[growlist]

I know but to replace it with coal??? Couldn't they have gone for e.g. LNG or more renewables phased in over time? The speed of the shift seemed mighty fishy.

[pgeorgi]

Part of the reason of coal increase is that there were more than enough hold-outs that expected there to be another exit from the exit (2011) of the exit (2010) of the exit (2000) from nuclear, so that they saw no need to actually do something because surely the nuclear shutdown won't _actually_ happen.

Well, it does and that assumption cost expensive time.

[jhayward]

Germany did not replace nuclear with coal. Coal consumption is at 50% of pre-drawdown levels.

[oceanplexian]

I mean for power generation, I guess sure. But coal is an essential part of steel production. And steel is the thing that literally all modern buildings and vehicles are made out of. So the whole "Green industry doesn't need coal infrastructure" thing is just BS.

[nl]

What are you talking about?

The comment was that nuclear was replaced by renewables for power generation.

Neither nuclear or renewables replace coking coal. There is a hydrogen steel cycle that can though but not in industrial quantity yet.

[imtringued]

They added more renewables. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...