And because they shut down their nuclear plants, they had to start burning coal again…
Unrelated and a whataboutism.
Comment on 40% of US electricity is now emissions-free
assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 5 months agowww.destatis.de/EN/Press/…/PE23_090_43312.html
And because they shut down their nuclear plants, they had to start burning coal again, which is about as bad an energy source you can get when it comes to emissions and pollution. Their coal use % went up from 2021 to 2022. They may have a higher renewable mix, but they’ve also increased their emissions. Not to mention, they also significantly reduced their energy imports from France – the majority of which is generated by nuclear energy. They are replacing clean energy with coal.
France is actually a significant counterpoint as well. They’ve got 65%+ nuclear energy, and renewables just add to the percent of clean energy sources. Considering they’re doing much better than Germany in terms of not using fossil fuels, I believe they are an example to follow over Germany – which means nuclear is critical to meet our climate goals.
siririus@lemmy.world 5 months ago
assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 5 months ago
It’s completely relevant to a discussion about renewable energy and meeting emission targets. What’s the benefit of having a higher renewable mix if your total GHG emissions are consistently going up?
Germany has generated more CO2 than it would have if it had kept nuclear technology, and that’s an indisputable fact.
siririus@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That’s like arguing why take chemo if it only makes you sicker in the short run. 🤔
assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 5 months ago
To use your analogy, we don’t know if this chemo will actually cure them. It could make them just a little better, but it needs to be worth the suffering.
Our goal at the end of the day is to reach 0 emissions as soon as possible. If the increased coal and gas that Germany is using now because of eliminating nuclear energy results in zero emissions much quicker, I’ll happily agree with you. As it stands however, Germany has not proven out a reduction in carbon higher than their recent increases.
There is no climate justification for cutting out nuclear energy. If there was, we’d see a net detriment in France and a net positive in Germany with regards to the justification. If that exists today, I’d be more than happy to read about it. If you’re going to argue that it’ll exist tomorrow, you’ll need projections that are made on reasonable assumptions and that show the difference. Again, I’d be happy to look at those.
Overshoot2648@lemm.ee 5 months ago
It was completely relevant to the discussion. That’s not a whataboutism.
siririus@lemmy.world 5 months ago
He changed the topic from nuclear to coal.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
since we’re talking about france, it’s important to mention that frances nuclear infrastructure is a mess right now, pretty much all of it is EOL and a handful have found serious structural issues. Maintenance is important kids, remember to perform it, otherwise your PWR main loop might explode. and everyone will laugh at you.
Also the EPR reactor being built thats like n times over budget and x years behind commission, 90% of it is fabrication skill issues though. The EPR is also just immensely complex compared to better designs.
infrastructure is a universal issue though, you just HAVE to maintain things unless you want them to disintegrate. And you need to have a plan in place to keep things going into the future, when things inevitably reach EOL.
assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Yeah I don’t see this so much as a nuclear problem but a universal problem. Everything requires maintenance, from oil refineries to solar farms.