Hacker News Reader

Comment by simplotek | Hacker News Reader

> The obvious downside of this decision is that nuclear generation that has been shut down is replaced by coal and gas.

This is patently false.

Isar plants were built in the 70s. Back then Germany's share of renewable energy sources was residual. Since then, Germany started shutting off nuclear and currently over 40% of it's energy needs are met with renewable energy sources.

The only way to claim that Germany is replacing nuclear with coal and gas is if you opt to go the disingenuous route and claim that some coal and gas power plants went online while nuclear plants were being shut down.

> Also it's not a given that the renewable strategy will succeed.

What? Supplying nearly half of a country's energy needs is now a sign of failure?

View on HN

> This is patently false.

It's not false, it's just probably not easy to understand.

It's easy to understand if we consider a hypothetical situation where the nuclear power plant is running AND Germany still keeps all other renewable plans. Since the demand does not change, what other generation would not be running in this case? It is coal and gas.

Thus, by shutting down nuclear, several coal or gas power plants are running instead of idling somewhere.

> What? Supplying nearly half of a country's energy needs is now a sign of failure?

Success in this case is replacement of dirty electricity generation and not using the rest of Europe as a giant battery to solve the unpredictability of renewable generation. The limits of easy renewable deployments are becoming exhausted and it will become much harder to increase the share of renewables even more.

I think we agree that it's great that Germany runs so many renewables already. But long-term objective is much more and it's not clear that it will be achieved.

> It's not false, it's just probably not easy to understand.

In other words, the thesis has no basis and you have a hard time coming across people who swallow nonsense.

> It's easy to understand if we consider a hypothetical situation where the nuclear power plant is running AND Germany still keeps all other renewable plans.

Is your personal belief held by artificial scenarios that are both absurd and unrealistic?

No wonder people find this blend of bullshit claim hard to understand.

"It's easy to understand if we consider a hypothetical situation"

lol

Nuclear is for base load. If Germany kept their reactors or increased them, then coal and gas would not be necessary for the times when renewable energy is not available, which is constantly. So yes, nuclear did get replaced by gas and coal, even though renewables are a much bigger source today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com