[_ph_]

No, Germany is not importing coal-based power from our neighbours, nor are we doing so with nuclear power. Germany is a net exporter of electricity. Unfortunately too much of that being coal power produced in Germany.

Germany is part of the European power grid, so there are times, when power is imported to compensate for local over- and underproduction. As Germany is in the middle of Europe, far more power is conducted across of Germany. You cannot count French nuclear power as in import, if the same amount of power is exported to Austria at the same time (a very common situation). Germany is a net power exporter.

Gas is important in two way: first of all, it is way cleaner than coal, so it is the best short term replacement for coal. Germany almost has enough (currently mostly idle) gas power plants to completely replace coal short term. As long as there are no mass storage facilities, gas is needed as the gap filler for the times when neither wind and solar can power the grid. As the production capacity grows, these gaps are going to get increasingly smaller. It remains to be seen what is the best long-term solution, either to grow large storage facilities to get to 100% reneweables or allow like 10% gas in the mix.

[macspoofing]

>As long as there are no mass storage facilities,

And there aren't.

>gas is needed as the gap filler for the times when neither wind and solar can power the grid.

This is the entire point!! Wind and solar can't replace fossil fuels. So what Germany did was replace non-CO2 emitting nuclear power with CO2 emitting power generation (natural gas and coal). I guess fighting global warning is less important than satisfying irrational German paranoia against nuclear.

>As the production capacity grows, these gaps are going to get increasingly smaller.

The sun will start shining at night?

[_ph_]

Your argumentation is full of fallacies. First of all, we didn't "replace" nuclear with coal - as I wrote before, we didn't build new coal power plants. Most of all, the renweables are replacing nuclear. And they are replacing coal. If we get rid of 90% of fossil fuels in electricty production, how are we not replacing fossil fuels with reneweables?

The sun will start shining at night?

That sentence did a huge disservice to your post. Of course the sun doesn't shine at night. But no one wants to replace all energy production by solar alone. Wind is the companion of solar, both are roughly the same size in Germany. Wind is what delivers the power at night (where electricity consumption is lowest) and solar adds the power for the additional requirements during daytime.

[macspoofing]

>Most of all, the renweables are replacing nuclear.

They aren't. We agreed that wind/solar is not capable of serving as the base power generation of a modern economy. Lack of city-scale battery technology, and the variability of solar and wind precludes this use case.

So what Germany did was remove a non-CO2 emitting power source and replaced it with a mix of solar/wind AND CO2-emitting power generation (via existing coal plants, new gas plants, and importation of coal-based power when they need it).

If the name of the game is to cut CO2 emissions as much as possible, you're at net negative. It necessarily means that had you not closed down nuclear power plants, you would have cut MORE CO2 emissions than you do now. That's just a statement of fact.

And this is my problem with anti-nuke policies. Implicitly the anti-nuke activists are saying that cutting CO2 emissions isn't as important as preventing expansion of nuclear power or even keeping existing plants running. Consider this and cry for our civilization: had the developed world doubled-down on nuclear power in the 60-70s to the same level as France, we would have prevented trillions of tons of CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere. That could have bought us a few extra decades. I am convinced that history will see antinuclear view as more destructive than right-wing global warming denialism (which on balance does not actually do anything).

>Of course the sun doesn't shine at night. But no one wants to replace all energy production by solar alone. Wind is the companion of solar, both are roughly the same size in Germany. Wind is what delivers the power at night. Meaning that you have to overprovision your infrastructure to supplement periods of low output.

Again, this is a disingenuous point. The problem with wind and solar is not only variability but also the fact that peak generation does not match peak consumption. If peak wind generation is at 3am, it doesn't do our society any good because we need power at 6pm. Worse than that, solar and wind generation profile changes with weather and seasons.

So no, it's not simple as saying: Solar peaks during the day, and Wind peaks during the night and therefore they complement each other ... because they don't.

[MagnumOpus]

You are ignoring both heating and transportation, each of which creates as much of Germany's CO2 emissions as electricity generation.

Replacing both with domestic non-fossil solutions is near-impossible in the medium term unless nuclear forms a big part of the baseload - heating on those winter nights where the sun doesn't shine but electric heat exchangers work full tilt, and generation for those electric cars charging throughout the winter night.

[_ph_]

We were talking specifically about the electricity production, not the total energy production. So you are changing the topic. But they are related topics. First of all, you must not make the mistake to compare the termal energy used in transportation and (to a lesser part) for heating with the electrical energy produced. An electric car uses less than a third of thermal energy consumed by a combustion engined car. Heat pumps are way more efficient than any thermal heaters. To convert all cars to electric in Germany, the electricity production would have to be increased by a mere 15%. To get rid of all fossile energy is of course a larger step, something we have to work at.