3 ms·
These percentages are largely irrelevant because coal remains the only non-intermittent source that Germany can rely on (in the absence of nuclear), and it's so
by renaudg 7y ago
These percentages are largely irrelevant because coal remains the only non-intermittent source that Germany can rely on (in the absence of nuclear), and it's so much more carbon-intensive than the rest that the average figures are still terrible.
Because of the intermittence problem, there is simply no chance that Germany can catch up with the best gCO2/kWh results (France and Nordic countries) without an hypothetical breakthrough in battery storage for renewables. Its electricity's carbon intensity is currently 5-10 times higher. Pretty much only Poland is doing worse.
- xxgreg 7y agoIt's worth noting that none of Germany's reactors were ever run in load following mode (1). So the nuclear reactors also didn't/don't contribute to stabilising the German grid. Also note a 1GW nuclear plant also needs to be backed up to a certain degree by load following plants in-case it trips. The unflexibility of the nuclear reactors is also a problem to network operators, as is the intermittency of wind and solar. 1) Brokdorf was run in loading following mode as an experiment, but the reactor failed, and begun decommissioning early.