| |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes it has: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity?tab=chart&t... | | |
| ▲ | pyrale 7 months ago | parent [-] | | The data you provide quotes Germany being 50% more polluting than France per-GDP-unit, at the level France was at in 2007. The issue with it is that dividing by GDP rather than, say, population or total energy used is kind of disingenuous. For instance, France's 2007 GDP can't be compared to Germany's 2022 GDP, so it's extremely hard to have an idea of what you're comparing. | | |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas 7 months ago | parent [-] | | 2007 is not in the 1990s which is the point I responded to. France was cleaning up in the 1990s but Germany is still doing better than France in even 1999. As you helpfully point out they were about France's 2007 level (when they had 70% nuclear electricity, 40% nuclear power, a hair below their absolute peak 41% nuclear which they hit a few years later) in 2022, so catching up to a global leader with lots of nuclear despite phasing out their own nuclear. You can see the per capita numbers on the same site and it's the same basic story, France had a head start but Germany is cleaning up faster (while growing GDP faster). One of the anti-German memes going around is that their decarbonisation is via deindustrialization, so per GDP helps avoid that accusation and adjusts for people importing their carbon as the country with the heavy industry gets paid. Meanwhile the USA, which has the most nuclear plants and yet is clearly worse than Germany and the EU average, somehow gets a free pass. How odd. It's as if we attack the countries (and states) that reduce carbon without nuclear rather than the ones emitting lots of carbon. | | |
| ▲ | pyrale 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > so catching up to a global leader with lots of nuclear despite phasing out their own nuclear. No catching up happened, because France also improved in the meantime, despite building no new plant in the 2007-2022 interval. And that's the issue with this measurement: it measures plenty of parasitic information. For instance, GDP growth between the 90's and now explains a large part of what you're highlighting. Here's another chart from your site showing carbon intensity [1] which shows the improvement in carbon per energy generated is only a small part of the improvement shown in your graph. And here's a chart [2] showing how GDP growth is the dominating factor for Germany's evolution in your graph. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-consumption-ca... [2]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/kaya-identity-co2?country... | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > France also improved in the meantime, despite building no new plant in the 2007-2022 interval Thanks to renewables:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa... | | |
| ▲ | pyrale 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Renewables didn't move the needle since french electricity was already clean. Your graph shows that fossil didn't move over the time period. The difference has been cleaner energy use (e.g. better car motors) and cleaner production on non-electric energy. | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction: without them France would have burnt more fossil fuels. Moreover ~60% of France's final energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels => France must electrify (replace fossil fuel by electricity) => produce more gridpower => deploy new gridpower-producing equipment and such heavy industry thingies cannot be built overnight. Upon an economic viewpoint electrifying is facilitated by the sheer availability of low-priced electricity. | | |
| ▲ | pyrale 7 months ago | parent [-] | | It feels like you've got your answer and are looking for a way to find the fit problem. > Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction The underproduction episode in 2022 was mostly handled thanks to imports and consumer sobriety. > Moreover ~60% of France's final energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels Yeah, that's my point. France would be better served by electrifying its non-electric energy usages rather than trying to replace one clean production by another. > => deploy new gridpower-producing equipment and such heavy industry thingies cannot be built overnight. France has a healthy margin before needing to rush production, with electricity usage going down for two decades, and a significant share of its power being exported currently. | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 7 months ago | parent [-] | | >> Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction > The underproduction episode in 2022 was mostly handled thanks to imports and consumer sobriety. Source? > France would be better served by electrifying its non-electric energy usages rather than trying to replace one clean production by another. I disagree: Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa... A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment. Producing more electricity enables us to contain its price, boosting electrification. Starting right now to build in order to replace 40-years old nuclear plants (on average) seems adequate to me. New nuclear (Flamanville-3 EPR) isn't adequate (6x times overcostly, at least 12 years late). > France has a healthy margin before needing to rush production, Electrification has to ramp up, therefore if everything goes as planned it will soon be over. Waiting is dangerous. > with electricity usage going down for two decades Production nearly-flat from 2004 until COVID: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption > a significant share of its power being exported currently. The challenge (getting rid of fossil fuels and the necessary powergrid, see ENTSO-e) is at continental-scale. | | |
| ▲ | pyrale 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity Why the hell would you show me the same graph I showed you earlier, but with only 3 years of history? That graph, over time, shows that fossil hovers around 10%, has been for decades now. Renewables is not decreasing fossil use here. > A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment. As France is a market economy, the issue isn't resources, money is. > Starting right now to build in order to replace 40-years old nuclear plants Here is the issue: you don't give a fuck about CO2, all you care about is for renewables to replace nuclear, another clean energy source. All of your discourse is warped and dishonest because you want to pretend that you care about catbon emissions when, in fact, you don't. If you cared about carbon emissions you would focus on means to lower carbon emissions: electrifiying. | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > Why the hell would you show me the same graph I quoted it 4 days ago (see above). I propose my interpretation of it, for the objective reader to make his mind. Renewables' share is up, therefore they replace fossil fuels because without renewables France should burn more fossil fuels. >> A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment. > As France is a market economy, the issue isn't resources, money is. If in your opinion each and every resource (expertise, material...) used to deploy electricity-producing plants is 100% adequate for electrifying let's say we live in distinct universes. > Here is the issue: you don't give a fuck No arguments, therefore you rant about what (in your opinion) I think. This is moot. > If you cared about carbon emissions you would focus on means to lower carbon emissions: electrifiying. I already explained, above, why deploying electricity-producing plants is just as important and urgent. You didn't even try to counter-argument. | | |
| ▲ | pyrale 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > Renewables' share is up, therefore they replace fossil fuels because without renewables France should burn more fossil fuels. Once again the declining share is nuclear. Fossils are stable as the data you quote shows. > If in your opinion each and every resource (expertise, material...) used to deploy electricity-producing plants is 100% adequate for electrifying My point is that this is irrelevant since the bottleneck is money. We don't live in a command economy where material resources and workers are assigned by the state on a given project. > You didn't even try to counter-argument. Why would I try when we're at the point where you don't even acknowledge raw data? | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > the declining share is nuclear OMG, is it a joke? Consumption is stable, OK? Nuclear produced less, OK?
Therefore renewables compensated for nuclear declining production, OK?
Therefore burning more fossil fuels was not necessary, OK?
Therefore renewables replaced them, OK? > the bottleneck is money My point is solid even given this perspective: the way public money is used is of paramount importance: government recently ordered new nuclear reactors, and also subsidizes renewables in order to compensate past huge subsides to nuclear. More money here, less money there. > We don't live in a command economy where material resources and workers are assigned by the state on a given project. Read above. > you don't even acknowledge raw data Raw data, as explained, shows that renewables enabled France to avoid burning more fossil fuel. This is a fact, like it or not. | | |
| ▲ | pyrale 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Nuclear is not down for intrinsic reasons, it is down because it comes after renewables in merit order, and therefore when renewables are available, it is scaled down. In low renewables availability episodes, there isn’t more fossil production, we simply ramp nuclear up. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | anton96 7 months 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 ? | | |
| ▲ | thrance 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 7 months 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 7 months 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. | | |
| ▲ | Symbiote 7 months ago | parent [-] | | I think this graph from Wikipedia is better, as it goes back to 1990 [1]. Renewables have increased significantly, but much of that is displacing nuclear power. The remainder, plus a small increase in natural gas, his displaced hard coal and a small amount of lignite. Presumably hard coal is more expensive. The overall trend is coal is reducing, but it's a poor show compared to Great Britain [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_in_Great_Britain#/... | | |
| ▲ | masklinn 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > Presumably hard coal is more expensive. Yeah, Germany did have hard coal mines but they closed a few years back as they've gotten too deep and difficult to access to be economically viable (and it was subsidised until 2018), so Germany imports hard coal. Meanwhile germany is either #1 or #2 lignite producer. |
|
| |
| ▲ | thrance 7 months 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. | | |
| ▲ | Propelloni 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > Nuclear is still a bit cheaper per Watt LCOE [1] of nuclear power in Europe and the USA is roughly thrice that of solar or wind [2]. In China it is about even. If you do not trust the Deutsche Bank report, the World Nuclear Association comes to roughly the same conclusion but assumes a lower discount, thus making nuclear power more attractive. [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
[2] https://www.dbresearch.de/PROD/RPS_DE-PROD/PROD0000000000528...
[3] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec... | | |
| ▲ | sgt 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Is this based on cost per Watt without the expenses related to keeping the grid perfectly synchronized or not? A significant and stable base load is important and it has shown that wind/solar makes it substantially more expensive to keep the grid stabilized, which is of course a no brainer if you don't want a blackout. | | |
| ▲ | Propelloni 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > Is this based on cost per Watt without the expenses related to keeping the grid perfectly synchronized or not? It's the LCOE, you can read what it encompasses in the link I provided. > A significant and stable base load is important and it has shown that wind/solar makes it substantially more expensive to keep the grid stabilized, which is of course a no brainer if you don't want a blackout. I assume you mean the utility frequency [1] when you say "base load", because you said "synchronized" and "stabilized". The frequency indeed has to be stable with a rather small margin of tolerance. Today that's mostly a job for gas turbines, though. One can hope that we find ways to store all the surplus regenerative power soon, so that we can retire those, too. Nuclear power plants, in any case, are too slow for that purpose. Just in case you really meant load, load has no requirement to be stable. The power demands at any time can be met by dispatchable power plants, but utilities like to plan long-term, so they use some averaged load over time to determine a "base load" and buy accordingly on the electricity market. That's prudent business practice, but there is no technical reason to run low-variability power plants because of that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_frequency | | |
| ▲ | sgt 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for clearing up the terminology. Good point regarding gas turbines. |
|
| |
| ▲ | thrance 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | In France, the most recent report [1] by the Cour des comptes, our official accounting organ, still gives nuclear power as slightly cheaper than solar and wind. I trust your data, but the situation here is different, most reactors are already built, and "only" need maintenance and fuel replacement. I still stand by what I said in my previous comment about emissions per watts, etc. [1] https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2021-12/20211213... | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 7 months ago | parent [-] | | This report is about the cost of production of AMORTIZED nuclear plants (moreover the real cost of France's nuclear fleet of reactor, including public money is a matter of debate). Comparing it to the total cost of new renewable is meaningless. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | masklinn 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | realusername 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | And the reality is even worse than that because France has 40% electricity heating whereas it's only 5% in Germany. | |
| ▲ | qayxc 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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 7 months 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. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pydry 7 months 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... | | |
| ▲ | pyrale 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | That article is extremely loaded. It bemoans every factor that made building nuclear a sensible choice, as if these factors were unfair and shouldn't have existed (with that logic, I guess Norway should never have built dams, and it's unfair that they have all these mountains). It also insists that France should have added a lot of burdensome process, which reminds me of CIA's Simple Sabotage Field Manual. Also bonus point for complaining about the Tennessee Valley Authority. I've read many articles about pricing the French nuclear fleet, but this was a first. For people interested about a real inquiry discussing the price of the french nuclear program [1] which is actually exhaustive and well documented. [1]: https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/themat... | |
| ▲ | kergonath 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 7 months ago | parent [-] | | >The alternative in the 1970s was skyrocketing oil They imported and still import just as much oil as anyone else. | | |
|
|
|
