In the last months of 2022, about a third of power production came from coal. In 2006, about a third instead came from nuclear plants.
Source (Swedish): https://www.tn.se/naringsliv/24056/efter-nedlaggningen-av-ka...
Officially coal is supposed to be phased out by 2030.
You are misrepresenting the data here, implying that coal production somehow has increased over that time period but in 2006 coal stood for about 60% of the power production. Coal usage is trending downwards, but during 2021 and 2022 it has gone up as a direct result of shutting down the nuclear plants and the reduced gas input.
The depiction has a breakdown of taxes also and the trend is what I remember. I must admit I’m not 1000% sure whether the page that links it is great though: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/13/german-household-elec...
That did the industry in Germany a real solid: https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Schlaglichter-der-Wirtschaf...
Compared to 2015, it is down by 10% or so: https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Schlaglichter-der-Wirtschaf...
Now, I certainly advise caution how to interpret these figures and how inflation is factored in, etc. are big factors. Having several family members across Germany working in industrial production, there is a common theme that “production is shifted abroad at scale” though… Also keep in mind: the industry didn’t pay these 35 cents/kWh prices, those were what consumers paid…
The past 17+ years of political failure did the German working class a real solid. When the head of a state advises people to “use a sponge and not shower so often to preserve hot water” it’s almost surreal that a government charging 45+% of tax of a countries GDP is unable to ensure people have hot water, heating or keep up the electrical supply for industry.
I never made the claim you state either. The failure is the re-introduction now taking place.
ApoCOALypse Now! [YouTube]:
The reactors only recently went online again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/18/business/france-nuclear-p...
So a coalition government where greener parties represent 50% of the governing coalition would likely be greener than one where they only have 25%, but to do everything according to their own party programme they would need to have a majority vote to be able to govern without forming a coalition.
Sometimes participating in a coalition government means the government takes actions the individual party may not find desirable, but they accept these because they do get to have their say on other topics. And sometimes local branches of a party have a differing opinion on some topics.
This is overall a good system though. It means you can vote for a party closest to your ideals, and even have a chance that they can govern (e.g., as part of a coalition), or at least have them represented in parliament.
Wind and solar don’t work in Central Europe.
Whats left, now that the wolf is at the door, if you want the lights on and heat for the family?
Dirty coal.
This simply isn't backed by real life experience. A not too small factor about Germany producing more power is that France for years now always has problems producing enough energy, because they have to put down their nuclear plants for various reasons. In these situations nuclear power plants typically still require energy.
France put all its eggs into nuclear, like pretty much no other country, and doesn't produce enough energy to even cover its own energy demands. And not just now, but the topic goes through the media at least once a year. Nobody denies that, it's just a fact.
Reality just isn't that simple.
France is one of the biggest exporters of electricity in the World and that's where most of the non-nuclear and non-renewable production goes.
It's so much easier to profit and seize control during periods of volatility.
Statistics are presented about the benefits of renewables, which seemingly never include the environmental destruction of the gas peaking plants propping them up.
If you counter with 'what about batteries', the lie by omission shifts from environmental destruction to child slavery. Battery supply chains cannot escape the contaminant that is child slavery.
Of course, this is while the West agreed to give China and India free reign to build unlimited coal plants until 2030.
Why can't renewables shake these fundamental deceptions? You're either hiding emissions (gas) or hiding child slavery (batteries).
It's not everywhere a problem, a really old solution is:
https://www.iflscience.com/giant-water-battery-in-the-swiss-...
And if you don't have much water that could be a solution:
Peaker plants are not baseload power. Baseload power means constant output, peaker plants are by definition variable output. You should also take into account that renewables+peaker plants replace coal plants in Germany, the emissions are reduced compared to before.
>Peaker plants are not baseload power
Not according to reality. [1] Gas has been producing consistently on a daily basis for over a year in Germany. Natural gas is used to prop up baseload generation in Germany and practically every region it's used.
[1] https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/service/recent-electric...
We're also quite keenly aware of the downsides of other energy sources. You could equally argue that there are many lies of omission related to fossil fuels or nuclear.
There are quite some ways of providing backup for wind and solar: ordinary hydro power and geothermal energy for base load, pumped storage hydro power, hydrogen conversion and tidal power for peaks. And even gas plants aren't that problematic either - assuming you only need them for peaks instead of, like now, replacing broken-down French NPPs, you can fire them with bio-gas gathered from farm animal dung or bio-waste.
> If you counter with 'what about batteries', the lie by omission shifts from environmental destruction to child slavery. Battery supply chains cannot escape the contaminant that is child slavery.
Of course they can, it is only a matter of money and oversight over governments.
Take the case of Tasmania, Australia. Tasmania is generally an energy exporter, and receives 100% of their power via hydro. In 2016, unexpectedly low rainfall led to serious supply issues in the hydro plant powering the island. The solution? The government organized air deliveries of diesel generators to meet the shortfall. Diesel generators are worse than coal.
In mere months, Tasmania's 'green energy revolution' was desecrated by diesel. Decades of progress erased. Green image gone.
As for pumped hydro storage, same issue. If one of your variables is 'we get more than X rainfall', it cannot possibly be described as reliable enough for baseload power.
This is the problem. Green solutions get decimated by reality, and they're dutifully covered up by greenwashing propagandists. Don't look too closely at our diesel generators or gas peaking plants. Don't look at our battery supply chains.
Germany is facing the danger of de-industrialization and losing their economy, they need to react fast to get energy prices back to a realistic level, Its not the time for rosy climate goals and climate extremists(Die letzte Generation), the entire country is at risk.
Despite other comments saying Germany is wasting its taxes, the way Germany handled the gas crisis is certainly better than the UK, which ironically should've been less affected.
high taxes allowed Germany to strike new deals with Qatar, and to buy gas from alternative, certainty more expensive suppliers.
UK just looks like a crazy show from outside. Weirdly enough it was put up for a vote and people went for it with the Brexit.
With the leftist government for another 3+ years in Germany, the chances for Germany to get back on track are nil. And if Germany sh*t its pants it’s not rosy for the EU either. UK gone, France not exactly outpacing everyone and the South on the brink of financial collapse.