German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that Germany was reopening five power plants that burn lignite, a low-rank coal. Germany’s return to lignite demonstrates, yet again, the Iron Law of Electricity, which says that people, businesses, and governments will do whatever they have to do to get the electricity they need.
Indeed, Germany’s move back to lignite is chock-full of contradictions, including one that belongs in the “you can’t make this up” column.
The Iron Law of Electricity is so powerful that the utility RWE is dismantling the Keyenberg wind project in the western part of the country to, wait for it... make more room for the expansion of the Garzweiler mine. Lignite from Garzweiler fuels the Neurath C power plant, which is one of the power plants being brought back online. A spokesperson for RWE told the Guardian newspaper that “We realize this comes across as paradoxical.”
Yes, there are paradoxes aplenty. Germany’s need to keep the lights on explains why the government is willing to ignore the fact that burning lignite to produce electricity emits more carbon dioxide than any other form of power generation.
Furthermore, burning lignite contradicts Germany’s climate goals. Under the country’s much-vaunted Energiewende (German for “energy turnaround”) Germany has pledged to slash its total greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2050. The cost of that pledge could total more than $500 billion by 2025 — and that figure only accounts for the investment needed to decarbonize the electricity sector. The result of all that spending is that residents of Germany are now paying some of the highest electricity prices in Europe.
>Germany’s need to keep the lights on explains why the government is willing to ignore the fact that burning lignite to produce electricity emits more carbon dioxide than any other form of power generation.
The cost of “going green” is the delta between the cost of green power and the cost of providing electricity without going green. That’s nowhere close to 500B by 2025.
This was not decided by the greens only. From the article:
> Yet the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011 caused German sentiments to shift strongly against atomic energy once more, and Ms. Merkel abruptly reversed course. Her government passed a law to phase out Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors by the end of 2022.
Similarly in the neighbouring Austria, nuclear power is prohibited in the constitution, not by a political party.
Danish TV just had a documentary, regarding nuclear power. It's basically the "reporter" who is reconsidering his life long hostility towards nuclear power. In the documentary there's an interesting point: The opponents never wanted coal either, they firmly believe that a no to nuclear was a yes to solar and wind. That part of the message just got lost, and it was not particularly realistic either.
It's incredibly naive, but it's the same mentality in present day nuclear opponents. They still fail to see that a no to nuclear is often a yes to coal, oil and gas.
Actually CDU, the christian democrats, were in charge when this was decided and for most of the period while they were planning and executing that decision. Angela Merkel was in charge for 16 years until handing over to the new coalition months before the Ukrainian invasion. The CDU is a conservative party. And seriously, trying to pass off Angela Merkel as a tree hugging hippy would be quite a feat.
The thing is, this was a widely supported decision that has by and large gone through without a lot of opposition in a country that reliably votes for conservatives and moderates to lead them. Also, none of the bad stuff that people predicted would happen has actually happened. No blackouts. No massive increase in coal/gas usage. None of that seems to be happening.
When this was announced over 10 years ago, the overwhelming majority of people concluded it's a shame they will be replaced with coal. Fast forward ten years and the use of coal is at a record low, the use of gas has not really changed in a meaningful way and overall the situation has improved significantly on its own, but especially compared to some other developed countries. E.g. the US is still at 60% fossil fuels and not going down faster than Germany. This should be a bigger problem, but it's not really talked about, and neither is the per capita consumption a.k.a. efficiency which is in the US abysmal.
People should focus more on outcomes of policies and not their favorite tech. If they'd do that it would be easy to see that nuclear has existed for 70 years and it has failed to replace fossil fuels worldwide in a meaningful way. To me it's obvious the costs are prohibitive and this is unlikely to change. It hasn't thus far. If someone can get it done, by all means, but it hasn't happened. Instead we hear about small modular which was already tried in the 80s because of the high upfront investments of large plants, but those turned out not to work because of even higher per MWh costs. So it was back to huge plants which again turned out to be difficult to build. I am seeing a pattern here.
Renewables are accomplishing a lot more and a lot faster and there's no need to waste resources on something else. If they can't get us to 100% they can get us as fast as possible to whatever is possible. And thus far all the predictions on what is realistic for renewables as a percentage of the grid have failed dramatically.
> Fast forward ten years and the use of coal is at a record low, the use of gas has not really changed in a meaningful way and overall the situation has improved significantly on its own
Now imagine how much lower it would be had they kept the nuclear plants.
Exiting nuclear was once according to then-current public sentiment. Problem is, all governments in the last 30 years have been populist power-hungry careerists without any regard for longer-term science-based policy. They just did what seemed the easiest way to get over the next election.
Yeah, what’s even more hilarious: Conservatives made the decision to shut down the nuclear plants and also destroyed the German renewable sector at the same time.
But voters have a short term memory and will blame it all on the current administration.
Was it a struggle? Seemed like fairly boring long term planning.
Next up for phase out, Coal.
I would until recently have bet that Germany would phase out Coal before the USA, but the recent IRA changes might have made it a competitive race again.
Germany will shut down its three remaining nuclear reactors by April 16, ending nuclear power generation in Europe's largest economy. Germany's move, which marks the end of a decades-long fight by environmentalists, makes it an outlier in much of the industrialised world, including Britain, France, Finland, and Poland, which are expanding their nuclear energy programs as part of their plans to reach ambitious climate targets. The decision comes at a time when Europe is grappling with the question of how to secure enough energy to drive its economies and keep homes warm while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Some scientists and Nobel Prize laureates from across the globe have urged Germany to reconsider its decision to phase out nuclear power, citing it as a valuable alternative to power plants spewing greenhouse gases. However, Robert Habeck, the economy minister, insists that Germany can manage the nuclear exit, stating that the country's energy system will be structured differently, relying on 80% renewable energies by 2030.
Currently mostly coal (mostly lignite) with a little imported LNG for base load and peaks. Wind and solar if available. Rest is imported nuclear, coal and other power from neighboring countries.
Longer term, a switch to 100% renewables is planned, which is supposed to take 20 years. However, plans are coming along too slowly, especially regarding storage and transmission lines. But also necessary ramp-up of wind and solar installations is extremely lacking. Meanwhile power prices are at an all-time high and no betterment in sight. Meanwhile a switch to mostly-electric transportation, green steel smelting, green concrete production, and mostly electric heating should happen, which will roughly triple electricity consumption overall.
So I guess we'll wait and see, most probably more of the imported whatever-we-can-get at stellar prices.
Germany is now currently advocating to sanction and ban Russian nuclear imports and maintenance on most European reactors, but is happily importing russian gas in the meantime…
[+] [-] HyperSane|2 years ago|reply
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that Germany was reopening five power plants that burn lignite, a low-rank coal. Germany’s return to lignite demonstrates, yet again, the Iron Law of Electricity, which says that people, businesses, and governments will do whatever they have to do to get the electricity they need.
Indeed, Germany’s move back to lignite is chock-full of contradictions, including one that belongs in the “you can’t make this up” column.
The Iron Law of Electricity is so powerful that the utility RWE is dismantling the Keyenberg wind project in the western part of the country to, wait for it... make more room for the expansion of the Garzweiler mine. Lignite from Garzweiler fuels the Neurath C power plant, which is one of the power plants being brought back online. A spokesperson for RWE told the Guardian newspaper that “We realize this comes across as paradoxical.”
Yes, there are paradoxes aplenty. Germany’s need to keep the lights on explains why the government is willing to ignore the fact that burning lignite to produce electricity emits more carbon dioxide than any other form of power generation.
Furthermore, burning lignite contradicts Germany’s climate goals. Under the country’s much-vaunted Energiewende (German for “energy turnaround”) Germany has pledged to slash its total greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2050. The cost of that pledge could total more than $500 billion by 2025 — and that figure only accounts for the investment needed to decarbonize the electricity sector. The result of all that spending is that residents of Germany are now paying some of the highest electricity prices in Europe.
[+] [-] awaythrow98765|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CorrectHorseBat|2 years ago|reply
And best of all, more radioactive waste as well
[+] [-] Retric|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] canadianfella|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nixass|2 years ago|reply
Green party is really ruining and I'm amazed people still give them votes
[+] [-] tuukkah|2 years ago|reply
> Yet the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011 caused German sentiments to shift strongly against atomic energy once more, and Ms. Merkel abruptly reversed course. Her government passed a law to phase out Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors by the end of 2022.
Similarly in the neighbouring Austria, nuclear power is prohibited in the constitution, not by a political party.
[+] [-] mrweasel|2 years ago|reply
It's incredibly naive, but it's the same mentality in present day nuclear opponents. They still fail to see that a no to nuclear is often a yes to coal, oil and gas.
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|2 years ago|reply
The thing is, this was a widely supported decision that has by and large gone through without a lot of opposition in a country that reliably votes for conservatives and moderates to lead them. Also, none of the bad stuff that people predicted would happen has actually happened. No blackouts. No massive increase in coal/gas usage. None of that seems to be happening.
[+] [-] HyperSane|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leipert|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pantalaimon|2 years ago|reply
https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/15-millionen-tonnen-mehr-co2-...
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] locallost|2 years ago|reply
People should focus more on outcomes of policies and not their favorite tech. If they'd do that it would be easy to see that nuclear has existed for 70 years and it has failed to replace fossil fuels worldwide in a meaningful way. To me it's obvious the costs are prohibitive and this is unlikely to change. It hasn't thus far. If someone can get it done, by all means, but it hasn't happened. Instead we hear about small modular which was already tried in the 80s because of the high upfront investments of large plants, but those turned out not to work because of even higher per MWh costs. So it was back to huge plants which again turned out to be difficult to build. I am seeing a pattern here.
Renewables are accomplishing a lot more and a lot faster and there's no need to waste resources on something else. If they can't get us to 100% they can get us as fast as possible to whatever is possible. And thus far all the predictions on what is realistic for renewables as a percentage of the grid have failed dramatically.
[+] [-] naasking|2 years ago|reply
Now imagine how much lower it would be had they kept the nuclear plants.
[+] [-] kken|2 years ago|reply
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-sees-ti...
[+] [-] awaythrow98765|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mvdwoord|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leipert|2 years ago|reply
But voters have a short term memory and will blame it all on the current administration.
[+] [-] HyperSane|2 years ago|reply
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1291750/carbon-intensity...
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|2 years ago|reply
Next up for phase out, Coal.
I would until recently have bet that Germany would phase out Coal before the USA, but the recent IRA changes might have made it a competitive race again.
[+] [-] budhajeewa|2 years ago|reply
Germany will shut down its three remaining nuclear reactors by April 16, ending nuclear power generation in Europe's largest economy. Germany's move, which marks the end of a decades-long fight by environmentalists, makes it an outlier in much of the industrialised world, including Britain, France, Finland, and Poland, which are expanding their nuclear energy programs as part of their plans to reach ambitious climate targets. The decision comes at a time when Europe is grappling with the question of how to secure enough energy to drive its economies and keep homes warm while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Some scientists and Nobel Prize laureates from across the globe have urged Germany to reconsider its decision to phase out nuclear power, citing it as a valuable alternative to power plants spewing greenhouse gases. However, Robert Habeck, the economy minister, insists that Germany can manage the nuclear exit, stating that the country's energy system will be structured differently, relying on 80% renewable energies by 2030.
[+] [-] wheelerof4te|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fabian2k|2 years ago|reply
- 33% coal - 11% natural gas - 24% wind - 11% solar - 6% nuclear
Nuclear was already winding down with only 6% in 2022. Medium term renewables are growing and will replace it, short term coal and gas.
[+] [-] HyperSane|2 years ago|reply
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2022/10/28/the-iron...
[+] [-] awaythrow98765|2 years ago|reply
Longer term, a switch to 100% renewables is planned, which is supposed to take 20 years. However, plans are coming along too slowly, especially regarding storage and transmission lines. But also necessary ramp-up of wind and solar installations is extremely lacking. Meanwhile power prices are at an all-time high and no betterment in sight. Meanwhile a switch to mostly-electric transportation, green steel smelting, green concrete production, and mostly electric heating should happen, which will roughly triple electricity consumption overall.
So I guess we'll wait and see, most probably more of the imported whatever-we-can-get at stellar prices.
[+] [-] pantalaimon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blastonico|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HyperSane|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|2 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] is_true|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpeter|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yuppie_scum|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] flybrand|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ekianjo|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aflag|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] LargoLasskhyfv|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] akmarinov|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kken|2 years ago|reply
No, its not.