Germany set to miss net zero by 2045 target as climate efforts falter
Germany set to miss net zero by 2045 target as climate efforts falter
German goals to cut greenhouse emissions by 65% by 2030 are likely to be missed, meaning a longer-term net zero by a 2045 target is also in doubt, reports by government climate advisers and the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) show.
You're viewing a single thread.
I wonder if they would ever reconsider what they did for the deactivation of nuclear power plants.
Because uranium appears out of thin air and it's not being extracted in politically volatile areas. Every Euro that's spent on a nuclear reactor is an euro that would be better spent on renewable energies.
And of course, the materials that go into solar panels and other renewable tech (lithium ion batteries) also appear out of thin air and isn't extracted in environmentally degrading ways...
Depends. Renewables are faster at decarbonising than nuclear. Only if we're starting from scratch. They're also cheaper, and at scale, more reliable. Difference here was, Germany shut down existing nuclear before they could ramp up renewables. I will add that this is the most generous argument to maintain nuclear.
That's true but couldn't that also be said for the rare earth metals used in batteries to power phones and EVs?
No energy production is perfect. Just good to look at the pros and cons.
Clearly that only matters with nuclear and magically doesn't happen in any other case
People also think that nuclear is some sort of magical thing that provides cheap unlimited energy on demand, when really it's an expensive, lumbering option, that is slow to construct and difficult to maintain. There's a reason why even China prefers renewables over nuclear, and they have reactors for military research.
You should probably tell China that, then...
I don't have to tell China they're finding it out themselves. Yes, China leads in deploying nuclear, for various reasons. Energy, research, military. But despite this, renewables represents by far the largest investment and growth. Though China's nuclear energy ambitions seem large, don't forget, it's a huge country. It's just a small piece of the pie, the pie being dominated by renewables.
Ah yes... The classic primary source of an op ed from CU Boulder, which isn't exactly known for having a great Asian Studies program.
And yet, it's backed up by studies showing that nuclear is faster for decarbonisation, S&P Global's estimates for the massive growth of renewables vs nuclear indicating China's preferences. But really, this is all part of China's infrastructure push. The funding is going to renewables, but China is keeping a foot in the door for nuclear. At best, nuclear would work, in a majority renewables grid if they cut about 25% off the cost.
And this relates to China in particular, how? Chinese infrastructure is substantially cheaper than abroad because NIMBYs get fucked.
This relates to China because they're literally by far have invested the heaviest in renewable energy. A good amount of their nuclear reactors are experimental and for research, some are looking at military applications for ships. Renewables growth in China far outstrips their nuclear efforts. As per what the original article I mentioned indicates. China isn't serious about their nuclear plans, it's a combined research, military, national pride thing. Unlike their renewables investments, which you can see outstrips nuclear today, and in the future from sources given, backed by scientific papers also given.
It's almost as if that's why the gold standard is a nuclear baseline with renewable to meet demand spikes.
That's not how renewables work. They don't produce electricity on demand (at least not solar and wind), their energy output is dependent on the weather. If there's no wind and no sun, they won't cover any demand spikes. Which is why baseload power like nuclear is pretty much useless in combination with renewables.
What is actually needed is flexible power that can be quickly adapted to the varying output from solar and wind. This is currently mostly done with natural gas, which we're trying to get away from. In the future, biomass, water and storage will cover that part, while demand response strategies will help reduce demand peaks during times of low energy production.
If there is no wind or sun, we're facing a global apocalypse. There's always wind or sun. You just need to capture it. Nuclear is not on demand either, most plants aren't designed to be. Nuclear is designed to be baseload energy, which, for decades, has fallen out of favour in lieu of more flexible doctrines. Octopus Energy is doing quite a bit of work with AI and energy demand, using incentives to control public energy consumption, which reduces the backup you would need for renewables. Also, that study I referenced, presumes about a 25% decrease in cost of nuclear. Again, best case scenario for nuclear.
If there is no wind or sun, we’re facing a global apocalypse.
No, we're facing nighttime. That happens literally every day.
So who goes around switching off the sun and turning off the wind?
You could actually use nuclear for stabilizing the grid. The reason no one does so is that you need to run nuclear power plants at reduced power, rendering them even less economical.
Oh good, biomass. Because there aren't enough starving people in the world already.
Growing plants just to use them for energy production is absolutely stupid and incredibly harmful, agreed. But there are types of biomass that are basically waste from food production or forestry. It's not a ton of energy, but it may play a part somewhere.
Two problems with that:
- Niche energy production methods don't benefit from economies of scale, and may be cost-ineffective.
- “Drill, baby, drill” thinking led us to this point with fossil fuels; it can be similarly disastrous with biomass. The availability of profitable biomass energy will likely tempt the rich to overuse it, resulting in an artificial global famine.
Man, the existence of batteries is going to blow your mind
Edit: Just realized I think you missed the main point. You want a (functionally) 100% reliable baseline to meet your energy needs. That's why you don't use renewables, at the moment anyway. You want as much renewable as possible on top of that.
First of all, nuclear is anything but reliable. Germany had to supply huge amounts of electricity to France last year because half of their nuclear plants had to be shut down. They would have had major blackouts without support from their European neighbors.
But my main point is that baseload power does not mix with renewable sources at all. Using batteries and other solutions to store renewable energy during times of little wind or sunlight is actually the goal. But that also eliminates the need for baseload.
Baseload was never really a feature anyway, it was a necessity. Nuclear and certain types of coal power plants were unable to follow demand, they had to be run at close to full load all the time, either for technical or for economic reasons. To compensate for that, other more expensive plants had to be used to cover times of higher demand.
Batteries, at the colossal capacity required for this purpose, are nowhere even close to existing.
There is some evidence to suggest a small nuclear presence in an otherwise majority renewables grid, can be ideal. But this is the most generous position you can have for nuclear.
So we should back ourselves into a corner when we have alternatives, because we don't have alternatives for everything?
I wonder if any of the nuclear bros on here ever consider, that jerking a fuel rod isn't always the best approach?
Seriously, every fucking time this comes up and every fucking time you guys show nothing but arrogance and ignorance, both usually weapons grade.
I don't understand the hostility. Germany made a conscious decision to turn off their nuclear power plants.
Facts are facts. Nuclear power is the 2nd safest power generation method per terawatt hour. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
Additionally there are ways to recycle nuclear fuel. Most often the arguments against nuclear are fueled by emotion and not fact based.
Germany isn't failing its climate goals because of getting rid of nuclear power. In 2018 6,3% of our energy (not just electricity) came from nuclear power. May all the nuclear chills please kindly stfu?
Letting those few remaining nuclear power plants stay active for another few years would've done jack shit. We're failing because of shortcomings in many sectors. The worst offenders currently are housing (~25% of total CO2 emissions) and transportation (19%).
I don’t understand the hostility
Possibly a German Green. They are hostile like that towards nuclear. Ironically that made the German Green Party effectively a coal party (they don't like to hear that).
Every single statement you've written is false.
The German Greens aren't hostile towards nuclear?
Against it, not hostile. That's a difference.
They even agreed to extend the shutdown date last year. Not exactly hostile behavior.
I wonder why your username is AggressivelyPassive. More like AggressivelyAggressive ha.
Dissent is extremely aggressive, yes.
How dare I not having the same opinion as you?
Perhaps the timetable for them could've been extended, but when literally one of the largest nuclear power companies in the world prefers renewables, and balks at the cost of opening a nuclear powerplant without significant government guarantees and subsidies, that should tell you something. The nuclear argument is usually fuelled by the mining lobby. Even China, who does not care for public opinion, and has an active nuclear stake for military purposes, prefers renewables. The only argument for Germany was the when was the appropriate time to shut down the reactors, not that it shouldn't have been done.
I'd like to add that the agreement to shut down the nuclear power plants was made years in advance anyways. Shortly after Fukushima the german political parties voted for that, even the conservatives. Talks began even before that because there's never been a definitive place for the final storage of fuel rods and other waste, this is still not solved for the current waste btw.
The only thing I can really agree on, is that Germany should've been much better prepared at that point. Everyone acted like this came out of thin air and something the current parties in power decided on a whim.
Adding to this, german energy providers wouldn't even consider starting up the plants again:
https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/atom-kraft-laufzeit-verlaengerung-100.amp
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/die-nutzung-der-kernenergie-hat-sich-erledigt-6607834.html
Germany was better prepared. The plan was to use natural gas. Which was cheaply supplied by Russia. Who woulda thunk that relying on mining operations in despotic countries could be such a bad decision? Goes for Gas as well as Uranium...
balks at the cost of opening a nuclear powerplant without significant government guarantees and subsidies, that should tell you something.
It tells of sane business, yes. The German government is completely unreliable with regards to nuclear power. Remember, a CDU chancellor eventually shut them down - the supposed right party that used to fight for prolonged lifetime of the plants. Any sane businessperson would request legal safety before making a huge investment that only pays off over decades.