[flagged]

This is completely wrong and it's exactly the other way around. Decarbonizing is about direct or indirect electrification of all of people's energy needs, thus, primary energy is the relevant number to look at.

There's nothing pro- or anti-nuclear in this argument, since primary energy consumption can be electrified with or without nuclear.

▲

moooo99 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Its not at all dishonest, I would argue it is a lot more honest than not mixing it.

The current discussion around energy sources is basically always centered on electricity, which is only part of the picture. Given that in most industrialized countries industry as well as heating accounts for a substantial share of primary energy use, its dishonest to not take those sectors into account.

Having 100% nuclear clean energy doesn't help you at all when electricity only accounts for 20% of your primary energy usage. That is not intellectually bankrupt, that is just common sense.

If electrification of heating as well as mobility continues to increase, looking at renewable energy as a share of primary energy consumption will paint a way clearer picture than any other stat.

▲

immibis 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Counting only electricity production when you are talking about CO2 emissions is dishonest. Cars also emit CO2.

▲

RandomThoughts3 7 months ago | parent [-]

That doesn’t make sense. The goal is decarbonation, not arbitrary account. The sole reason to mix together things that don’t go together is making bad faith arguments like in this case.

▲

globular-toast 7 months ago | parent [-]

If the goal is "decarbonation" then the only thing that matters is the bottom line. If nuclear truly leads to a lower net carbon output (which I'm sure it does, unless using nuclear power somehow causes people to heat their homes more or drive ICE vehicles more) then what are you worried about?

▲

RandomThoughts3 7 months ago | parent [-]

People are intentionally muddling the case to make France success looks less successful. I like how you pretend to be candid while actually making the situation worse. Always funny to observe.

	▲	moooo99 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		> People are intentionally muddling the case to make France success looks less successful. It’s just not true at all, lol. Even by this way more useful metric France is doing quite well, substantially better than Germany for example. People are using this metric because it’s just useful while electricity footprint is only useful when you’re talking about very specific scenarios (like, how long until a BEV emits less carbon than an ICE). About 50% of the primary energy consumption in France is low emissions.