One Year Since Germany's Nuclear Exit: Renewables Expand, Fossil Fuels Reduced

Going by this chart:

* https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...

* Also: https://www.iea.org/countries/germany

* Also also: https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/emissions#what-are-the...

Nuclear was previously providing 22 GW (2022) to 20 GW (2010) of capacity, down to 12.1 GW (2011), then 8 (2019): currently (2023) lignite can output 18.6 GW of capacity, and hard coal is providing 18.9 GW.

For output (per first link), at its peak nuclear provided ~150 TWh, while coal (lignite+hard) provided 120 TWh in 2023.

So AFAICT, coal capacity could have been cut in half (perhaps even not running that often) if existing nuclear was kept around. (New nuclear did not have to be constructed, just keep around the current stuff longer until (a) fossils are retired, and (b) more renwwables are built out).

Germany has built a tremendous amount of solar and wind in the past few years, but the amount of energy they're generating is exaggerated a lot when one talks about percentages.

In reality, over the past 5 or so years as the last of the nuclear reactors were decommissioned and solar/wind installations have ramped up, the total amount of electricity produced in Germany has decreased, and Germany has moved from on average being an electricity exporter to being an electricity importer.

The reduction in total electrical power generated in Germany is about equal to the power lost from nuclear reactors, while the reductions in fossil fuels was more or less balanced by the increase in renewables.

This is pretty promising, and in my opinion, it's actually somewhat good that Germany is a net electricity importer rather than exporter. They shouldn't be selling power generated with coal when they could be buying power generated with nuclear (France) or hydroelectric (Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Austria).

But from what I can tell, they're doing a pretty good job reducing their usage of fossil fuel? Can someone clarify.

Yes, power is more expensive in Germany. Yes they have periods where they don't produce all the power they consume, yes the import nuclear power. But for their goals of reducing fossil fuel consumption and not building nuclear power plants they seem to be doing well?

* https://web.archive.org/web/20240515172653/http://ise.fraunh...

That tinges the interpretation of this press release. It isn't all smiles and sunshine in the German electricity market.

EDIT In fact, you can add China to the graphs and note that OWID thinks China generates more electricity per-capita than Germany does as of last year. Who'd have thought that was possible 40 years ago!

First they simply use less power than before.

Second they import nuclear power from France for reliability.

Seems kinda silly to me.

Nuclear energy exit did not lead to more coal consumption - that was due to sudden switching off of Russian gas in response to their illegal war of aggression against Ukraine.

In the end, there is exactly ONE reason why Germany really went through with leaving nuclear and it is not the anti-nuclear crowd. It is simply cost and money in the face of much cheaper, less risky and heavily abundant renewable energy.

You cannot make an argument for building new plants which will take 10-20 years of realization and billions of Euros when nobody is going to insure it and when we can add massive amounts of MWh of cheap, reliable and safe energy in the mean time.

It is economically irresponsible and makes no sense at all. The mistake of leaving nuclear before coal was made long ago, and yes it was a mistake based on anti-nuclear ideology. But it is equally irrational to try and fix that now in face of clearly better alternatives. You have to actively deny cost analysis data and developments in energy tech over the last decade to keep arguing for nuclear power.

the ml at the end of the link is missing

I guess with renewables, their growth can be a lot faster than nuclear because building nuclear power plants is a massive centralized undertaking, where as renewables, especially solar, is nimble and incrementally deployable.

So while nuclear seems good, it is logistically a nightmare and it is inflexible.

Where as renewables is decentralized and nimble.

I hadn't thought about it that way before.

I suspect not.

First, the Germany indeed has significantly reduced its reliance on fossil fuels.

But this is not a one-parameter optimization for the country. For decades, Germany was also a center of advanced manufacturing in Europe, one of the very few places able to compete with Chinese manufacturing due to the quality of its manufacturing. It was everywhere: national champions, large factories, small companies, interconnected into a web of excellence.

That, I think, is slowly unraveling and expensive energy is a strong reason for it although definitely not the only one. I have recently met (on hikes and trips) three former owners of small-ish German manufacturers who sold their businesses "because running manufacturing in Germany is not great now" and expected the new owners to move production overseas. New owners bought for established, multi-year orders and being able to stamp the old company name on the products.

This is a very slow process that runs over decades and while the numbers in the study are undoubtedly correct, the reduction in availability of inexpensive, predictably priced energy from the nuclear exit likely accelerates the reduction of Germany manufacturing might. I would love to be wrong, we shall see in another 10-15 years. My 2c.