Germany energy composition in 2021 literally went back to coal.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec...
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec...
The plan to eliminate nuclear by 2022 and coal by 2038 should have been swapped. And lignite should've been banned a decade ago.
That's correct, but more relevant is when the build started. There are likely all sort of legal reasons why they could not stop the plant going into operation at this stage. Saying that Germany is going back to coal based on this is a bit factitious though. Germany was in fact planning more new coal plans previously, most of them did not get built. https://www.greenpeace.de/klimaschutz/energiewende/kohleauss...
> They are still claiming a victory because they are opening one and shutting down multiple. Of course those four were going to shut down anyway, but by any normal meaning of words this is "going back to coal".
No it is not. They put into operation a plant that was planned 15 years ago (im not arguing that they should have done this, but they did) . Should they instead have kept operating one of the older plants just to say "we haven't build a new one"?
> The plan to eliminate nuclear by 2022 and coal by 2038 should have been swapped. And lignite should've been banned a decade ago.
Completely agree on lignite, and they should (and likely could) have phased out both coal and nuclear by now.
We have wasted an entire decade offsetting our drop in nuclear power and a minute amount of nuclear waste with renewables, when we could have kept nuclear on to offset coal and gas instead. Germany "proving that you can go without nuclear without going back to coal" is not a reality-based opinion. Nuclear waste is a problem, but we have chosen one of the few paths even worse than that.
What have you got, ten year old hope?