• rentar42@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Except fossil fuel production went UP when “renewable replaced nuclear”.

    While renewable was built out quite a bit and nuclear was decreased at roughly the same time, total demand has risen (as it tends to do) and that delta was filled by more fossil fuel production.

    IMO (and many other peoples) the climate-positive approach would have been to keep nuclear, while building out renewables and phasing out fossil. And then try to build more renewables to get rid of nuclear, if that’s still desired.

    • dummbatz@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      this is the German power production for the last 30 years. Shutting down nuclear started in early 2000s

      brown = brown coal, pink = black coal, grey = nuclear, yellow = gas, blue = oil, green = renewables

      What I can read in this graphic is black coal and nuclear got phased out. Brown coal sunk a little bit and renewables multiplied their production.

      Yes, I support your opinion, it would’ve been better having 25-30% nuclear power instead of coal. I guess this wasn’t possible as nuclear always had a bad stance in Germany and coal was a big employer. Maybe a bit like Norway and its oil.

      But at the point Germany is now or was a year ago it’s way easier, cheaper and faster to invest in renewables instead of building new npp.