No. Given how long it takes to build a nuclear powerplant, we need them right bloody now. Yes, solar is seeing fast growth right now, but it will also hit the ceiling very fast, probably around 10-15% of the average total production, due to the physical realities of power grids. Germany is the poster boy for solar, but they've installed three times as much generating capacity in the form of new coal-fired power plants as they have in solar over the past six years.

There is a lot of misinformation and misinterpretation of what is happening with coal in Germany since the decision to phase out nuclear. This article [1] goes into a lot of detail, with charts and figures, on what is actually happening and shows that the simplistic interpretation that you are making (and which has been repeated elsewhere quite a lot) is not true.

[1] http://www.energypost.eu/energiewende-dark-side/

Interesting, especially the part about the financial situation for coal power. But there is a serious weakness: it presents the false dichotomy between "keeping nuclear and coal, no more renewables" and "reducing nuclear while increasing renewables". There's no mention of the (obviously better) option 3: "reduce coal while increasing renewables, keep nuclear the same".

And what I said about coal power is factually correct. Germany installed 11 GW in new coal power plants from 2011 to date. When you crunch the numbers, that gives you a production of ~80 TWh per year from the new coal plants.

Now, as the article you linked points out, this has replaced old coal plants being phased out. This means their argument of "nuclear power was old and needed replacing, so we might as well just scrap it" could be equally applied to coal.

Very interesting read, even as a German. Thanks.

I did not know international media would portrait it so... wrong.

There is really a lot of politics in that, not just economics. For example there was a decision to wind down all nuclear power plants, and coal was used for a while to compensate for that. Meanwhile, the parties in power changed and nuclear power pants are not being closed down as quickly as planned anymore.

> installed three times as much generating capacity in the form of new coal-fired power plants as they have in solar over the past six years.

That's wrong. Coal in Germany is stagnating and going down. There are literally dozens of fossil fuel plants for closure...

Solar is about to take a legislative beating, as the oil lobbyists have won. In the UK if you want to install a Solar array, there are no subsidies - in fact, you have to pay a levee for "taking money from oil producers".

And don't forget the subsidies for oil and gas in the UK are ~20x those of renewables.

But hey, as we all know, co2 is love, and "this green crap all has to go".

>subsidies for oil and gas in the UK are ~20x those of renewables.

I'm not saying you are wrong - but can you show me your source for this?

Depends on how broad your definition of subsidy is. Oil and gas companies operating in the UK are some of the largest direct contributors to the UK exchequer, and so the tax breaks they're able to claim for certain activities are also relatively large. (with the government indirectly getting those tax breaks back and more by taxing domestically-sold fuel at high rates by world standards)

Renewables, by contrast, make up ~7% of the UK's electricity generation and <1% of its fleet of road vehicles, so even the relatively generous subsidy schemes don't make that much of dent in the UK budget.

It's disgusting that oil and gas can receive 20x subsidies. It's like a cruel sick joke.

It's just politicians and their cronies benefiting at the masses' expense, i.e. the system working as intended.

That doesn't make it stink any less.

Of course not. We shouldn't have governments at all, because all they do is exploit us. That's why they exist.

All you need to see is that they're taking our money by force, and you can make sense of everything they do - it's all about keeping us blind to the exploitation so that they can keep on doing it.

King's had "The Divine Right" to rule over everyone else, and governments have "The Social Contract", which amounts to the same thing.

Can you quote any source on that ? Last I checked (and that was after this year's budget), there's still a 1.63p/kWh subsidy on domestic solar. Certainly no levee for "taking money from oil producers".

The levy for "taking money from oil producers" does not exist. What the OP is probably referring to is the phasing out of the roundabout renewables' subsidy mechanism whereby renewable energy suppliers received tradable Climate Change Levy Exemption certificates which power consumers could purchase to claim tax breaks against the "Climate Change Levy".

That's just part of the tapering off of subsidies for renewable energies as they become more widespread. Although the amounts can be discussed, renewables are still very much subsidised with public money, and solar is no exception.

I've been a customer of Ecotricity for a while now, and they've been able to consistently improve their mix while keeping prices stable. I don't believe the regulatory environment is working against them, and they don't make that claim either.

I never tried to argue the industry wasn't subsidised (and am a bit perplexed at attracting downvotes for posting a neutral clarification of the legislative changes?), but it's fair to say that plenty of energy firms were objecting about the unanticipated abolition of the Climate Change Levy exemption, not least Drax who saw their earnings forecast hslved.

Those are fairly strong statements, and not what I've seen of the UK market, so would be interested to see your references.

whilst the tories are indeed changing the subsidy picture, renewables in the UK can still get FiT tariffs to quite a reasonable degree, which is driving a lot of the investment in these areas.