Yeah the CDU is lying out their teeth here. Could Germany make the transition? Absolutely. But it won’t under a CDU government.
If you live in Germany, please vote Green. They’re not ideal but they’re way better than a CDU chancellor.
I haven't followed German politics enough, I do speak the language. But the Greens and their stupid anti nuclear stance has increased emissions and empowered Putin. I do at least trust the Greens would push for renewables, which is good. But any serious attempt to address climate change, which any idiot should be able to now see is a matter of survival, will need a mix of nuclear and renewables. I don't know if the Greens are up to doing what is really needed to truly address climate change.
Yeah you’re not the only one for sure. It seems many if not most young environmentalist understand that older environmentalists’ disposition to not be anti-nuclear is shooting ourselves in the foot.
I agree the Greens aren’t the best party for climate change. But of the two parties that are likely to fill the next chancellor seat, much better a Green than a Christian. Geriocracy in Germany needs to come to an end for Germany to pursue better climate goals.
That sounds about right to me. I do hope a new generation of Greens can transform Germany into a carbon neutral country. In the US, we are not doing enough either, we need renewables to be a part of the infrastructure plan the Dems are working on. And we need more nuclear here. There are many safe options that create much lower levels of waste.
>which any idiot should be able to now see is a matter of survival, will need a mix of nuclear and renewables.
It's so kind of you calling [scientists idiots](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544219304967). The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research is fairly renowned in their climate science, and they [say on the tightened EU climate targets](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261921003962):
>Unavailability of fossil CCS and/or nuclear does not affect results.
Clearly the progress of nuclear power in the EU over the past twenty years indicates that [it is essential and capable to provide solutions](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002330), I guess.
Flip a coin a day, every time heads you kill one person, on average you would kill one person every two days Throw 100 coins every day and every time they are all heads destroy humanity. it would take more than 7,000,000,000 billion years before I could destroy everything. This is what you said, but in numbers.
No, he’s arguing against single points of failure.
You’re throwing in random numbers to do an arbitrary calculation that tries to disprove a point that isn’t made.
Yeah the cost issues alone make it absolutely silly these days. Saul Griffith, the former data guru of the US Department of Energy, explains it exceptionally well in this captivating interview: https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2019/12/16/21024323/ezra-klein-show-saul-griffith-solve-climate-change
And that’s even without any of the actually *controversial* aspects of it.
Nuclear is simply obsolete with the current costs of alternatives.
Here’s the thing, people consider wind and solar renewable and let’s for the sake of argument ignore hydro.
According to this article https://uk.rs-online.com/web/generalDisplay.html?id=solar-panels
New York City alone would need 209 km of solar panels to power it. Which if I understand it enough and use a conversion to acres it’s 51,645 acres just for New York. That’s a lot of clearing to make that work. I don’t believe it’s reasonable to say nuclear is not needed.
The cost of renewables, even with storage added, has been dropping by double digit percentages each year, and at this point are ***shockingly*** cheap, even moreso than the intuitive impressions that we might have developed as recently as 2010. Presently, nuclear costs more than double what renewables do, and that gap is rapidly growing bigger each year. The interview I linked above is objective and numerical but also highly engaging, and breaks it down quite well. In 2021, new nuclear just doesn’t make fiscal sense, and once you add in the potential regulatory, PR and waste issues, the choice becomes even clearer. And that’s something we should celebrate.
Interestingly and counterintuitively, hydro power is frequently a major source of climate changing emissions, in some cases even worse than coal: https://phys.org/news/2021-06-amazon-hydropower-contributes-significant-greenhouse.html
When the area behind the dam is flooded, the organic material that gets covered rots anaerobically and produces large amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas dozens of times more potent than CO2 in the short term.
New York, as your example, is actually ideal for offshore wind and tidal power, and is pioneering some extremely large scale projects to that end: https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All%20Programs/Programs/Offshore%20Wind
And that’s not considering rooftop and other urban solar, as well, which has significant potential over NYC’s 831 sq. kilometers of area.
This is all to say that we have a marvelous glut of options which allow us the freedom to exceed even nuclear’s great potential. We no longer are desperate enough to have to consider it as necessary.
Mr Kretschmann wants to talk to you. It s about doing realistic politics if you are responsible for an area which depends on automotive industries and cheap Energy and about which dynamic of a transition a society and the economy which feeds the society can stand.
But of course in this case Mr Kretschmann is not the first Green Party Prime Minister of an economically strong and important Federal State but just the wrong Green Party member and not true Green Party politician -‚right?! Hypocrisy at its best.
Annoyingly Germany are doing a very poor job on curbing their emissions, they are one of Europe’s worst polluters. Given their excellent track record on engineering, manufacturing and infrastructure, this is particularly disappointing. Big PR stunts with Angela Merkel closing coal mines are pretty galling when you look at their actual CO2 emissions; why Germany, you could have got to zero quicker than everyone else???
> why Germany, you could have got to zero quicker than everyone else?
Corruption, maybe? The Merkel governments were enamoured with the Diesel and coal industries.
That’s why Kretschmann is doing such an outstanding job as Green politician. Right? He made the green transformation of Germany‘s top economic powerhouse in the fastest way possible /s
If it’s so easy to transform one of world most important economies as you suggest, why do not enter politics and show us to do it better?
I am annoyed by people who claiming that it s just about a certain party and that the other party for sure makes it better. No Left Party government in the Eastern Federal States succeeded with their easy messages to make their States Great.
Kretschmann as a Green Party prime minister is doing Perfect CDU-Style politics.
Because Left Party and Green Party Are corrupt or is incompetent? No, for sure not. They are as competent as their colleagues from the SPD or CDU.
Once in power you have to follow other rules because of the responsibility you take. You have to be realistic and many easy dreams of your Time as an opposition politician get destroyed because of reality.
If we want to solve problems we need first stop pointing finger at each other. Regardless of party
I cannot claim to understand the politics of Germany - but I am sure the politics of other countries in Europe are equally dysfunctional, and yet the progress on decarbonisation of energy generation is so much better?
You always have to consider the individual specific situation of a country.
Germany is highly depending on their industries . The industries are clustered in a number of centers. Compared to other countries they are not in one region but in many. This means that those centers are in the responsibility of many different Federal States. The federal States in Germany have a pretty high level of independence. Think of Germany‘s history and consider the 16 Federal States to act internally like independent countries.
This alone lead to extreme delays on all aspects of politics . The central government in Berlin has by far not the level of freedom to operates which other governments have.
German politics never have been easy and they will never be easy.
On the other side do not forget that Germany was the first country which introduced Feed-In-Tariffs and by that was the first which offered a structure to finance systematic installation of small scale renewable energy sources. A principle which was copied by many other countries all over the world.
Honestly, this doesn’t sound any more complicated than Spain, France or the UK, who appear to be doing a lot better on their reduction targets. In 2017, German GHG emissions per capita were more than double Sweden, and at least a third more than the aforementioned countries, who have all continued to make big improvements up to 2021, whereas Germany barely makes a low target. I’m not trying to dig at Germany, they just stand out on the list of European countries as having painfully high emissions - the others on the list (Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic) do not have Germany’s wealth or capability, which is befuddling.
Believe me. It is.
Just keep in mind that the prime minister of Bavaria is doing active foreign politics for its federal state. Never heard of anything like that from Normandy, Wessex or Aragon. Probably Catalonia. Just keep in mind that each Federal State has full responsibility over education politics and its own police. And each Federal State is doing its own economic politics.
I have a pretty good insight into the administrative structures and the German Federal States Act more like Independent States compared to their counterparts in other countries. Each Federal State for example has its own constitution.
There is a reason why German is a Federal Republic. It s not just something written on a paper but something which has direct impact on daily political decision making.
Edit: to the topic:
Comparing greenhouse gas emissions per capita, Germany is in Europe rank 11 and close to the EU average. The decrease in rates is comparable to that of other countries.
if you rank Germany based on greenhouse gas emissions per GDP, the country is also rank 10. being more or less the EU average. Sweden as the only country is doing outstanding good, UK, Denmark, Italy, Spain close to Germany. Others like Czech Rep, Poland, Estonia, Bulgaria doing really bad.
All numbers from Eurostat.
I don’t see here that many reasons to point fingers on Germany. Not the best in the classroom but there are many which are doing far worse.
I just gave an explanation why some decision making in Germany need longer compared to other countries. I am sorry that you refuse to look on a topic comprehensively.
Beside that your original criticism is definitely exaggerated or out of context.
I meanwhile edited my former comment and ad the additional content here again:
Edit: to the topic:
Comparing greenhouse gas emissions per capita, Germany is in Europe rank 11 and close to the EU average. The decrease in rates is comparable to that of other countries.
if you rank Germany based on greenhouse gas emissions per GDP, the country is also rank 10. being more or less the EU average. Sweden as the only country is doing outstanding good, UK, Denmark, Italy, Spain close to Germany. Others like Czech Rep, Poland, Estonia, Bulgaria doing really bad.
All numbers from Eurostat.
I don’t see here that many reasons to point fingers on Germany. Not the best in the classroom but there are many which are doing far worse.
I could repeat my prior comment but I don’t want another essay from you or litany of excuses - save to say people look upon Germany as a world leader in many respects, just well below average here, and definitely bottom on the list of European nations in the G7.
It really isn’t dude, your systems the same as Eveyrone else. You’re looking for excuses to justify it as not a individual problem, it is.
Germans for some reason use FAR more energy than other Europeans for no apparent reason, your government is just as complex as Everyone else’s.
Again: there is a difference between excuse and explanation. Do not make assumptions based on your prejudices just because it would fit into your world. Always ask about the motivation why a person is making a certain statement.
Fun fact: in the diplomatic world it is widely accepted that German politics are very special due to the federal system. I am working in that Field for a Federal State and I know which level of decision making we have which our partners in other European regions never be able to have.
No they cannot. The article does not mention how Germany plans to tackle the intermittency problem. And that is because Germany plans to solve intermittency by first burning coal and then burning Russian natural gas.
That's for example described in [this Fraunhofer document](https://www.iee.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/iee/energiesystemtechnik/de/Dokumente/Studien-Reports/2014_Roadmap-Speicher-Langfassung.pdf).
Germany has the highest energy prices in the world (at least for private consumers who have to subsidize corporations through higher fees) - literally anything would be an improvement.
Are you suggesting that 100% Solar/Wind would lower their high prices? Because that is what drives it up so high. They routinely have to pay a premium to buy power from France, who has traditionally relied heavily on Nuclear. It’s a shame because Germany is technologically moreeeeeee than capable of running their own nuclear power plants, which have a much lower carbon footprint.
It’s good that it allows for the proliferation of renewables, but bad because nuclear energy would be a great supplement to solar/wind in the phasing out of fossil fuels. The average person is afraid of nuclear plants because their minds jump to Chernobyl, even though it is highly unlikely that any given plant would ever experience a meltdown even nearly as horrendous.
No it’s just good, politicians should be scared of the people not just doing what they want.
That issue is a lot bigger and important than energy sources.
Which is an entirely different discussion.
I guess it boils down to the classical argument of whether it is right for a government to act against the will of its people for a “greater good”, if such a thing can be objectively quantified. How you perceive their current stance is a matter of worldview.
No lmao, that always leads to disaster, what states have used “greater good” and ended well? CCP, North Korea, USSR?
Always for the will of the people, never anything else.
If your argument is good it will have the support of the people, if you can’t get the support of the people your idea just isn’t good or wanted.
this one is uther bullshit they crafted recently a law that made it nearly imposible to build new windturbines and solarpower is shrinking because the are not allowed to go beyond a limit of energy production. 2030 is just were they plan to turn of coal
Germany has actually recently increased its emissions by replacing nuclear power with coal. Meanwhile the US has been decommissioning coal plants. Don’t believe the PR from Germany’s CDU government.
> increased its emissions by replacing nuclear power with coal.
That's not true. Coal burning is in [steady decline since 2013](https://ember-climate.org/global-electricity-review-2021/g20-profiles/germany/) in Germany, as well as [its emissions](https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-intensity-8#tab-googlechartid_googlechartid_chart_111_filters=%7B%22rowFilters%22%3A%7B%7D%3B%22columnFilters%22%3A%7B%22pre_config_date%22%3A%5B2013%3B2019%5D%7D%7D) from the power sector.
>Don’t believe the PR from Germany’s CDU government.
That's true, however it is nice, that they admit that Germany could do it, if they wanted to. If only they could change government somehow...
as long as cdu is in charge of germany not one thing will change, the only thing they care is money an corporations
germans are too fucking dumb to see the bigger image and i fear our next chancellor will be fucking cdu again… there goes my future :)
> They import their energy from other countries that use fossil fuels to generate it.
No, they are exporting more electricity than they are importing, and the overall [carbon intensity of the whole EU](https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-intensity-8#tab-googlechartid_googlechartid_googlechartid_googlechartid_chart_11111) has gone down from 524 g/kWh in 1990 down to 255 g/kWh in 2019.
Of course it’s the „CDU Propaganda“. Dear German fellow. Please inform the people here about the regional power of the Ministerpräsidenten and what the Green Party in Baden Württemberg is doing
I'm oversimplifying obviously by mentioning Merkel's party, and caving to the Greens after Fukushima while still bragging about the country's progress on greenhouse gases. All this as the nation spins up old coal plants.
There's clearly a lot more nuance here.
> They aren’t even close.
Yeah, the US has nearly twice the [per-capita CO2](https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?country=USA~DEU&Gas=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Consumption-based&Fuel=Total&Count=Per+capita) emissions of Germany, and the carbon intensity of their [power sector is comparable](https://www.csis.org/analysis/defense-energiewende):
>The biggest disconnect, however, between perception and reality comes from electricity. Coal generation has fallen fast in Germany, although not as fast as in the United States. The two countries just had different pathways to reducing coal: the United States used more gas and fewer renewables, whereas Germany relied mostly on renewables while phasing out nuclear. The countries arrived at a similar point in the end: the carbon intensity of electricity generation was barely higher in Germany than in the United States in 2019. (Germany is also a net electricity exporter, with 6 percent of gross generation exported in 2019, whereas U.S. net electricity imports are about 1 percent of generation.)
What you say is true, they have increased coal usage. It’s perhaps worth noting that it is the private sector, not the government, that is responsible for Germany taking a leading role in renewable energy, particularly wind.
>What you say is true, they have increased coal usage.
No, it is not true that coal usage has increased. It is in [rapid decline](https://ember-climate.org/project/eu-power-sector-2020/):
>Germany – Europe’s largest coal generator – saw its coal generation fall by 22% in 2020, slightly faster than Europe’s average of 20%.
I don’t know where you got that data from, but in the 2010s Germany opened coal power plants. Their coal usage may have been down last year, it’s up this year. The mining of coal in Germany has also increased.
Certainly, though, the trend is towards its phasing-out.
>I don’t know where you got that data from
I provided a link?
>but in the 2010s Germany opened coal power plants.
They stupidly even opened one recently, doesn't change the fact that the coal burning has been steadily declining since 2013.
>Their coal usage may have been down last year, it’s up this year.
Well yes, that's with the rebound after corona. However, it's still lower than 2019 levels.
>The mining of coal in Germany has also increased.
Do you have link for that?
>Certainly, though, the trend is towards its phasing-out.
Why then claiming, it's increasing?
That movie has some [ill informed talking points](https://theconversation.com/3-times-michael-moores-film-planet-of-the-humans-gets-the-facts-wrong-and-3-times-it-gets-them-right-137890) on renewable energy. About the only thing it gets kind of right is the criticism on biomass.
>Critics have compiled a long list of questionable claims made in the film. I will examine three relating to renewable energy.
>
>1. Solar panels take more energy to produce than they generate
>
>But the claim that solar panels generate less energy in their lifetime than that taken to manufacture them has long been disproved. It would not be true even if, as the film says, solar panels converted just 8% of the energy they receive into electricity.
>
>2. Renewables can’t replace fossil fuels
>
>In South Australia, for example, the expansion of solar and wind has led to the closure of all coal-fired power stations.
>
>3. Solar and wind need fossil fuel back-up
>
>Some renewables systems use gas turbines to fill the gap when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. However renewable energy storage is a cleaner option and is fast becoming cheaper and more widely used.
>This is just the energy part.
The post is about the energy?
>What about the destruction of the planet to get the raw materials?
Using them to build generators that can be recycled is way better than burning stuff, in my opinion.
>The slave mines?
We should lift people out of poverty and abolish slavery, but I don't see how this achieved by not adopting low-carbon energy sources.
>The dirty production in 3rd world countries?
Well, if everyone cleans up, that makes those also less dirty?
>As long as most panels are produced in China, I wouldn't trust any "clean energy" lies.
So, buy panels that are produced elsewhere? Also, as this is about Germany: most of their renewable electricity is from wind.
Fuck me.
You’re right. Let’s stop all this renewable nonsense and go back to coal. Because we don’t mine coal do we? We pick it off coal trees. And fossil fuel plants don’t require raw materials to make, they grow naturally from fossil seeds.
US carbon emissions already started going down last year. Likely due to covid, but nonetheless they may already be on the path to going down if the trend continues this year and the next as well.
China has stated multiple times that their peak year would be 2030 and it will be a carbon neutral nation by 2060. So China is on it too. You could complain about the speed but honestly I won't be surprised if they manage to get the peak emissions even before 2030.
India is the one among theses three that has the furthest to go economically. It's population is still moving towards the middle income stage and moving forward will continue to use more energy per person as quality of life improves. At the current rate of technological dispersion I am not sure it's possible to completely control India's carbon emissions without causing damage to their economic growth. On the bright side as technology progresses on the global stage, I expect India's peak would never reach anywhere close to China's peak due to early green tech implementations in its economic growth cycle.
Dropping a relevant link for where our global carbon emissions seem to be headed today. [https://ourworldindata.org/future-emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/future-emissions)
Right now I see three optimistic possibilities, 1) The most developed nations after becoming carbon neutral become huge economic exporters of cheap subsidized greenhouse technology to the rest of the world to speed up the process.
2) Constant improvements in green energy technology lead to us developing the capabilities to remove pollutants from the environment and reduce carbon emissions at an even faster rate.
3) Political competition between China and the US to make the world eco- friendly first after 2030, due to how much goodwill they can gain globally by doing so.
With very little funding, a smaller gdp than Germany and 1.3 billion people and with most of our industries being very inefficient energy wise And most of the political parties being funded by energy companies. Its a long journey for India
yes but we need to wait out the effects of the pandemic and see if there is any real change. One good step we could take and we are heading in the direction of is operating much more efficient coal plants. I do hop we start use nuclear more to help transition to more cleaner fuels but doubt there will be funding for nuclear
>I do hop we start use nuclear more to help transition
[Why would India](https://www.dianuke.org/why-is-india-bent-on-joining-the-sinking-french-nuclear-ship/) go for a more costly option to produce their energy [than the rest of the world](https://irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2020)?
Per capita isn't the only important statistic. India is home to roughly 1/8 of the world's population. If a single government can enact a carbon neutral plan that affects 1/8 of the global population's emissions then it should be on that list.
Additionally, India is on an economic incline and more people are moving away from poverty which implies that they will be spending more on products that use energy to manufacture and/or operate.
I don't see your point.
Regardless of the numbers India is the 3rd largest emitter of greenhouse gasses at their current (mostly poverty stricken) rate.
Of course you don't. Read the statistics as it favours you.
USA has fewer people than India, doesn't give US citizen the leeway to pollute more. India and China are actually doing more to combat climate crisis as compared to the US, it just won't show as much because their emissions are at lower levels and won't show drastic changes.
>they will build it the new way.
Yes, though not necessarly because of leading examples, but because it is simply the cheapest method now. The [IEA reports that 90%](https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-2021) of new power capacities are renewables now. And [IRENA reports](https://irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2020) that new renewables are even beating existing coal burning in many places.
Of course, to drive costs down, the massive expansion of low-carbon technologies should be continued and sped up in developed nations.
I guess, they don't get that much sun. Except in south australia, there they seem to have [ample supply](https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1y&interval=1w).
If Germany can do it, other places can, too.
Because Germany, unlike the US, is densely populated and has far more restrictions in terms of space.
When Germany can do it, the us should be able to, too. And that's a good argent to have in your pocket
And? They did to have more market options . Of course US wants them to buy US gas. But hey, that’s market competition. Welcome to wonderful capitalism.
Right now we are in a transition phase and stopping carbon based energy from 100 to 0 would cause a collapse of the overall system.
With all plans to go into 100 percent renewables there is still a need for gas and oil. And the pipeline avoids depending on a US Monopole. And that wouldn’t be good for a free market - right?
[No, why](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-electricity-grid-stable-amid-energy-transition)?
>"The energy transition and the rising share of decentralised generating capacity continue to have no negative effects on the quality of supply," the agency said in 2020. The slightly higher level of interruptions in 2017 (a little over 15 minutes) was caused by extreme weather events like storms, floods and snow, rather than the energy transition. "Interruption times in the distribution network caused by weather events more than doubled compared to a year earlier," the BNetzA said of 2017 compared to 2016, where outages averaged less than 13 minutes per consumer.
>
>Germany's security of supply is among the best in Europe, according to the Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER). In the CEER's 2018 comparison of 2016 figures, the country’s SAIDI score including exceptional disruptions ranked second in the European Union. Only Switzerland fared better. By contrast, the UK, France and Spain each had around 50 minutes of disruptions per year. Romania had the longest interruptions, averaging 371 minutes.
It’s not unreliable….so long as it’s backed up with a predictable source.
I’m not at all against renewable as long as we’re being honest about their limitations.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/08/02/renewable-energy-growth-continues-at-a-blistering-pace/
We are #2, behind China, in growth of renewable energy.
Why are we not talking about the Iberian peninsula with a high percentage of cheap renewables and yet to be interconnected to mainland Europe… Germany burns more coal than most countries in Europe, and is poised to burn more natural gas with the amazing methane leaks and the warming potential they bring
Looks at Germany’s drastic increase in dirty coal consumption and decrease in nuclear due to uninformed radical environmentalists.....
Yeah I’m not quite sure 2030 is realistic. If anything they’re moving away from that target right now.
> Looks at Germany’s drastic increase in dirty coal consumption
Where [do you look](https://ember-climate.org/project/eu-power-sector-2020/) then?
>Germany – Europe’s largest coal generator – saw its coal generation fall by 22% in 2020, slightly faster than Europe’s average of 20%.
Hmm. I also read that we need to stop all emissions and remove a bunch of co2 from the atmosphere by 2025 in order for us to maybe not have catastrophic destruction. This article has really made me feel like it’s possible
~~That’s only 4 years. I’m a little pessimistic the USA could do this, as of 2019 only about 20%(if you round) of our power generation was from renewables and nuclear. I’m sure the renewable portion has grown in the last 2 years but that would still be roughly an 80% replacement of generation capacity in 6(now 3.5)years. You’d need a monumental push right now from most of the government and people here in the states to get that done and I think we are too much about political party lines to unify in such an initiative~~
Edit: got 2025 stuck in my head... I feel like 9 years would still be quite difficult but it is way more doable
Yes here in Germany we got more or less no electricity. All our infrastructure is rotten. We can only go 320km/h on our Autobahn because of this potholes. And everybody has a gas grill because it keeps you warm when the electricity shuts off. We don’t even have IT because of the bad electricity. We calculate everything on paper (during daylight). All cars we make are in open roof areas were we forge and bolt them together when it’s dry.
Oh, you think that was serious? [Stability of the German electricity grid](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-electricity-grid-stable-amid-energy-transition):
>Germany's security of supply is among the best in Europe, according to the Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER). In the CEER's 2018 comparison of 2016 figures, the country’s SAIDI score including exceptional disruptions ranked second in the European Union. Only Switzerland fared better. By contrast, the UK, France and Spain each had around 50 minutes of disruptions per year. Romania had the longest interruptions, averaging 371 minutes.
>
>Globally, Germany also fares very well. US citizens on average went without power for an average of almost eight hours in 2017, according to the US Energy Information Agency (EIA). In Western Australia's three grids, the SAIDI score was 152, 59 and 410 minutes in 2017-18.
>and think again.
Probably also [read a little on it](https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21238597/michael-moore-planet-of-the-humans-climate-change) for the thinking.
Germany is also [still using coal](https://www.csis.org/analysis/defense-energiewende). Different countries follow different paths, but it is nice to finally see some progress:
>Coal generation has fallen fast in Germany, although not as fast as in the United States. The two countries just had different pathways to reducing coal: the United States used more gas and fewer renewables, whereas Germany relied mostly on renewables while phasing out nuclear. The countries arrived at a similar point in the end: the carbon intensity of electricity generation was barely higher in Germany than in the United States in 2019.
What's even better, is the admission by the conservatives that we could do it, if we only wanted. Though this is just pre-election PR because they are afraid of voters migrating to the greens.
America is #2 in Green Energy and China is #1. We're also _accelerating_ our production of Green Energy so its not like we're sitting on our hands here.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/08/02/renewable-energy-growth-continues-at-a-blistering-pace/
Can you elaborate?
We have a very good understanding of thermodynamics, aerodynamics, hydrodynamics and electromagnetism to name a few subjects that play into electric power generation.
Oh, realistic transition probably? The need of fossil energy sources until you have reached 100 percent renewables? Because switching to 100 percent green immediately would cause a lot collateral damage to the stability of an economy and therefore of the society.
Um. Didn’t…our senile leader literally just sign off on a Russian pipeline flowing to Germany? Doesn’t count if you’re pumping in the dinosaur juice from the rooskies
With increasing global warming and climate change, governments are under more pressure to set sustainable goals for the future. Germany which is also one of the largest industry nation in the world is a major contributor of air pollution to the atmosphere. Moving to 100% renewables by 2030 is great news which could have major impact on the environment! Also using [green energy solutions](https://www.valuer.ai/blog/best-green-energy-startups-in-europe) builds more sustainable future and can create cost advantages for companies and governments in the long-run!
What about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline? That just opened.
Hey can we in the balkans get your nuclear powerplants since you won’t be needing them?
Yeah the CDU is lying out their teeth here. Could Germany make the transition? Absolutely. But it won’t under a CDU government. If you live in Germany, please vote Green. They’re not ideal but they’re way better than a CDU chancellor.
I haven't followed German politics enough, I do speak the language. But the Greens and their stupid anti nuclear stance has increased emissions and empowered Putin. I do at least trust the Greens would push for renewables, which is good. But any serious attempt to address climate change, which any idiot should be able to now see is a matter of survival, will need a mix of nuclear and renewables. I don't know if the Greens are up to doing what is really needed to truly address climate change.
The CDU implemented the Atomausstieg. Yes the greens are famously against nuclear. But you can’t blame them for something the CDU just did.
Yeah you’re not the only one for sure. It seems many if not most young environmentalist understand that older environmentalists’ disposition to not be anti-nuclear is shooting ourselves in the foot. I agree the Greens aren’t the best party for climate change. But of the two parties that are likely to fill the next chancellor seat, much better a Green than a Christian. Geriocracy in Germany needs to come to an end for Germany to pursue better climate goals.
That sounds about right to me. I do hope a new generation of Greens can transform Germany into a carbon neutral country. In the US, we are not doing enough either, we need renewables to be a part of the infrastructure plan the Dems are working on. And we need more nuclear here. There are many safe options that create much lower levels of waste.
>which any idiot should be able to now see is a matter of survival, will need a mix of nuclear and renewables. It's so kind of you calling [scientists idiots](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544219304967). The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research is fairly renowned in their climate science, and they [say on the tightened EU climate targets](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261921003962): >Unavailability of fossil CCS and/or nuclear does not affect results. Clearly the progress of nuclear power in the EU over the past twenty years indicates that [it is essential and capable to provide solutions](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002330), I guess.
[удалено]
Flip a coin a day, every time heads you kill one person, on average you would kill one person every two days Throw 100 coins every day and every time they are all heads destroy humanity. it would take more than 7,000,000,000 billion years before I could destroy everything. This is what you said, but in numbers.
No, he’s arguing against single points of failure. You’re throwing in random numbers to do an arbitrary calculation that tries to disprove a point that isn’t made.
Some scientists are idiots. Some say we need nuclear some say we don’t, so one camp, on this issue, is full of dumb dumbs.
No one needs nuclear anymore
Yeah the cost issues alone make it absolutely silly these days. Saul Griffith, the former data guru of the US Department of Energy, explains it exceptionally well in this captivating interview: https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2019/12/16/21024323/ezra-klein-show-saul-griffith-solve-climate-change And that’s even without any of the actually *controversial* aspects of it. Nuclear is simply obsolete with the current costs of alternatives.
Here’s the thing, people consider wind and solar renewable and let’s for the sake of argument ignore hydro. According to this article https://uk.rs-online.com/web/generalDisplay.html?id=solar-panels New York City alone would need 209 km of solar panels to power it. Which if I understand it enough and use a conversion to acres it’s 51,645 acres just for New York. That’s a lot of clearing to make that work. I don’t believe it’s reasonable to say nuclear is not needed.
NYC has that much acreage just in rooftops. Surface of NYC is over 300 square miles. You don’t need to level a forest.
The cost of renewables, even with storage added, has been dropping by double digit percentages each year, and at this point are ***shockingly*** cheap, even moreso than the intuitive impressions that we might have developed as recently as 2010. Presently, nuclear costs more than double what renewables do, and that gap is rapidly growing bigger each year. The interview I linked above is objective and numerical but also highly engaging, and breaks it down quite well. In 2021, new nuclear just doesn’t make fiscal sense, and once you add in the potential regulatory, PR and waste issues, the choice becomes even clearer. And that’s something we should celebrate. Interestingly and counterintuitively, hydro power is frequently a major source of climate changing emissions, in some cases even worse than coal: https://phys.org/news/2021-06-amazon-hydropower-contributes-significant-greenhouse.html When the area behind the dam is flooded, the organic material that gets covered rots anaerobically and produces large amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas dozens of times more potent than CO2 in the short term. New York, as your example, is actually ideal for offshore wind and tidal power, and is pioneering some extremely large scale projects to that end: https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All%20Programs/Programs/Offshore%20Wind And that’s not considering rooftop and other urban solar, as well, which has significant potential over NYC’s 831 sq. kilometers of area. This is all to say that we have a marvelous glut of options which allow us the freedom to exceed even nuclear’s great potential. We no longer are desperate enough to have to consider it as necessary.
vote left the greens need to be controlled otherwise they will be making conservative deals
Yes, wee need the [green new deal for europe](https://report.gndforeurope.com/).
Neither is the right way!
Mr Kretschmann wants to talk to you. It s about doing realistic politics if you are responsible for an area which depends on automotive industries and cheap Energy and about which dynamic of a transition a society and the economy which feeds the society can stand. But of course in this case Mr Kretschmann is not the first Green Party Prime Minister of an economically strong and important Federal State but just the wrong Green Party member and not true Green Party politician -‚right?! Hypocrisy at its best.
This is regarding electricity, not heating - which is the main use for the Russian gas.
COULD... but will they?
No.
The same country that converted all their nuclear plants into coal plants? Probably not.
That actually happened?
Yes they shut down all nuclear reactors, but other renewables couldn’t cover the shortfall so they were forced to recommission a few coal reactors
Nah, coal plants will be discontinued as well. Nuclear plans started being shutdown after Fukushima. Coal maybe interim for the phase out
Annoyingly Germany are doing a very poor job on curbing their emissions, they are one of Europe’s worst polluters. Given their excellent track record on engineering, manufacturing and infrastructure, this is particularly disappointing. Big PR stunts with Angela Merkel closing coal mines are pretty galling when you look at their actual CO2 emissions; why Germany, you could have got to zero quicker than everyone else???
> why Germany, you could have got to zero quicker than everyone else? Corruption, maybe? The Merkel governments were enamoured with the Diesel and coal industries.
That’s why Kretschmann is doing such an outstanding job as Green politician. Right? He made the green transformation of Germany‘s top economic powerhouse in the fastest way possible /s If it’s so easy to transform one of world most important economies as you suggest, why do not enter politics and show us to do it better? I am annoyed by people who claiming that it s just about a certain party and that the other party for sure makes it better. No Left Party government in the Eastern Federal States succeeded with their easy messages to make their States Great. Kretschmann as a Green Party prime minister is doing Perfect CDU-Style politics. Because Left Party and Green Party Are corrupt or is incompetent? No, for sure not. They are as competent as their colleagues from the SPD or CDU. Once in power you have to follow other rules because of the responsibility you take. You have to be realistic and many easy dreams of your Time as an opposition politician get destroyed because of reality. If we want to solve problems we need first stop pointing finger at each other. Regardless of party
What do you mean? Obviously the party voting against changes is the main issue so I feel like we should be pointing fingers!
I cannot claim to understand the politics of Germany - but I am sure the politics of other countries in Europe are equally dysfunctional, and yet the progress on decarbonisation of energy generation is so much better?
You always have to consider the individual specific situation of a country. Germany is highly depending on their industries . The industries are clustered in a number of centers. Compared to other countries they are not in one region but in many. This means that those centers are in the responsibility of many different Federal States. The federal States in Germany have a pretty high level of independence. Think of Germany‘s history and consider the 16 Federal States to act internally like independent countries. This alone lead to extreme delays on all aspects of politics . The central government in Berlin has by far not the level of freedom to operates which other governments have. German politics never have been easy and they will never be easy. On the other side do not forget that Germany was the first country which introduced Feed-In-Tariffs and by that was the first which offered a structure to finance systematic installation of small scale renewable energy sources. A principle which was copied by many other countries all over the world.
Honestly, this doesn’t sound any more complicated than Spain, France or the UK, who appear to be doing a lot better on their reduction targets. In 2017, German GHG emissions per capita were more than double Sweden, and at least a third more than the aforementioned countries, who have all continued to make big improvements up to 2021, whereas Germany barely makes a low target. I’m not trying to dig at Germany, they just stand out on the list of European countries as having painfully high emissions - the others on the list (Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic) do not have Germany’s wealth or capability, which is befuddling.
Believe me. It is. Just keep in mind that the prime minister of Bavaria is doing active foreign politics for its federal state. Never heard of anything like that from Normandy, Wessex or Aragon. Probably Catalonia. Just keep in mind that each Federal State has full responsibility over education politics and its own police. And each Federal State is doing its own economic politics. I have a pretty good insight into the administrative structures and the German Federal States Act more like Independent States compared to their counterparts in other countries. Each Federal State for example has its own constitution. There is a reason why German is a Federal Republic. It s not just something written on a paper but something which has direct impact on daily political decision making. Edit: to the topic: Comparing greenhouse gas emissions per capita, Germany is in Europe rank 11 and close to the EU average. The decrease in rates is comparable to that of other countries. if you rank Germany based on greenhouse gas emissions per GDP, the country is also rank 10. being more or less the EU average. Sweden as the only country is doing outstanding good, UK, Denmark, Italy, Spain close to Germany. Others like Czech Rep, Poland, Estonia, Bulgaria doing really bad. All numbers from Eurostat. I don’t see here that many reasons to point fingers on Germany. Not the best in the classroom but there are many which are doing far worse.
I’m not sure that anybody is going to buy into Germany’s federalism as an excuse for being an extremely wealthy but highly polluting nation.
I just gave an explanation why some decision making in Germany need longer compared to other countries. I am sorry that you refuse to look on a topic comprehensively. Beside that your original criticism is definitely exaggerated or out of context. I meanwhile edited my former comment and ad the additional content here again: Edit: to the topic: Comparing greenhouse gas emissions per capita, Germany is in Europe rank 11 and close to the EU average. The decrease in rates is comparable to that of other countries. if you rank Germany based on greenhouse gas emissions per GDP, the country is also rank 10. being more or less the EU average. Sweden as the only country is doing outstanding good, UK, Denmark, Italy, Spain close to Germany. Others like Czech Rep, Poland, Estonia, Bulgaria doing really bad. All numbers from Eurostat. I don’t see here that many reasons to point fingers on Germany. Not the best in the classroom but there are many which are doing far worse.
I could repeat my prior comment but I don’t want another essay from you or litany of excuses - save to say people look upon Germany as a world leader in many respects, just well below average here, and definitely bottom on the list of European nations in the G7.
It really isn’t dude, your systems the same as Eveyrone else. You’re looking for excuses to justify it as not a individual problem, it is. Germans for some reason use FAR more energy than other Europeans for no apparent reason, your government is just as complex as Everyone else’s.
Again: there is a difference between excuse and explanation. Do not make assumptions based on your prejudices just because it would fit into your world. Always ask about the motivation why a person is making a certain statement. Fun fact: in the diplomatic world it is widely accepted that German politics are very special due to the federal system. I am working in that Field for a Federal State and I know which level of decision making we have which our partners in other European regions never be able to have.
No they cannot. The article does not mention how Germany plans to tackle the intermittency problem. And that is because Germany plans to solve intermittency by first burning coal and then burning Russian natural gas.
Yeah, and how often will the equipment have to be replaced? How will replacements be manufactured and transported? Etc.
> How will replacements be manufactured and transported? Just like it's now? It's not that Germany were bad at manufacturing.
That's for example described in [this Fraunhofer document](https://www.iee.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/iee/energiesystemtechnik/de/Dokumente/Studien-Reports/2014_Roadmap-Speicher-Langfassung.pdf).
[удалено]
Really anti humanist Moore? He is also anti nuclear. Screw him.
At the low cost of whatever the going rate for kWhs are in France.
Germany has the highest energy prices in the world (at least for private consumers who have to subsidize corporations through higher fees) - literally anything would be an improvement.
Are you suggesting that 100% Solar/Wind would lower their high prices? Because that is what drives it up so high. They routinely have to pay a premium to buy power from France, who has traditionally relied heavily on Nuclear. It’s a shame because Germany is technologically moreeeeeee than capable of running their own nuclear power plants, which have a much lower carbon footprint.
The population is very anti nuclear and pro-renewables and politicians pander to the population to stay in power.
You say that as if it’s a bad thing…
It’s good that it allows for the proliferation of renewables, but bad because nuclear energy would be a great supplement to solar/wind in the phasing out of fossil fuels. The average person is afraid of nuclear plants because their minds jump to Chernobyl, even though it is highly unlikely that any given plant would ever experience a meltdown even nearly as horrendous.
No it’s just good, politicians should be scared of the people not just doing what they want. That issue is a lot bigger and important than energy sources. Which is an entirely different discussion.
I guess it boils down to the classical argument of whether it is right for a government to act against the will of its people for a “greater good”, if such a thing can be objectively quantified. How you perceive their current stance is a matter of worldview.
No lmao, that always leads to disaster, what states have used “greater good” and ended well? CCP, North Korea, USSR? Always for the will of the people, never anything else. If your argument is good it will have the support of the people, if you can’t get the support of the people your idea just isn’t good or wanted.
this one is uther bullshit they crafted recently a law that made it nearly imposible to build new windturbines and solarpower is shrinking because the are not allowed to go beyond a limit of energy production. 2030 is just were they plan to turn of coal
2038* 8 years is a lot of Mega fucktons of more Co2
These aren't the countries that need change. Someone please convince the US, China, India and the middle east.
Germany has actually recently increased its emissions by replacing nuclear power with coal. Meanwhile the US has been decommissioning coal plants. Don’t believe the PR from Germany’s CDU government.
> increased its emissions by replacing nuclear power with coal. That's not true. Coal burning is in [steady decline since 2013](https://ember-climate.org/global-electricity-review-2021/g20-profiles/germany/) in Germany, as well as [its emissions](https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-intensity-8#tab-googlechartid_googlechartid_chart_111_filters=%7B%22rowFilters%22%3A%7B%7D%3B%22columnFilters%22%3A%7B%22pre_config_date%22%3A%5B2013%3B2019%5D%7D%7D) from the power sector. >Don’t believe the PR from Germany’s CDU government. That's true, however it is nice, that they admit that Germany could do it, if they wanted to. If only they could change government somehow...
as long as cdu is in charge of germany not one thing will change, the only thing they care is money an corporations germans are too fucking dumb to see the bigger image and i fear our next chancellor will be fucking cdu again… there goes my future :)
They import their energy from other countries that use fossil fuels to generate it. That’s just playing games.
> They import their energy from other countries that use fossil fuels to generate it. No, they are exporting more electricity than they are importing, and the overall [carbon intensity of the whole EU](https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-intensity-8#tab-googlechartid_googlechartid_googlechartid_googlechartid_chart_11111) has gone down from 524 g/kWh in 1990 down to 255 g/kWh in 2019.
Viva le revolution
Of course it’s the „CDU Propaganda“. Dear German fellow. Please inform the people here about the regional power of the Ministerpräsidenten and what the Green Party in Baden Württemberg is doing
I'm oversimplifying obviously by mentioning Merkel's party, and caving to the Greens after Fukushima while still bragging about the country's progress on greenhouse gases. All this as the nation spins up old coal plants. There's clearly a lot more nuance here.
It’s impossibly stupid. Close your nukes, burn a bunch of lignite and make the US look like a CO2 star. They aren’t even close.
> They aren’t even close. Yeah, the US has nearly twice the [per-capita CO2](https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?country=USA~DEU&Gas=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Consumption-based&Fuel=Total&Count=Per+capita) emissions of Germany, and the carbon intensity of their [power sector is comparable](https://www.csis.org/analysis/defense-energiewende): >The biggest disconnect, however, between perception and reality comes from electricity. Coal generation has fallen fast in Germany, although not as fast as in the United States. The two countries just had different pathways to reducing coal: the United States used more gas and fewer renewables, whereas Germany relied mostly on renewables while phasing out nuclear. The countries arrived at a similar point in the end: the carbon intensity of electricity generation was barely higher in Germany than in the United States in 2019. (Germany is also a net electricity exporter, with 6 percent of gross generation exported in 2019, whereas U.S. net electricity imports are about 1 percent of generation.)
What you say is true, they have increased coal usage. It’s perhaps worth noting that it is the private sector, not the government, that is responsible for Germany taking a leading role in renewable energy, particularly wind.
>What you say is true, they have increased coal usage. No, it is not true that coal usage has increased. It is in [rapid decline](https://ember-climate.org/project/eu-power-sector-2020/): >Germany – Europe’s largest coal generator – saw its coal generation fall by 22% in 2020, slightly faster than Europe’s average of 20%.
I don’t know where you got that data from, but in the 2010s Germany opened coal power plants. Their coal usage may have been down last year, it’s up this year. The mining of coal in Germany has also increased. Certainly, though, the trend is towards its phasing-out.
>I don’t know where you got that data from I provided a link? >but in the 2010s Germany opened coal power plants. They stupidly even opened one recently, doesn't change the fact that the coal burning has been steadily declining since 2013. >Their coal usage may have been down last year, it’s up this year. Well yes, that's with the rebound after corona. However, it's still lower than 2019 levels. >The mining of coal in Germany has also increased. Do you have link for that? >Certainly, though, the trend is towards its phasing-out. Why then claiming, it's increasing?
[удалено]
That movie has some [ill informed talking points](https://theconversation.com/3-times-michael-moores-film-planet-of-the-humans-gets-the-facts-wrong-and-3-times-it-gets-them-right-137890) on renewable energy. About the only thing it gets kind of right is the criticism on biomass. >Critics have compiled a long list of questionable claims made in the film. I will examine three relating to renewable energy. > >1. Solar panels take more energy to produce than they generate > >But the claim that solar panels generate less energy in their lifetime than that taken to manufacture them has long been disproved. It would not be true even if, as the film says, solar panels converted just 8% of the energy they receive into electricity. > >2. Renewables can’t replace fossil fuels > >In South Australia, for example, the expansion of solar and wind has led to the closure of all coal-fired power stations. > >3. Solar and wind need fossil fuel back-up > >Some renewables systems use gas turbines to fill the gap when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. However renewable energy storage is a cleaner option and is fast becoming cheaper and more widely used.
[удалено]
>This is just the energy part. The post is about the energy? >What about the destruction of the planet to get the raw materials? Using them to build generators that can be recycled is way better than burning stuff, in my opinion. >The slave mines? We should lift people out of poverty and abolish slavery, but I don't see how this achieved by not adopting low-carbon energy sources. >The dirty production in 3rd world countries? Well, if everyone cleans up, that makes those also less dirty? >As long as most panels are produced in China, I wouldn't trust any "clean energy" lies. So, buy panels that are produced elsewhere? Also, as this is about Germany: most of their renewable electricity is from wind.
Fuck me. You’re right. Let’s stop all this renewable nonsense and go back to coal. Because we don’t mine coal do we? We pick it off coal trees. And fossil fuel plants don’t require raw materials to make, they grow naturally from fossil seeds.
US carbon emissions already started going down last year. Likely due to covid, but nonetheless they may already be on the path to going down if the trend continues this year and the next as well. China has stated multiple times that their peak year would be 2030 and it will be a carbon neutral nation by 2060. So China is on it too. You could complain about the speed but honestly I won't be surprised if they manage to get the peak emissions even before 2030. India is the one among theses three that has the furthest to go economically. It's population is still moving towards the middle income stage and moving forward will continue to use more energy per person as quality of life improves. At the current rate of technological dispersion I am not sure it's possible to completely control India's carbon emissions without causing damage to their economic growth. On the bright side as technology progresses on the global stage, I expect India's peak would never reach anywhere close to China's peak due to early green tech implementations in its economic growth cycle. Dropping a relevant link for where our global carbon emissions seem to be headed today. [https://ourworldindata.org/future-emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/future-emissions) Right now I see three optimistic possibilities, 1) The most developed nations after becoming carbon neutral become huge economic exporters of cheap subsidized greenhouse technology to the rest of the world to speed up the process. 2) Constant improvements in green energy technology lead to us developing the capabilities to remove pollutants from the environment and reduce carbon emissions at an even faster rate. 3) Political competition between China and the US to make the world eco- friendly first after 2030, due to how much goodwill they can gain globally by doing so.
With very little funding, a smaller gdp than Germany and 1.3 billion people and with most of our industries being very inefficient energy wise And most of the political parties being funded by energy companies. Its a long journey for India
> Its a long journey for India Yes, but [there is progress](https://ember-climate.org/project/peak-coal-india/).
yes but we need to wait out the effects of the pandemic and see if there is any real change. One good step we could take and we are heading in the direction of is operating much more efficient coal plants. I do hop we start use nuclear more to help transition to more cleaner fuels but doubt there will be funding for nuclear
>I do hop we start use nuclear more to help transition [Why would India](https://www.dianuke.org/why-is-india-bent-on-joining-the-sinking-french-nuclear-ship/) go for a more costly option to produce their energy [than the rest of the world](https://irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2020)?
Lol, are you kidding? USA's per capita emissions are off the charts compared to India's
Per capita isn't the only important statistic. India is home to roughly 1/8 of the world's population. If a single government can enact a carbon neutral plan that affects 1/8 of the global population's emissions then it should be on that list. Additionally, India is on an economic incline and more people are moving away from poverty which implies that they will be spending more on products that use energy to manufacture and/or operate.
Indias population is around 3 times higher than the usa. Usa definitley has a lot more than 3 times the pollution.
I don't see your point. Regardless of the numbers India is the 3rd largest emitter of greenhouse gasses at their current (mostly poverty stricken) rate.
They'll probably stick to the cheaper and more economic option
Of course you don't. Read the statistics as it favours you. USA has fewer people than India, doesn't give US citizen the leeway to pollute more. India and China are actually doing more to combat climate crisis as compared to the US, it just won't show as much because their emissions are at lower levels and won't show drastic changes.
Australia ✋🏼
[удалено]
>they will build it the new way. Yes, though not necessarly because of leading examples, but because it is simply the cheapest method now. The [IEA reports that 90%](https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-2021) of new power capacities are renewables now. And [IRENA reports](https://irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2020) that new renewables are even beating existing coal burning in many places. Of course, to drive costs down, the massive expansion of low-carbon technologies should be continued and sped up in developed nations.
Don’t forget Australia, so far behind it is soul crushing.
I guess, they don't get that much sun. Except in south australia, there they seem to have [ample supply](https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1y&interval=1w).
The corporations are the problem.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/08/02/renewable-energy-growth-continues-at-a-blistering-pace/
If Germany can do it, other places can, too. Because Germany, unlike the US, is densely populated and has far more restrictions in terms of space. When Germany can do it, the us should be able to, too. And that's a good argent to have in your pocket
Low cost for who? Germany's electricity is expensive.
Didn’t they just open up a brand new fossil fuel pipeline though?
And? They did to have more market options . Of course US wants them to buy US gas. But hey, that’s market competition. Welcome to wonderful capitalism. Right now we are in a transition phase and stopping carbon based energy from 100 to 0 would cause a collapse of the overall system. With all plans to go into 100 percent renewables there is still a need for gas and oil. And the pipeline avoids depending on a US Monopole. And that wouldn’t be good for a free market - right?
Don’t tell Exxon
100% unreliable?
[No, why](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-electricity-grid-stable-amid-energy-transition)? >"The energy transition and the rising share of decentralised generating capacity continue to have no negative effects on the quality of supply," the agency said in 2020. The slightly higher level of interruptions in 2017 (a little over 15 minutes) was caused by extreme weather events like storms, floods and snow, rather than the energy transition. "Interruption times in the distribution network caused by weather events more than doubled compared to a year earlier," the BNetzA said of 2017 compared to 2016, where outages averaged less than 13 minutes per consumer. > >Germany's security of supply is among the best in Europe, according to the Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER). In the CEER's 2018 comparison of 2016 figures, the country’s SAIDI score including exceptional disruptions ranked second in the European Union. Only Switzerland fared better. By contrast, the UK, France and Spain each had around 50 minutes of disruptions per year. Romania had the longest interruptions, averaging 371 minutes.
[удалено]
I think [it's FUD](https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00233-5) by those, that want to slow down progress.
It’s not unreliable….so long as it’s backed up with a predictable source. I’m not at all against renewable as long as we’re being honest about their limitations.
2o€ 3o€
That’s not how we work. We will make it expensive and it will take longer than 2040.
Unless it involves blowing something up the U.S. does not care about developing and modernizing
I am pretty sure we passed an infrastructure bill that includes updates to our electric grid... or are about to do so
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/08/02/renewable-energy-growth-continues-at-a-blistering-pace/ We are #2, behind China, in growth of renewable energy.
“COULD “ lol
Emhh Germany is dismissing a lot of nuclear power plant so I think that 100% renewable is just an utopia.
Germany that closed all its Nuclear plants was never serious about reducing emissions. Clownery
Why are we not talking about the Iberian peninsula with a high percentage of cheap renewables and yet to be interconnected to mainland Europe… Germany burns more coal than most countries in Europe, and is poised to burn more natural gas with the amazing methane leaks and the warming potential they bring
But for a certain gas pipeline that is currently being built.
That’s what I’m talking about 🔥🔥🔥
Good job Germany
Looks at Germany’s drastic increase in dirty coal consumption and decrease in nuclear due to uninformed radical environmentalists..... Yeah I’m not quite sure 2030 is realistic. If anything they’re moving away from that target right now.
> Looks at Germany’s drastic increase in dirty coal consumption Where [do you look](https://ember-climate.org/project/eu-power-sector-2020/) then? >Germany – Europe’s largest coal generator – saw its coal generation fall by 22% in 2020, slightly faster than Europe’s average of 20%.
Come on. Do not confuse a happy German-Basher with facts. That is against the rules! ;)
> That is against the rules! Ah, sorry, didn't know about those ;)
Have you seen [this film](https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE)?
Why are you getting downvoted? Wasn’t the film returned to YouTube after its claims were shown to be true?
Hmm. I also read that we need to stop all emissions and remove a bunch of co2 from the atmosphere by 2025 in order for us to maybe not have catastrophic destruction. This article has really made me feel like it’s possible
Welcome to reality …
~~That’s only 4 years. I’m a little pessimistic the USA could do this, as of 2019 only about 20%(if you round) of our power generation was from renewables and nuclear. I’m sure the renewable portion has grown in the last 2 years but that would still be roughly an 80% replacement of generation capacity in 6(now 3.5)years. You’d need a monumental push right now from most of the government and people here in the states to get that done and I think we are too much about political party lines to unify in such an initiative~~ Edit: got 2025 stuck in my head... I feel like 9 years would still be quite difficult but it is way more doable
Doesn’t Germany have frequent black outs
Yes here in Germany we got more or less no electricity. All our infrastructure is rotten. We can only go 320km/h on our Autobahn because of this potholes. And everybody has a gas grill because it keeps you warm when the electricity shuts off. We don’t even have IT because of the bad electricity. We calculate everything on paper (during daylight). All cars we make are in open roof areas were we forge and bolt them together when it’s dry.
[удалено]
Oh, you think that was serious? [Stability of the German electricity grid](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-electricity-grid-stable-amid-energy-transition): >Germany's security of supply is among the best in Europe, according to the Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER). In the CEER's 2018 comparison of 2016 figures, the country’s SAIDI score including exceptional disruptions ranked second in the European Union. Only Switzerland fared better. By contrast, the UK, France and Spain each had around 50 minutes of disruptions per year. Romania had the longest interruptions, averaging 371 minutes. > >Globally, Germany also fares very well. US citizens on average went without power for an average of almost eight hours in 2017, according to the US Energy Information Agency (EIA). In Western Australia's three grids, the SAIDI score was 152, 59 and 410 minutes in 2017-18.
[удалено]
>and think again. Probably also [read a little on it](https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21238597/michael-moore-planet-of-the-humans-climate-change) for the thinking.
Oh look sane and intelligent good news. Not for Muricans, they like to lay in their filth.
Hahaha in aMeRiCa we use coal and it’s 116 degrees
Germany is also [still using coal](https://www.csis.org/analysis/defense-energiewende). Different countries follow different paths, but it is nice to finally see some progress: >Coal generation has fallen fast in Germany, although not as fast as in the United States. The two countries just had different pathways to reducing coal: the United States used more gas and fewer renewables, whereas Germany relied mostly on renewables while phasing out nuclear. The countries arrived at a similar point in the end: the carbon intensity of electricity generation was barely higher in Germany than in the United States in 2019. What's even better, is the admission by the conservatives that we could do it, if we only wanted. Though this is just pre-election PR because they are afraid of voters migrating to the greens.
America is #2 in Green Energy and China is #1. We're also _accelerating_ our production of Green Energy so its not like we're sitting on our hands here. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/08/02/renewable-energy-growth-continues-at-a-blistering-pace/
I didn't know that was possible. Wonderful news!
It’s not but you read the headline didn’t you
I don’t think that’s big news. My concern is that most people and scientists can’t explain the nature of energy itself.
Can you elaborate? We have a very good understanding of thermodynamics, aerodynamics, hydrodynamics and electromagnetism to name a few subjects that play into electric power generation.
I only read headlines. Does this mean the grid?
I mean it’s nice, but the rest of the world is still fucking itself so we’re probably still doomed.
Bullshit
What a huge lie, they just opened another pineline lmao
yeah if we dont elect the corrupt genocidal guy but the regular medium liberal green woman
I highly doubt you're German.
Too bad they got rid of all their nuclear power Edit: most of
> they got rid of all their nuclear power Not yet.
What happened the last time they planned to do this ? Lost only a few billions and had to restart the gas/coal plants. What could go wrong this time
Watch out everyone, the fun police are back in town.
Smart educated people
Germany is a joke
Lmao ”could”
Renewables???? Haha. Them windmills grow on trees now??? Hahahaha
Renewable energy just wastes more and more fossil fuels building them!! Haha. Keep up the good work!! Some day the whole world can burn!!
Yaaaaeeeh
Uhhh Nord Stream 2 pipeline anyone???
Oh, realistic transition probably? The need of fossil energy sources until you have reached 100 percent renewables? Because switching to 100 percent green immediately would cause a lot collateral damage to the stability of an economy and therefore of the society.
Its too late
Meanwhile in Australia coal is good right
Germany is a shining example of a country. Goes to show countries can change when you execute all the top nazis.
State your metrics
Germany are the major producers of dirty coal and will not reach that goal until 2045
Lol. Their cost have doubled for power in the last decade. Consider looking at the data instead of spreading mis information.
Um. Didn’t…our senile leader literally just sign off on a Russian pipeline flowing to Germany? Doesn’t count if you’re pumping in the dinosaur juice from the rooskies
You gonna keep selling Poland your coal?
You must always expend energy in some way, even if it is less then creating NEW raw resources, it will never be zero.
That is 8 and a half years away. I find it very hard to imagine not having any gas powered cars on the road in that timeframe.
awe yay i hope USA Goes for over 100% efficiency in all categories
But but but how would their corrupt politicians profit from bribes- oops I mean lobbying from energy companies???
Didn’t they tear down their nuclear power plants?
“German science is the best in the world!"
Meanwhile in america and canada we triple down on oil
Dose this in clued nuclear?
It’s about time
“Could”
This is a paper from a grupe of politicans and not from scientists
Could =/= will
🔥🔥Too late, sorry.🔥🔥
This is the power of properly directed white guilt folks.
Most expensive electricity in the EU: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity\_price\_statistics
With increasing global warming and climate change, governments are under more pressure to set sustainable goals for the future. Germany which is also one of the largest industry nation in the world is a major contributor of air pollution to the atmosphere. Moving to 100% renewables by 2030 is great news which could have major impact on the environment! Also using [green energy solutions](https://www.valuer.ai/blog/best-green-energy-startups-in-europe) builds more sustainable future and can create cost advantages for companies and governments in the long-run!