The vast investments in renewable energy (incl. technology, driving down costs, acceptance, grid, load prediction, offshore wind, decentralized energy production, de-centralized ownership, ...) instead of an incompatible nuclear landscape had and has huge impact in the feasibility of renewable energy - not just in Germany.
Coal gets also reduced. Maybe you have seen the massive protests of environmentalists in Germany against new coal power plants and further coal production. There is not much investment in coal-based electricity, because it is priced out of the market and quite a bit now needs to be exported, since there is not enough demand in Germany. Mid year 2018: renewable energy electricity production +10%, coal -10%. Renewable is now at 36% share of electricity production and now the first time more than coal. On two cold winter days the renewables provided 71.6% and 81% of electricity for Germany, an industrialized country with more than 80 million people.
This would have not been possible without the massive change in direction.
The problem with "renewable energy" is that so much of it is actually Biomass energy. 30% of Germany's renewable electricity comes from Biomass plants burning pelletized wood to the point that Biomass power generation accounts for 40% of all German forestry production. Biomass also accounts for 70% of all German renewable energy usage thanks to biodiesel and biogas usage, again almost all sourced from wood. (All sources per wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany)
I guess the carbon cycle is relatively neutral as it's using existing environmental carbon plus some additional energy in the production and logistics process but it is unsustainable without turning every bit of harvestable forest into a monoculture of pine trees or fast growing deciduous with all the ecodiveristy of a Monsanto laced cornfield.
I sond that. Coal should have gone out before nuclear. But that is not entirely Greenpeace's fault. The way CO2 is taxed, and thus priced in, resulted in a situation where caol turned into the second cheapest energy source after the renewables with close to zero recurring cost. Simply making CO2 certificates more expensive would remedy that. it is kind of rediculous that modern gas turbine power plants, with the ability to quick start and being pretty clean nowadays, are more expensive than coal. up to the point where renewables are squezzing these power plants out of the market. Not sure if that was the intentd end result.
I'm not at all saying that nuclear should stay, so.
But they haven't changed their CO2eq output by much. I love the other renewables (I see nuclear as much as a renewable as solar), but there's still problems with batteries and storing energy generated. The IPCC recommends nuclear because it's the only current technology we have to tackle this problem. And no pro nuclear person is saying 100% nuclear. We want a well diversified portfolio that doesn't include fossil fuels.
And I want to be clear. Look at the numbers of deaths from the three major accidents. (I'm on my phone so I'll try to remember to edit this to provide sources), but not that many people died or are predicted to die from Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island (which has a count of 0!) There's more people dying in the US every year from just the air pollution caused by coal plants than the total (already dead and predicted early deaths, find the highest number too!) From those accidents.
And I'd rather deal with a Coke can of highly radioactive waste a year than train loads of low radioactive waste a day (coal). In the end we do the same thing with them. Put it in the ground.
Yeah, there should be better options. Fusion is extremely promising. I'd love to see batteries become better and more environmentally friendly to make. But we're not there yet and we don't have time to wait. For these things to be invented. Build nuclear now. When those come to life, build them too. But we can't just keep arguing and do nothing. It is time to worry. It has been time to worry for awhile now.
I'm not sure I understand, or are you misunderstanding me? Germany could have reduced CO2 output if they had kept their nuclear power stations open, instead they've been running to stand still. That was my point.
I agree with you.
Their renewables have basically been replacing nuclear, rather than coal as maybe we can agree would have been better.
Yes nuclear is on its way out, but I feel Greenpeace and its ilk havent got the order right.