| Here are the raw electricity production figures for the timeframe considered in the study: https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE... When comparing the year-by-year differences, a few interesting things turn up. For the sake of simplicity, I've only counted wind and solar as renewables and natural gas + black coal + lignite as fossil fuels. - There have only been two years where a reduction in nuclear was not (over-)compensated by an increase in renewables: 2010/2011 (nuclear -30,8 TWh, renewables +19,3 TWh) and 2015/2016 (nuclear -6,8 TWh, renewables -1,3 TWh). - Even in 2010/2011, the increase in renewables overcompensated the reduction in fossil fuels (-2,8 TWh) - There have only been two years which actually saw an increase in fossil-fuelled electricity production: 2011/2012 (+7,2 TWh, still fully compensated by renewables) and 2015/2016 (+5,5 TWh). - In the entire timeframe (EoY 2010 to EoY 2017), renewable production increased by +94,9 TWh, which is more than the reduction in nuclear (-60,8 TWh) and fossil fuels (-28,5 TWh) combined. - There've been some internal shifts happening within the fossil cluster. In the first couple of years, natural gas consumption was dialled back in favour of solid fuels, which was then slightly reverted in the later years. This is also the reason why 2015/2016 did not see a catastrophic increase in CO2 emissions - parts of the worst offenders have just been replaced by natural gas. I'm still not sure how the study reached a conclusion that is kind of contradicting real-world data. |
https://www.energy-storage.news/news/battery-storage-30-chea...