| |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes it has: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity?tab=chart&t... | |
| ▲ | anton96 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have no clew how come the difference on what's usually said on this forum and the situation in Europe.My only understanding is that the US as whole is more sunny that gives a better ratio solar panel and produced electricity. Maybe also it's a provider thing ? From country to country, you can always have things that seem randomly more expensive. Germany is more renewable but more expensive than France, is it because of their national company is benefiting citizen properly or is it because the remaining gas part drives up the cost ? | | |
| ▲ | masklinn 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Germany is more renewable but more expensive than France No, germany is more renewable but it's also more coal, any time there's no wind the coal plants start up. And they burn lignite (because that's what in germany e.g. that's what the Baggers strip mine). As a consequence, Germany's electricity emissions are absolute garbage: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE/12mo It's not as bad as Poland which basically runs entirely off of coal, but it's absolutely at the bottom of the european barrel. Also electricity storage still isn't much of a thing (and while germany has two pumped hydro station they have very little capacity), so in periods of high winds germany actually pays its neighbours to take electricity off its grid so it doesn't collapse (at this point it has hundreds of hours of negative spot prices every year). Which is getting problematic because increase in wind generation in said neighbours means the issue is spreading as they too need to get rid of their wind production at those times. | | |
| ▲ | qayxc 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > No, germany is more renewable but it's also more coal, any time there's no wind the coal plants start up. Hm. The actual facts say otherwise, though: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris... So number go DOWN, not up, is what I'm seeing. | | |
| ▲ | masklinn 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Hm. The actual facts say otherwise They don't. > So number go DOWN, not up, is what I'm seeing. The comment I replied to is comparing germany to france. The map I linked literally tells you that in 2024 Germany generated 370g CO2 equivalent per kWh, where France generated 32, that's an objective number you can straight up read. Yes Germany is 58% renewable versus France's 28 (something the map also tells you), but then 30% are gas and especially coal, the link you provide agrees with that. Coal is insanely polluting, especially because Germany mainly uses lignite which is the least energy rich coal (so even more emissions for the same production), coal represents >3/4th of its emissions. Meanwhile gas is a minor component of france's electricity mix (pretty much just peaking plants and a few combined cycle district heating plants) and coal is a rounding error. |
|
| |
| ▲ | thrance 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Germany may use more renewables in volume, but it is absolutely dirtier than in France. Their electrical mix makes use of lots of natural gas and lignite coal, the worst kind, both expensive and very dirty. | | |
| ▲ | qayxc 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Compare to the PAST, not the present! As you can see, the trend is downwards and steadily at that: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris... Rome wasn't built in a day and I find it hilarious to advocate for nuclear power instead, if the average construction time (not even taking into account the prior mountain of bureaucracy) is over a decade. Not a single nuclear power plant built in past 15 years in Europe has been on time or on budget. Not even close. | | |
| ▲ | masklinn 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > As you can see, the trend is downwards and steadily at that Lignite numbers: 2019: 114TWh, 18.7% 2020: 92TWh, 16% 2021: 110TWh, 18.8% 2022: 116TWh, 20% 2023: 88TWh, 17% I've seen steadier terminal alcoholics. | |
| ▲ | thrance 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Strategically speaking, Europe lacks the natural resources to build renewable, wind turbines and solar panels have to be imported, most of them from Asia. Nuclear is still a bit cheaper per Watt and less carbon intensive, as it involves less infrastructure, logistics and batteries overall. It's also somewhat more reliable, as it doesn't depend on sun or wind (the former of which France often lacks). Also, I am hopeful that nuclear power plant construction delays will only improve in the near future, as Europe rebuilds its expertise in nuclear engineering, which it lost after the past decades of anti-nuclear waves. Finally, I don't see fossil fuel usage going down much in Germany in the link you gave, if at all. Which is the only thing that matters, ecologically speaking. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pydry 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Energiewende didnt start in 1973, it was first authorized in late 2010. France's nuclear program was also very, very expensive: https://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_True_Costs_of_French_Nuclear_Po... | | |
| ▲ | kergonath 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can say whatever you want when discussion the cost of nuclear in France because of the structure of its nuclear industry. Part of it comes from the government’s budget, so depending on your point of view it can be accounted for differently. Then, there are externalities (pollution, greenhouse gases, etc). And then there are strategic aspects and associated costs. The alternative in the 1970s was skyrocketing oil, which is much more costly at the planet’s level, and was on track to be much more costly at the country’s level as well. And in the meantime, consumers got reasonably cheap and clean electricity for decades. Skimming your source, I would not trust it very much. | | |
| ▲ | pydry 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | >The alternative in the 1970s was skyrocketing oil They imported and still import just as much oil as anyone else. | | |
|
|
|
