Germany's Emissions Hit 70-Year Low As It Reduces Reliance on Coal (theguardian.com) 220
Germany's emissions hit a 70-year low last year as Europe's largest economy reduced its reliance on coal. From a report: A study by the thinktank Agora Energiewende found that Germany emitted 673m tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2023, 73m tonnes fewer than in 2022. The drop was "largely attributable to a strong decrease in coal power generation," Agora said, accounting for a reduction of 46m tonnes in CO2 emissions. Emissions from industry fell significantly, largely due to a decline in production by energy-intensive companies.
Electricity generation from renewable sources was more than 50% of the total in 2023 for the first time, while coal's share dropped to 26% from 34%, according to the federal network agency. Germany had resorted to coal following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when Moscow cut off gas supplies. But since then Germany has significantly reduced its use of the fossil fuels.
Electricity generation from renewable sources was more than 50% of the total in 2023 for the first time, while coal's share dropped to 26% from 34%, according to the federal network agency. Germany had resorted to coal following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when Moscow cut off gas supplies. But since then Germany has significantly reduced its use of the fossil fuels.
Too late (Score:2)
Re: Too late (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This story keeps on getting repeated. In Germany, they dismantled three wind turbines because they were sitting on land that got used for an open cast coal mine. It was about half of a small wind farm, so the use of plural is wrong.
In the mean time, Germany is expanding it's wind power generation elsewhere.
Germany failed (Score:4, Informative)
This is propaganda attempting to dismiss German failures. Germany averaged 431 g CO2 per kWh for the last 12 months. Compare that to France which averaged 53 g CO2 per kWh. Germany is 8x dirtier than France. Germany uses gas for heating while France uses clean electricity. Also Germany industry has a proven record of falsifying emissions.
Face reality. Germany picked coal over nuclear, and the climate is paying the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The French nuke plants were built long ago with massive state subsidies, and even now they are basically owned by the state. There is nothing preventing nuke plants from being constructed in the US other than the fact that they are routinely over budget, many years late, and the electricity isn't competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
To a great extent this is because of the US's absurd number of lawyers who all want to be millionaires and the overweening greed of the insurance cartels. It doesn't help that most of the large construction companies here who have the capabilities to build something like a nuke plant are accustomed to the graft and waste of Pentagon projects. Pretty much a "worst of all possible worlds" situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you like her or not, this is a pretty good dive into exactly what you're talking about - and why what you say is technically true, but misleading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I like some of that lady's videos but she comes across as stridently pro-nuclear in your link. Trying too hard.
Meanwhile, "Germany failed" is a bogus claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a refutation of her assertions? Not liking her manner isn't the same as disagreeing with her.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. France buys expensive electricity from Germany to keep the lights on during high-load times, while France also exports cheap energy in off hours to Germany because keeping their nukes running in off-hours is cheaper than reducing their output. On balance, there was the same amount of electricity going on both directions. The problem is France paid wayyy more for it.
Here is the official statistic: https://www.smard.de/page/home... [smard.de]
The key line is: "Frankreich: Export: 8.405,8 GWh Import: 8.82
"Nobody wants nukes!" (Re:Germany failed) (Score:3, Interesting)
France is mostly nuclear which is always panned as infeasible on slashdot.
There's an anonymous coward that likes to post "nobody wants nukes" on Slashdot, usually with cherry picked examples of nuclear power plant projects failing to meet goals on budget and schedule. There's over 400 civil nuclear power reactors operating in the world today, picking out a handful of examples showing some kind of failure doesn't make nuclear power infeasible. We don't declare all passenger jetliners as unsafe because of a couple crashes of the Boeing 737 MAX, neither should we declare nuclear p
Re: (Score:2)
Aircraft have a very good safety record. Civilian nuclear reactors don't. What other industry would tolerate a 1.5% catastrophic failure rate?
Re: (Score:2)
No industry that actually has to pay for its failures. There is a lie that gets pushed in this context, namely that nukes cannot be insured. That is not actually true. Friend of mine was the chief risk modeller for non-standard risks for a back-insurer for more than a decade. He told me that sure, nukes could be insured and the back=insurers provided the numbers back when. The major cost of an individual failure would have exceeded the capability of any single back-insurer, but you just spread it out and th
Re: (Score:2)
There are four arguments against investment in nuclear power: Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, and Vogtle. These are the four major latest-generation plants completed or near completion in Finland, the United States, the United Kingdom and France respectively.
Chine has built 50 of them in the last 15 years, more than the rest of the world combined. They can do that because they are competent, and people like you are not.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you said that China was building loads of coal plants? Apparently nuclear isn't enough. I'm rolling my eyes, by the way.
So be honest with us, do you want a centrally planned economy and even more heavily subsidised nuclear fleet?
The real success story in China is that private enterprise has installed massive amounts of solar and wind, because it's highly competitive against coal and government subsidised nuclear. China installed more solar in the first three quarters of 2023 than the US has instal
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, China is also massively building out renewables. Intermittent renewables and reliable base load nuclear as a backstop is the perfect combination of dependable zero-emissions electricity generation. They know exactly what they are doing,
Re: (Score:2)
China is building coal in China too. There is a struggle going on with the powerful coal companies that are finding their product is now too expensive.
Nuclear has basically the same problem. Between renewables and battery storage, it's just not going to be needed in the near future. Maybe the government will keep throwing money at it, but my bet would be that those plants have 30 year lifespans and don't seek extensions.
Re: (Score:2)
China is building coal in China too. There is a struggle going on with the powerful coal companies that are finding their product is now too expensive.
While China is very much capitalistic, they are the opposite of here in that corporations have no real power. Just ask Jack Ma, Pony Ma, or Wu Xiaohui among others. They are certainly on a much tighter leash than comparable Russian Oligarchs. Powerful Chinese coal companies are not a thing.
Between renewables and battery storage, it's just not going to be needed in the near future.
Batteries are very short term resources. Pumped hydro is much more useful, and much more expensive. I know you ascribe almost magical properties to batteries, but the power grid is not your cell phone or BEV.
Maybe the government will keep throwing money at it, but my bet would be that those plants have 30 year lifespans and don't seek extensions.
They hav
Re: Germany failed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
France is mostly nuclear which is always panned as infeasible on slashdot.
I know, such anti-technology fact-denying views at the very least should get your Nerd Membership card revoked. But we had to lower admission standards to let in all the cryptobros, so there is that...
Re: (Score:2)
I've even seen Helen Caldicott referenced here as though she weren't known to lie about anything to do with any sort of radiation (including cell towers and power lines).
Re: (Score:3)
France is 70% nuclear, which is the recognized maximum an electricity grid can have in unreliable and inflexible nuclear before going unstable. France is planning a lot of wind-farms though, but a mere 4 new reactors long term and these are clearly only because they need them to maintain their nuclear arsenal. Same as Hinkley point for the Brits.
Think it is not about nuclear weapons maintenance? Think again: https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/a... [lemonde.fr]
Even France admits that nuclear is economically non-viable and need
Re:Germany failed (Score:5, Informative)
Germany 'picked' wind and solar, which have been producing an ever larger percentage of grid electricity. The coal plants are being phased out, why did you lie?
Meanwhile, "Despite predictions of shortages and blackouts, Germany produces more energy than it needs, exporting energy to France over the summer, note Green Party leaders pointedly, where nuclear power stations could not operate because of extreme weather."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]
Re:Germany failed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If Germany 'picked coal' why did GHG emissions there fall about 40% since 1991?
https://www.cleanenergywire.or... [cleanenergywire.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If Germany 'picked coal' why did GHG emissions there fall about 40% since 1991?
They picked coal/lignite/gas as complementary energy source for solar/wind. Which is why they emit ~8-9 times more CO2 per kWh than France. Since 50 years. In order to reach France level, they need their GHG emissions per kWh to fall by 90-95%... If they managed to do 40% between 1991 and 2023, which is about 30 years, should we wait for them to catch up in the next 50 years or so? This is by not even taking into account that the easiest gains are the first ones (low hanging fruits).
The main problem with th
Re: (Score:2)
"They picked coal/lignite/gas as complementary energy source for solar/wind", that's some hilariously tortured logic. Coal is the legacy power source Germany has clearly worked to get away from. The 'Maths' show that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't owe you any answers here, asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
French electricity is cheap at retail. What it actually costs, when you factor in all the subsidiaries that come out of general taxation, is very expensive and uncompetitive.
Re: Germany failed (Score:2)
Taxation on energy in Germany is higher. Taxation overall in Germany is higher
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, "Despite predictions of shortages and blackouts, Germany produces more energy than it needs, exporting energy to France over the summer, note Green Party leaders pointedly, where nuclear power stations could not operate because of extreme weather."
This is good! Diversity of clean energy sources is exactly what we need!
Re: (Score:2)
Germany produces more energy than it needs, exporting energy to France over the summer, note Green Party leaders pointedly
You do realize the green party leaders are not really the best source to base your assertions on? They are quite infamous for being anti-nuclear first and foremost, and have been known to always try to make a show of looking better than France.
But if you look at actual figures [www.ffe.de], from independent sources, you can see that in summer 2023 Germany was actually importing electricity... There were even reports back in August/September of 2023 that France was back to top power exporter in Europe, while at the same
Re: (Score:2)
"You do realize the green party leaders are not really the best source to base your assertions on?"
Are you claiming they lied when they said Germany exported energy to France over the summer when "nuclear power stations could not operate because of extreme weather"? You didn't even read my link, did you.
Re: Germany failed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually what you are trying to push here is propaganda. Germany has not failed. France is, again, very lucky for a mild winter or they would have blackouts due to their failed nuclear strategy.
Your lies do not get more credible by endless repetition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. A fanatic like you is unable to see facts though. Germany is doing just fine and electricity import/export with France is balanced. Just that France is paying a _lot_ more for it because they need it in peak hours at high prices. Germany did import a lot of electricity from Denmark, which is 80% renewables.
Reference: https://www.smard.de/page/home... [smard.de]
Your lies, often repeated, have no connection to the actual reality and actual facts. Here is a hint: Making crap up does not make you right.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany is such a failure for being significantly further north than France.
Significant? Seriously? Okay you're a dumb dipshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, import/export of electricity between Germany and France is balanced. Problem is that France imports expensive (high-load times) and exports cheaply )off-hours). There have even been cases where France had to _pay_ for Germany to take its electricity, because nukes are slow to react and _need_ to have their power consumed or the have to SCRAM, damaging the reactor. The only reason Germany is importing French electricity in off-hours is because it is so utterly cheap. Well, cheap to buy, not cheap t
Should have kept nuclear plants (Score:2)
Germany could have hit this target years ago, if it had not shutdown working midlife nuclear planets. Selfishly it even continuing to do so once the energy price crisis had started, driving up the price of energy across the EU, whilst still importing nuclear generated energy from France.
At one point the Green government even started knocking down wind farms, to get at the lignite beneath them. Lignite or brown coal, is the dirtiest form of energy on the planet, yet the Greens prefer it to zero carbon clear
Re: (Score:2)
I'm seeing no cite for any of your claims, so I am ignoring them.
Re: Should have kept nuclear plants (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They moved three windmills because they were close enough to an open pit mine that they could have been destablized by further mining. Big whoop.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The nuclear morons have no ability to fact-check though, so that minor thing, which is not even "knocked down", but "moved" becomes "They are abandoning wind-farms for coal!"
These people are really the most damned of disconnected liars, nothing else.
Re:Should have kept nuclear plants (Score:4, Interesting)
if it had not shutdown working midlife nuclear planets
It only shut down a tiny handful of working midlife nuclear plants. What they actually did was shut down mostly end of life nuclear plants, some of which had already had multiple operating extension past end of life.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And these were providing, at peak times, 5% or so of German electricity consumption. Which was base-load and hence pretty unusable, since Germany wants and needs regulation energy. Nuclear cannot deliver that.
Incidentally, same time in Switzerland, one of its few nukes got shut down by the operator several years before they would have had to because it was draining money like crazy and was just way too expensive compared to the alternatives. Difference is that in Switzerland, you actually have to l
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. What drove prices of electricity up across the EU was France buying everything they could get to prop up their failing nuclear-based grid with many plants down. This is very well documented and you could just have looked it up. Instead you make up some fantastic lies. Despicable.
Incidentally, electricity import/export between Germany and France is balanced, but only because France is dumping its electricity exceptionally cheap in off-hours.
At what cost? (Score:3, Informative)
From the fine article:
Emissions from industry fell significantly, largely due to a decline in production by energy-intensive companies.
By driving up energy costs with their anti-nuclear policy they've driven out much of their industrial capacity. If they keep going down this path then they will only make their economy worse. This is hardly a "win" for them. It is common to see complaints that nations like the USA lowered CO2 by driving industry to China. Well, what do people think happened here? Maybe Germany didn't drive industry to China but they did drive it out of the country. In some cases we saw German factories get packed up and moved to North America where natural gas is cheap by comparison.
The mention of industry seeking cheap natural gas gets to the lie that shutting down nuclear power plants has nothing to do with Germany's natural gas consumption. The claim is that natural gas provides heating and nuclear fission provides electricity so by shutting down nuclear power they aren't burning any more natural gas. Well, what was the plan on heating German homes when or if they replaced fossil fuels with renewable energy sources? That's right, electric heating.
If Germany is planning to replace natural gas heating with electricity then they need large reliable sources of electricity to provide that electricity. If they are planning to lower CO2 emissions in the process then they need to use a reliable energy source that is also low in CO2 emissions. Given the scarcity of good places for hydroelectric dams in Germany they need nuclear fission for reliable low CO2 electricity. No nuclear fission means they will only get to their CO2 emissions goals by removing most every industry. I guess they can lower CO2 emissions by lowering population but most metrics on success for lowered CO2 is per capita so a lower population is hardly a means towards success.
Re: At what cost? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point to where the industrial base of Germany has been driven out?
It's in the fine article.
Industrial output in Germany is up (long term, the current dip is since May in terms of variance from the overall EU trend line, and most places were hit by COVID). There seems to be a narrative that it has gone down, which I thought is what you were suggesting, apologies if you were not. Some heavy industries may have relocated but you find that in France too. Thus, it's not a trend that you can obviously ascribe to a change in energy mix, though. I would like to see per capita figures for all countries b
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
By driving up energy costs
Oh that's right, I forgot. We need to destroy the planet in the name of keeping everything cheap. I take it you played with a lot of toys that had cheap lead paint from China as a kid right?
they've driven out much of their industrial capacity
No they haven't. They have 1/4 of the entire industrial production of the entire EU and they have had this quite consistently for the past 2 decades.
Orignal Source (Score:2)
They were only able to do this by consuming the full output of a couple of French nuclear plants. Spain is joining Germany in phasing out nuclear power, so I guess the French will have to build even more nuclear power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I'm not sure I see a problem with this. If the French are willing to build nuclear plants, run them, and sell the electricity at a profit to Germany and Spain - so what?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A blatant direct lie. See here for the actual numbers: https://www.smard.de/page/home... [smard.de]
Key finding: "Frankreich: Export: 8.405,8 GWh Import: 8.821,1 GWh" for 2023.
Germany, you goofed. (Score:3)
Stop making it sound like it works.
KwH prices are fluctuating wildly from hour to hour thanks to you. You don't have a proper grid between north and south to make good use of renewables. sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
It actually works nicely. That this does not fit _your_ deranged view of things has no impact on reality.
Yup (Score:2)
Came to post the link [ft.com]
Let me click through the first time with no paywall; hopefully it does for most.
Re: (Score:2)
That's gonna hurt them for emissions this coming year too, no?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm brought to understand the German economy is in free-fall, so I imagine all kinds of measures like this are considered apropos.
That said, it's kind of like reversing the culture war to increase military recruitment in the US. There's no turning on a dime.
Re: (Score:2)
Free-fall? They're still trying to figure out if last year was an UP or a DOWN.
Re:Deindustrialization will do that (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Deindustrialization will do that (Score:5, Interesting)
Agora Energiewende is a state sponsored entity with highly contested goals and views here in Germany. Don't take their bullshit seriously.
Statistics show that Germany has the highest CO2 emissions in Europe. Coal and gas power stations are needed to provide stable power because green energy is unreliable.
The joke is that conventional power stations have to be under power ALL DAY to provide emergency power when not enough wind and solar power is available. Even days with 100% clean energy mean CO2 is blown into the air!
Re:Deindustrialization will do that (Score:5, Interesting)
Some gas and coal power stations have always been left to idle hot to provide power when consumers (who, like renewables, are also intermittent) increase their demands. Not all power stations, and not all the time. While it does take significant amounts of energy to keep a gas turbine spinning and sync'd to the grid, it takes a lot less than when it is drawing power; and when it is not synced but it takes even less.
This role is steadily being taken over by batteries, because they are cheaper and have response time in milliseconds. This will increase over time.
Intermittent is not the same thing as unreliable; most renewables are very reliable.
Re: Deindustrialization will do that (Score:2)
Well, they take a page out of the Biden admin book and claim a year over year improvement when since 2020 they did a very poor job, more than eliminating whatever improvement they claim to have made.
Yes, they reduced coal emissions by importing gas/oil from Russian sources and burning wood which the EU declares somehow as zero-emissions despite it being worse than coal.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have absolutely no clue how an electricity grid work and gas/coal plants work, yet you voice strong opinion. Typical denier-fanatic nil wit.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there is some minimal energy consumption to keep a gas/coal plant "hot" when used as regulation energy. But you know what, the plant can be kept hot by electric heating (!) using said 100% clean energy (something the denier morons apparently do not know) and there is enough thermal reserves that you can keep actually burning something at an minimum or at zero until the plant actually need to deliver power.
That said, there is absolutely no need to be 100% clean or 100% zero CO2. The problem is not
Re: (Score:2)
Emissions are down ~9.6% from 2022 to 2023.
Industrial production is down a net 3.2% over the same period. Also note how capacity varies month to month:
https://www.economy.com/german... [economy.com]
Further, if they "can't afford the electricity" then that would reflect in prices, not just output, and we don't see that.
This seems like a textbook case of "correlation is not causation."
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Further, if they "can't afford the electricity" then that would reflect in prices, not just output, and we don't see that.
Have you actually looked at the price of electricity in Germany?
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/... [europa.eu]
Definitely at the high end for Europe (and 4x (!) what I pay here in Canada).
Re: (Score:2)
> Have you actually looked at the price of electricity in Germany?
Yeah. â0.23 per kwh. That's not exactly crazy expensive. It increased sharply over 2022 (wonder what might've happened... /s) but it's far from "Industry is dying because it can't afford their electricity bill" like what was claimed.
(Hint: Make sure you're looking at the non-residential rates, because we're talking about industry)
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Make sure you're looking at the non-residential rates, because we're talking about industry
Still 4x like for like, go figure. Though I disagree with the premise consumers don't matter. I'm sure glad I don't live there.
Re: (Score:3)
> Are you suggesting that 3.2% of Germany's industrial production isn't enough to create 9.6% of Germany's emissions? Well it is.
Well industry contributes ~22% of Germany's emissions, so if we charitably assume a 3.2% shrinkage in industrial production means a 3.2% in industry-related emissions, that's 0.22 * 0.032 = 0.007 or 0.7%.
In other words, no.. it's not. I'm not even suggesting it, it's plainly evident.
> Also it's not just industrial production
Diesel prices in 2023 were lower than in 2022 [globalpetrolprices.com] and t
Re: Deindustrialization will do that (Score:2)
Re:Deindustrialization will do that (Score:5, Informative)
You linked to an op ed piece, not actual news.
Re: (Score:2)
he linked it as an example of spin.
Exactly this. I mean I do not expect to fly very high here saying that ignorance might just not be strength, but come on. Basic reading comprehension?
Re: (Score:3)
Ukraine, having been made the useful idiot and thrown into a proxy war to bleed Putin off of power, having lost a fifth of the territory... Countless lives lost to the war and a huge part of the populace as refugees... It's power grid in shambles and just no tomorrow anywhere in any way at all...
You act like there is an alternative. Just letting little war criminal man have Ukraine is not an option. On the bright side, Ukraine is making the Soviet's time in Afghanistan look like a picnic. Killing Russian soldiers is always going to be a worthwhile goal.
Re: (Score:3)
Before the war there was the alternative of taking Putins ultimatum - stop arming Ukraine, stop Nato membership of Ukraine, and the war will not happen.
I don't think that would have stopped him. He wanted Ukraine to relive the glory days of empire. By taking Ukraine (or trying) he is himself moving closer to NATO, so that obviously was never the problem. And now he gets he gets a NATO border with Finland too. Ha Ha (in my best Nelson Muntz voice), if he never saw that coming he is truly dumb.
Ukraine, and NATO, were never a threat to him except in his imagination, but he is clearly a threat to everybody. There is only one way to deal with people lik
Re: (Score:3)
As much as I would like to call Putin stupid, I can not do that in good faith. He might be a pedo, he sure is evil, and a many more things, but he is also extremely competent. You don't rise to the top and stay there by being incompetent, especially in Russia where incompetence gets you killed.
Well he has made NATO bigger and more united than ever. If he was truly afraid of them then that seems to not be a great result.
Both Napoleon and Hitler went to Russia through Ukraine. It is the soft underbelly from where it is a short ride to Moscow, and both of these times were a struggle for Russia in a way that the US has not seen
No tanks or infantry were ever going to roll through Ukraine to Moscow. The nuclear deterrent made that idea a thing of the past.
So I would say that all of this talk about the supposed empire dreams are, while poplar, a flawed analasys that is only skin deep
You are still arguing Russia is obsessed with a past history that has little relevance to today, just couching it differently.
As for the economic war, you ignore the elephant in the room, China, that is doing the heavy lifting.
That is one of the best parts, is watching Putin be Xi's little bitch. Pretty clear who wears the pants in that relationship.
Re: (Score:3)
Germany is doing just fine, industry-wise. Thanks for trying to play, but you are not smart enough to understand what is going on.
This here is not what "deindustrialization" looks like: https://www.destatis.de/EN/The... [destatis.de]
These are the official numbers and in Germany, they are of very high accuracy and quality. Just like the industrial products themselves.
But I guess you nil wits have to come up with some new lies to try to justify your non-justifiable stance.
Re: I don't see how (Score:5, Informative)
Re: I don't see how (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only... Except the opposite happened.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Electricity import/export between Germany and France is balanced. The French pay a lot more for it though, because they import in peak-hours.
Re: (Score:3)
It says they are on track to get 80% of their electricity from wind and solar by 2030.
This is extremely unlikely, as these do not provide baseload and there is not enough worldwide battery production capacity to provide enough storage to get anywhere close to that number.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Untrue. Renewables plus regulation energy makes baseload redundant and unneeded. The only ones wanting baseload is the nuclear fanatics, because baseload is all nukes can (badly and costly) provide.
Re: (Score:2)
Current most credible suspicion is the Ukraine did it. They have it down to the actual people involved at the moment and they have a very solid case. Because Ukraine needs support for the war, it is being kept quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
There were problems with pumps on Nordstream I, and because Siemens will only take payment in US Dollars and Russia had been locked out of the SWIFT exchange (and the $300 billion they had in it stolen) they couldn't get it fixed. Nordstream II hadn't opened yet. Both pipelines were not "empty", the terrorism resulted in the largest methane leak in history, something like $300 billion in gas was vented into the atmosphere. Dewatering the pipelines after they're repaired will probably take longer and cost
Re: (Score:2)
Nope: https://www.destatis.de/DE/The... [destatis.de]
It is actually a real-world analysis describing an industrial _shift_, not a decline.