[HaukeHi]

Continued reliance on outdated nuclear technology might not have the same crucial global technology spillovers as investments in other clean energy (including advanced nuclear). Since the best path towards global decarbonization is through global technology spillover into emerging economies, the actors that have the best emissions score may, surprisingly, not be the most effective actors at reducing the global rate of emissions in the future. This has some counterintuitive implications. Consider that Germany has higher carbon emissions than France even though it has invested more heavily in solar than its neighbor, which uses much more nuclear. Should advanced economies like Germany leave their nuclear plants running? Perhaps, but it will not make a very large dent in global emissions because 75% of all future emissions will come from emerging economies, which will not adopt the kind of (non-advanced) nuclear power currently in use in Germany. Consider that German citizens environmental footprints are currently less than 4% of the global total, a share that is on the decline.

At one point, German subsidies drove ~⅓ of the global solar adoption, ~86% of which occurred outside Germany (6x) - see https://founderspledge.com/stories/changing-landscape#fnref1

[_ph_]

Just a little comment for correctness, since April 15th, all German nuclear reactors are switched off.

[illiarian]

Yup. And had to burn coal on that night because solar generation was at 0%, and wind generation was at 5% of installed capacity.

[_ph_]

Germany would have had to burn coal that night anyway. The output of the remaining 3 reactors would have been only a fraction of the electricity requirements anyway. Meanwhile the buildup of renewables continues and part of the "lost" production capacity will be filled in soon.

[Faaak]

I don't think it's fair to compare the "little" 3GW with the total energy production. This is still power that must be replaced by coal and thus CO2 emissions. Yes, its 6% compared to the total energy production, but it's still extra unneeded CO2 in the atmosphere

[illiarian]

> Germany would have had to burn coal that night anyway

But much, much less coal.

> The output of the remaining 3 reactors would have been only a fraction of the electricity requirements anyway.

That is s great way to say: we killed our stable source of electricity because of populism, and now we're burying our head in the sand justifying our decision.

> production capacity will be filled in soon.

Soon when? And the question of quiet nights remains

[_ph_]

Somewhat less coal. We are talking about 3 GW less nuclear in a Grid which draws like 50. And yes, that were only the last nuclear reactors. But a lot of them would have had to be decommissioned anyway and there are still the problems of cost, especially of the nuclear waste etc. A large part of these 3 GW will be replaced even in 2023 and that will continue through the years. The current plans aim for 80 renewables in 2030.

[illiarian]

I forgot to mention in the sibling comment:

> in a Grid which draws like 50.

Installed wind capacity in Germany is 65GW. Seems to be much higher than what grid demands.

And yet, on April 15th it was producing only 5% of that. And solar was producing zero.

Guess where the power to cover that came from?

Even today on a reasonably windy day (at least in Hamburg where I am right now) wind production is at 20% capacity, solar at 36 capacity.

Busy burning coal for 21% of electricity even on a windy day.

[illiarian]

> We are talking about 3 GW less nuclear in a Grid which draws like 50.

6%

> A large part of these 3 GW will be replaced even in 2023

0% of solar generation and 5% of wind generation will be replaced with what exactly?

[locallost]

That's a very good insight, I haven't thought of it. Germany has indeed turned the saying "the best way to predict the future is to invent it" into reality.