be built directly on fields where the area used is just a few square meters for the towers base.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Europe

!europe@feddit.org

Create post

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don’t overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don’t post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don’t troll nor incite hatred. Don’t look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia’s List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add “/s” when you’re being sarcastic (and don’t use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They’re cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don’t evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)

(This list may get expanded when necessary.)

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don’t show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.

Community stats

  • 3.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 729

    Posts

  • 5.2K

    Comments