Comment by looping__lui | Hacker News Reader

Comment by looping__lui | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yeah, well, the phasing out of coal has been decided long time even before that - and still nothing happened. So “was decided long time ago by the Green party” is more a “who cares - I believe it when I see it”. Merkel made it happen for real (unfortunately).

The decision to end nuclear power has been one of the “Merkel just decides without really caring” decisions. Germans are not entirely stupid. We have lived through Chernobyl, we know what a Tsunami is - the French and Belgians run much more unreliable reactors in direct vicinity of large densely populated areas. It was not “the will of the people” - but Merkel. Just like the end of the compulsory military service, the bailouts for southern Europe, the refugee crisis... Nothing democratic about that. The German public has nothing to say in these decisions and I don’t recall that ANY of these topics were actually discussed agenda points by any party. The stock prices of publicly traded energy companies folded - keep in mind: they PURCHASED the power plants from the government and were then told to shut them down. The stock price development is an economic reflection how fair the “compensation payment” was.

Electricity prices are now about 30 Ct/kWh in Germany. That is 50% higher than the UK and 100% higher than France. And they keep rising.

I would not infer that Bild headlines (aka the German Sun) are “public opinion”. Of course nuclear power was discussed quite heavily - but ever rising electricity prices, coal’s contribution to electricity remaining flat and the increasing resistance against wind farms certainly paint a more differentiated picture.

> 2002 wurde der Vertrag („Atomkonsens“) durch Novellierung des Atomgesetzes rechtlich abgesichert.[100] In der Folge wurden am 14. November 2003 das Kernkraftwerk Stade (640 MW)[101] und am 11. Mai 2005 das Kernkraftwerk Obrigheim (340 MW)[102] endgültig abgeschaltet. Für alle anderen Atomkraftwerke wurden Reststrommengen vereinbart, nach deren Erzeugung die Kraftwerke abgeschaltet werden sollten. Feste Abschalttermine wurden nicht vereinbart, die Strommengen waren so bemessen, dass ein Betrieb der letzten Kraftwerke etwa bis in die Jahre 2015–2020 möglich gewesen wäre.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomausstieg#2000:_Deutschland

The phase-out was decided in 2002, with precise amounts of energy allowed to be generated until shutoff. That was not a hand-wavy "we'll do it sometime in the future" thing. The "grace period" was then extended by Merkel's government in 2010 under heavy pressure from energy providers. Only to be reversed in 2011. I and you are pro-nuclear, but the decision was made by the German public: 77% were against the 15 year extensions in 2010 (https://www.zeit.de/2010/30/Atomausstieg). After Fukushima 79% were for a phase-out until 2022 or earlier. (https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/190403/umfrag...)

That's democracy if we like it or not.

Thanks for the links - I appreciate you digging into things further.

I may just be a bit “disillusioned” by any political decisions as they are just amended changed and reversed so in my own subjective feeling everything always kind a is possible if political parties want it at the time.

A poll is a poll and not a vote. I personally don’t trust any of these to reflect public opinion. A question can be asked and interpreted in many ways. You can always get the opinion you want.

As for “that’s democracy”: well, it’s kind a the chancellor/government deciding. Not the people per se. I would be careful concluding that a poll stating 77% and Merkel “rushing” the nuclear exit (not extending as most believed certainly) is just a reflection if a thorough public thought and decision making process.

well merkel basically ruined our energy marekt. not because the shutdown of nuclear. (btw. I hate nuclear)

but because the market did bid for a merkel win, where he extended the nuclear energy marekt (or she wanted to). so our energy industry betted that they save money if they do not be active by going renewables. their bid was good because now we subsidize our renewables heavily.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Source...

the eeg started way diffently than the 2014 eeg version and it got worse overtime, with all the newer versions.

also the csu (bayern party) actually dismisses on-shore wind power completly 10-H-law, besides no sane reason. merkal and the cdu/csu are not PRO renewables they just want to keep their power, which they would quickly loose by making turns. also merkel mostly did "rushing" things in the past because things that should've been done 10 years prior, weren't done. see our car industy. (which will be rushed by going all in electric, because we lost 10 years on the run)

Coal's contribution to German electricity is not flat. It declined markedly in 2019:

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/drop-coal-use-pushes-ge...

German electricity from coal is down 35% since 2010 and 46% since 2000:

https://www.bdew.de/media/documents/20191212-BRD_Stromerzeug...

You are correct. I looked up the energy sources after I read the article on CO2 and added up the fossil fuel ones for the past 10 years: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/156695/umfrag...

I remembered the “very steep decline in nuclear energy whilst fossil fuel kind a went down less”

So, yes: we are way down on coal.

These percentages are largely irrelevant because coal remains the only non-intermittent source that Germany can rely on (in the absence of nuclear), and it's so much more carbon-intensive than the rest that the average figures are still terrible.

Because of the intermittence problem, there is simply no chance that Germany can catch up with the best gCO2/kWh results (France and Nordic countries) without an hypothetical breakthrough in battery storage for renewables. Its electricity's carbon intensity is currently 5-10 times higher. Pretty much only Poland is doing worse.

It's worth noting that none of Germany's reactors were ever run in load following mode (1). So the nuclear reactors also didn't/don't contribute to stabilising the German grid. Also note a 1GW nuclear plant also needs to be backed up to a certain degree by load following plants in-case it trips.

The unflexibility of the nuclear reactors is also a problem to network operators, as is the intermittency of wind and solar.

1) Brokdorf was run in loading following mode as an experiment, but the reactor failed, and begun decommissioning early.

> and still nothing happened

Coal is on the move out. Most coal production in Germany has been closed or will be closed. Last year coal use for electricity production was on an all time low at 28%.

> 100% higher than France

The electricity price is political in France and electricity production is basically state owned. The losses are paid by the tax payer.

Yes, I stand corrected by coal.

I may have been biased living somewhat close to the Hambacher Forst and just seeing these giant holes in disbelief.

I did not know that electricity is state owned and subsidised. Maybe Germans should ask their french neighbor for an extension cable or two...

There is a lot of protest around Hambacher Forst. It may take some time, but then these things will be history. Like the hard-coal mines in Germany, which have been closed. But the production in Germany of coal is actually useful to remind people, that a lot of coal is imported from much larger coal producers and it's not a great idea to close coal mines in Germany and keep buying coal from elsewhere.

Checkout how many mines have been closed by now for 'Braunkohle' / lignite.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_deutscher_Braunkohletage...

East Germany ALONE produced end 80s almost twice as much lignite as the reunited Germany today.

> Maybe Germans should ask their french neighbor for an extension cable or two...

There's the idea for the EU-wide grid and energy market. It's all happening and will take decades, but it is in the works.

> Electricity prices are now about 30 Ct/kWh in Germany.

That's insane - I thought California was bad at ~$0.15/kWh residential, but that's on par with Hawaii. At least Hawaii has the excuse of being an island...

I'm not sure, but you might want to compare the median monthly electricity costs per household between Germany and California. I suspect that would give you a more accurate picture of the true electricity costs. My hunch stems from the fact that almost no one has air conditioning in Germany, which should be a significant factor in Californians' electrify bills...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com