Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwr | Hacker News Reader

No, they can't, not unless we get rid of the fossil fuel lobby, which pretty much runs the world these days. Which isn't surprising, given that fossil fuels are the largest industry ever created by mankind. If you compare it to anything else which was actively harmful and yet big money tried to convince you it wasn't (like tobacco, alcohol, or really anything else), there is nothing that huge. So it isn't surprising that the industry fights change.

EV adoption has been successfully held back mostly by PR, Germany shifted from nuclear to coal and gas, the US president is doing everything to dismantle anything that isn't fossil fuel and promotes fossil fuels, the list goes on.

View on HN

I think this sells the German energy mix short - fossil fuel has been on a steady decline in the energy mix for about 2 decades now.

Comparing 2020[^2] to 2025[^1]:

- renewables (solar+wind) went from 181 TWh to 219 TWh

- fossil (coal+gas) stayed constant (177 TWh and 179 TWh)

So I'd say we switched from nuclear (60TWh in 2020) to renewables & imported nuclear - but the long-term trend is towards renewables.

[1]: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/... [2]: (pdf) https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/N...

I realize there is a lot of verbal gymnastics going on around this issue, and the word "renewables" is being used a lot, but my point still stands.

Another way to look at your numbers is that had the nuclear plants not been turned off, fossil (coal+gas) could have been reduced by 60TWh.

But they weren't reduced. They remained the same.

From the point of view of the fossil fuel industry: WIN!

Your point does not stand since you are completely wrong. Germany uses less coal and gas for electricity now than at any point in the 21st century. The majority of the nuclear plants were shutdown in 2011. They produced 230TWh from coal in 2011 and less than 100TWh last year. Talk about verbal gymnastics to call that a shift from nuclear to coal and gas! Outrageous.

The fossil fuel lobby can only do so much. Solar has gotten so cheap it's taking over on its own. Companies are doing it for no reason other than the math makes sense. EV batteries are nearing that point too. You can only keep BYD out of the US for so long.

The fossil fuel industry is fighting a rearguard action at this point.

> Germany shifted from nuclear to coal and gas

Sure, but you're attributing this, deliberately or not, to the wrong cause. It wasn't that the fossil fuel industry somehow won - it was range of factors possibly including geopolitics, some existing plants aging, an emotional response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and the Green lobby.

Basically, they voted to kill nuclear without a solid plan for an alternative, and coal/gas is the default option for filling the gaps left in the absence of timely and sufficiently rapid investment in other technologies.

Hmm. After former chancellor (Schroeder) heavily pushed Russian gas pipelines (Nord Stream 1 and 2) and then swiftly moved to working for Russian state-owned energy companies, including Nord Stream AG, Rosneft, and Gazprom, I have a different outlook on things.

One can never discount lobbying and influence behind the scenes, but Schroeder finished being Chancellor in 2005, which was six years before the initial post-Fukushima vote in question, and even longer since various aspects of the plan continued to be supported by various politicians.

He'd be a spectacularly successful lobbyist if your suspicion is correct.

Why would I assume Schroeder is the only politician under the influence of Russia or any of the fossil-fuel industry businesses?

I mean yeah, but $100 a barrel makes it difficult to argue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com