6 ms·

https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE Germany: 2x the French nuclear capacity in wind and solar + coal and gas (edited)

https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE Germany: 2x the French nuclear capacity in wind and solar + coal and gas (edited): 398gCO₂eq/kWh France: nuclear + a bit of hydro and renewables: 46gCO₂eq/kWh

c0balt 5y ago
The thing is that coal+gas ist still a massive driver for German electricity generation. Goal is to get coal off the grid until 2035 but has to be seen how they actually handle this has to be seen. The nuclear part in both countries also face the problem of long term storage that isn't solved by either one of the countries.
gostsamo 5y ago
Where do you count the coal?
- edhelas 5y ago
  Sorry, I didn't put it in the example. You have all the numbers in real-time on the link. My point was more to show that even you have a huge quantity of renewable, that doesn't means that is the correct path to go CO2 wise. Except if you accept that your society adapt itself to a non planned and highly variable electricity production.
  - gostsamo 5y ago
    Partial data is equal to false data when you misrepresent it like that. I'm also pro nuclear power, but coal and gas are too big factor to ignore.
    - edhelas 5y ago
      Just edited it ;)
teekert 5y ago
Germany should have kept their nuclear power plants just a bit longer, just to get through the transition. Closing them all as fast as they did is just difficult to defend.
- edhelas 5y ago
  Tell that to Belgium. They are planning to close down all their nuclear plants right now. And replace them with gas.
  - teekert 5y ago
    Those LNG lobbyist from the US (or should I say neo economic-hitmen) are really worth their money. Would be shame if it backfired and the EU turned to Russia. Gas prices are through the roof, I really hope our politicians are going to think "EU first" for a change. * Keep the nuclear plants open until we transition fully to renewables. In the meantime: * Get LNG from the US or natural gas from the Russians depending on market prices. (Ignore those threats/boycots from the US wrt Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, show some cojones) How hard could it be?
    - edhelas 5y ago
      There is no such things as "100% renewable". The only countries that can do that already have and is because they have a lot of hydro-power or other controllable way of producing energy without emitting CO2 (Iceland, Finland...). If you don't have way to produce in a stable matter, NOW (not in 20 years when we might have the tech to store a crazy amount of electricity across the months) your electricity you have to import it or burn what you have in your country. France choose to import uranium. Or we go 100% renewable, but we need to start discussing about a society where electricity is not 24/7 available for a major part of the population.
      - bjourne 5y ago
        Finland doesn't have a lot of hydro power. Most of its power comes from imports, nuclear and thermal power. Your claim that 100% renewable cannot guarantee electricity 24/7 to everyone is contradicted by countless reports.
Retric 5y ago
First that’s an instantaneous number not any sort of long term average. More importantly “Capacity” isn’t a useful metric for comparison when nuclear costs are an order of magnitude higher for capacity. Even with a 2x increased capacity factor nuclear is still several times more expensive per kWh. So in terms of actual investment in carbon neutral sources France has spent roughly 4x as much as Germany to get that reduction. It’s an admirable sacrifice by the French people, but the ROI in terms of money spent vs CO2 reduction is quite poor.
- edhelas 5y ago
  This has been debunked and proven in various papers and scenarios. The latest one in France is by RTE (our national grid management company). https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/les-futurs-energetiques-2050-de-rte-en-infographies-211026 https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/les-futurs-energetiq... They made 6 scenarios, from "100% renewable" (M0) to "50% nuclear-50% renewable in 2060" (N03). And here is there result cost wise: https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/RTE-futurs-energetiques-2050-3.png https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/sites/default/files/... N03 means we actually restart building nuclear plants and maintain the existing ones longer than expected. And yes there is 50% of renewable, because France didn't do anything for 20 years and it's "too late" to replace and extend the existing ones.
  - Retric 5y ago
    The wholesale price seen be RTE is post subsides. From their perspective nuclear is awesome, it’s also awesome for French consumers or would be if they didn’t have to pay taxes.
    - littlestymaar 5y ago
      Mandatory myth busting here: there is no subsidies on French nuclear which in facts yields billions in profit ever year to the French government, but a tons of subsidies on its competitors (and below-the-market-price access to nuclear electricity for them so they can “freely compete” with EDF. For those interested see ARENH). There are compelling arguments against nuclear in France (namely the aging of the existing reactors and the industrial inability to ship new reactors because we've lost most of the learning curve after several decades without significant reactor construction) but imaginary subsidies ain't one. I know Retric won't change their mind, but I hope other readers won't buy their bullshit.

c0balt 5y ago

The thing is that coal+gas ist still a massive driver for German electricity generation. Goal is to get coal off the grid until 2035 but has to be seen how they actually handle this has to be seen. The nuclear part in both countries also face the problem of long term storage that isn't solved by either one of the countries.

gostsamo 5y ago

Where do you count the coal?

edhelas 5y ago
Sorry, I didn't put it in the example. You have all the numbers in real-time on the link. My point was more to show that even you have a huge quantity of renewable, that doesn't means that is the correct path to go CO2 wise. Except if you accept that your society adapt itself to a non planned and highly variable electricity production.
- gostsamo 5y ago
  Partial data is equal to false data when you misrepresent it like that. I'm also pro nuclear power, but coal and gas are too big factor to ignore.
  - edhelas 5y ago
    Just edited it ;)

teekert 5y ago

Germany should have kept their nuclear power plants just a bit longer, just to get through the transition. Closing them all as fast as they did is just difficult to defend.

edhelas 5y ago
Tell that to Belgium. They are planning to close down all their nuclear plants right now. And replace them with gas.
- teekert 5y ago
  Those LNG lobbyist from the US (or should I say neo economic-hitmen) are really worth their money. Would be shame if it backfired and the EU turned to Russia. Gas prices are through the roof, I really hope our politicians are going to think "EU first" for a change. * Keep the nuclear plants open until we transition fully to renewables. In the meantime: * Get LNG from the US or natural gas from the Russians depending on market prices. (Ignore those threats/boycots from the US wrt Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, show some cojones) How hard could it be?
  - edhelas 5y ago
    There is no such things as "100% renewable". The only countries that can do that already have and is because they have a lot of hydro-power or other controllable way of producing energy without emitting CO2 (Iceland, Finland...). If you don't have way to produce in a stable matter, NOW (not in 20 years when we might have the tech to store a crazy amount of electricity across the months) your electricity you have to import it or burn what you have in your country. France choose to import uranium. Or we go 100% renewable, but we need to start discussing about a society where electricity is not 24/7 available for a major part of the population.
    - bjourne 5y ago
      Finland doesn't have a lot of hydro power. Most of its power comes from imports, nuclear and thermal power. Your claim that 100% renewable cannot guarantee electricity 24/7 to everyone is contradicted by countless reports.

Retric 5y ago

First that’s an instantaneous number not any sort of long term average. More importantly “Capacity” isn’t a useful metric for comparison when nuclear costs are an order of magnitude higher for capacity. Even with a 2x increased capacity factor nuclear is still several times more expensive per kWh. So in terms of actual investment in carbon neutral sources France has spent roughly 4x as much as Germany to get that reduction. It’s an admirable sacrifice by the French people, but the ROI in terms of money spent vs CO2 reduction is quite poor.

edhelas 5y ago
This has been debunked and proven in various papers and scenarios. The latest one in France is by RTE (our national grid management company). https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/les-futurs-energetiques-2050-de-rte-en-infographies-211026 https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/les-futurs-energetiq... They made 6 scenarios, from "100% renewable" (M0) to "50% nuclear-50% renewable in 2060" (N03). And here is there result cost wise: https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/RTE-futurs-energetiques-2050-3.png https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/sites/default/files/... N03 means we actually restart building nuclear plants and maintain the existing ones longer than expected. And yes there is 50% of renewable, because France didn't do anything for 20 years and it's "too late" to replace and extend the existing ones.
- Retric 5y ago
  The wholesale price seen be RTE is post subsides. From their perspective nuclear is awesome, it’s also awesome for French consumers or would be if they didn’t have to pay taxes.
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    Mandatory myth busting here: there is no subsidies on French nuclear which in facts yields billions in profit ever year to the French government, but a tons of subsidies on its competitors (and below-the-market-price access to nuclear electricity for them so they can “freely compete” with EDF. For those interested see ARENH). There are compelling arguments against nuclear in France (namely the aging of the existing reactors and the industrial inability to ship new reactors because we've lost most of the learning curve after several decades without significant reactor construction) but imaginary subsidies ain't one. I know Retric won't change their mind, but I hope other readers won't buy their bullshit.