[locallost]

It's nonsense. Look at the production for the year for the last 10 years, not a snapshot of a nuclear lobbyist.

[illiarian]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35660264

[locallost]

So it matters when wind is providing 20%, but it doesn't matter when it's providing 100%. Thus, even though coal use is at a historic low, it's actually increasing, and in other news water is dry and grass is red.

[illiarian]

> So it matters when wind is providing 20%, but it doesn't matter when it's providing 100%.

Of course. Because when there's no electricity, there's no electricity.

> even though coal use is at a historic low, it's actually increasing

You pretend this is a contradiction when it's not. Germany has just shut down its last reactors. So yes, the usage of coal will increase because when renewable generation is low you still need to provide electricity. Guess what provides that electricity.

[locallost]

No. Germany already began shutting down reactors in 2011 and coal use continued to go down. The proof is in the pudding -- data beats predictions.

The rise in renewables will continue to decrease coal use. Deadline for coal is 2038, with possibly moving it to 2030.

[illiarian]

> The proof is in the pudding -- data beats predictions.

Tell me, using data, on a quiet night, where does Germany's electricity come from, and where it will come from this wondrous future of 2030?

[locallost]

Makes no difference. Your claim was that Germany replaced nuclear with coal. Here are the hard numbers:

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/38...

The bottom three are:

black coal in magenta

nuclear in gray

brown coal in brown

Nuclear shutdowns started in Germany in 2011. Check the numbers.

BTW with what did France replace its failing reactors last year?

https://apnews.com/article/europe-business-france-climate-an...