4 ms·
It's impossible to know the counterfactual, because having a set date for leaving nuclear has also been a forcing function for ramping up renewables. So it's en
by phreeza 5y ago
It's impossible to know the counterfactual, because having a set date for leaving nuclear has also been a forcing function for ramping up renewables. So it's entirely possible that coal would have made up as much or more of the energy consumed in the hypothetical 2021 with nuclear plants still active.
Of course there could have been an even more radical counterfactual where Germany decided to get out of coal by doubling down on nuclear but that hasn't been a political possibility in Germany for many years.
- chelical 5y agoThe counterfactual is right next door. France has half the emissions per capita of Germany since it primarily relies on nuclear power.
- phreeza 5y agoFrench reactors are also almost all older than 30 years, and it is thought that constructing new reactors would be extremely expensive, as most megaprojects tend to be these days, so I don't think it is a fair counterfactual. Smaller renewable and natural gas plants don't seem to suffer from cost disease so much.
- ZeroGravitas 5y agoInterestingly, after a quick look at some stats, it's not totally obvious why Germany has higher emissions per capita. Your theory that it's France's extensive nuclear use seems unlikely though since Spain, UK, Portugal, Italy etc. all seem to be roughly on par. My initial guess is that burning coal, or worse lignite or worse peat, seems to be the decisive factor, though high industry usage also plays a part. If you just compare carbon intensity per KWh produced, then France has a notable lead, 6 times less than Germany, so I wonder what brings them back down into the pack. Is some of that electricity being wasted or used inefficiently?