4 ms·

> estimates are not actual costs On matters such as those (vast, gov-funded, lengthy and intrinsically new projects) largely under-estimating seems way (way!)

> estimates are not actual costs On matters such as those (vast, gov-funded, lengthy and intrinsically new projects) largely under-estimating seems way (way!) more probable to me. > Nobody has successfully deployed a hydrogen grid storage facility Indeed (this is a work in progress, and may indeed not be possible), however the industry already uses huge amounts of H (therefore short-term storage for intermittency compensation is possible), and more and more vehicles do so (therefore a quite large distribution network for intermittent consumers is possible). > France can build more nuclear plants France already tries to builds a new nuclear reactor ("EPR") since 2007, it is way over budget and over schedule. As for renewables intermittency: I answered in my previous post. > While France uses 9% fossil fuels Germany, the biggest renewables stan, uses fossil fuels This comparison seems absurd to me. France launched its nuclearization in the 1970's, while very rich ("30 Glorieuses)", industrial, and it was a strategic case (continuation of the "atomic bomb" program and therefore benefiting from military credits + oil crisis), and the need (electricity consumed) was 3 times lower than it is now, using reactors existing since the 1950's. It then took 25 years to build the nuclear fleet. Germany isn't as (relatively) rich and industrial as it was in the 1970's (after many crisis since the 1990's), there is a quite strong "the climate crisis isn't really a strategic top-priority form most governments" (even in Germany) argument, really launched its transition in 2011, and it uses very-quickly evolving technologies. > biomass (which gets a green label but is often even more polluting than fossil fuels) This is more nuanced: some are rather clean.

Manuel_D 4y ago
> Indeed (this is a work in progress, and may indeed not be possible), however the industry already uses huge amounts of H (therefore short-term storage for intermittency compensation is possible), and more and more vehicles do so (therefore a quite large distribution network for intermittent consumers is possible). Incorrect. We have plenty of experience working with hydrogen produced by steam reformation. But that emits CO2, and thus cannot be used for energy storage. The vast amounts of hydrogen produced for ammonia production does not translate into usable infrastructure for hydrogen electric storage. Energy storage is a problem that has resisted an effective solution for a long time. There's no guarantee we'll find a good storage system 20 years from now or 200 years from now. > France launched its nuclearization in the 1970's, while very rich ("30 Glorieuses)", industrial, and it was a strategic case (continuation of the "atomic bomb" program and therefore benefiting from military credits + oil crisis), and the need (electricity consumed) was 3 times lower than it is now, using reactors existing since the 1950's. It then took 25 years to build the nuclear fleet. So investing in nuclear yielded great reductions in CO2 emissions, and brought fossil fuel use to near zero. > Germany isn't as (relatively) rich and industrial as it was in the 1970's (after many crisis since the 1990's), there is a quite strong "the climate crisis isn't really a strategic top-priority form most governments" (even in Germany) argument, really launched its transition in 2011, and it uses very-quickly evolving technologies. So Germany invested in renewables and even after more than 30 years of investment it hasn't seen nearly as big a reduction in CO2 emissions. Again you're making a very strong case for nuclear, renewables not so much.
- natmaka 4y ago
  >> Indeed (this is a work in progress, and may indeed not be possible), however the industry already uses huge amounts of H (therefore short-term storage for intermittency compensation is possible), and more and more vehicles do so (therefore a quite large distribution network for intermittent consumers is possible). > Incorrect. We have plenty of experience working with hydrogen produced by steam reformation. But that emits CO2 Not pertinent: I was writing about green hydrogen (no CO2 emissions), as stated above: "green-hydrogen-fueled gas turbines". > cannot be used for energy storage Many factories do have hydrogen tanks, the unknown territory is storing huge amounts of it in the long term (ongoing experiments try to use salt caves), both goals not necessary for the electrical system. > Energy storage is a problem that has resisted an effective solution for a long time There was no incentive, as fossil fuels are incredibly convenient. >> France > So investing in nuclear yielded great reductions in CO2 emissions Not-so great, if you consider that electricity is only at max a quarter of consumed (final) energy, and also the total amount of emissions (taking into account importations): abstaining from emitting is easy if other nations are producing goods for you. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-trade?tab=chart&region=Europe&country=FRA~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-tra... > and brought fossil fuel use to near zero. In France 9% of electricity is produced by burning fossil fuel. In France fossil fuels remain the main source of energy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuels-share-energy?tab=chart&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuels-share-energy... >> Germany >> really launched its transition in 2011 > So Germany invested in renewables and even after more than 30 years of investment Sorry but 2011 to now is 11 years, not 30 > it hasn't seen nearly as big a reduction in CO2 emissions. Starting from a way higher amount of consumed energy, in a way more difficult context (crisis...), without de-industrializing as much as France... in 2010 Germany's emission intensity were 471 (before shuting down many nuclear reactors) and in 2020 314. This is a pretty good result! France also reduced its emissions, but only thanks to renewable sources (no new nuclear reactor since 1999, because an attempt to build a new one, ongoing since 2007, fails) https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-intensity-10 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-i...

Manuel_D 4y ago

> Indeed (this is a work in progress, and may indeed not be possible), however the industry already uses huge amounts of H (therefore short-term storage for intermittency compensation is possible), and more and more vehicles do so (therefore a quite large distribution network for intermittent consumers is possible). Incorrect. We have plenty of experience working with hydrogen produced by steam reformation. But that emits CO2, and thus cannot be used for energy storage. The vast amounts of hydrogen produced for ammonia production does not translate into usable infrastructure for hydrogen electric storage. Energy storage is a problem that has resisted an effective solution for a long time. There's no guarantee we'll find a good storage system 20 years from now or 200 years from now. > France launched its nuclearization in the 1970's, while very rich ("30 Glorieuses)", industrial, and it was a strategic case (continuation of the "atomic bomb" program and therefore benefiting from military credits + oil crisis), and the need (electricity consumed) was 3 times lower than it is now, using reactors existing since the 1950's. It then took 25 years to build the nuclear fleet. So investing in nuclear yielded great reductions in CO2 emissions, and brought fossil fuel use to near zero. > Germany isn't as (relatively) rich and industrial as it was in the 1970's (after many crisis since the 1990's), there is a quite strong "the climate crisis isn't really a strategic top-priority form most governments" (even in Germany) argument, really launched its transition in 2011, and it uses very-quickly evolving technologies. So Germany invested in renewables and even after more than 30 years of investment it hasn't seen nearly as big a reduction in CO2 emissions. Again you're making a very strong case for nuclear, renewables not so much.

natmaka 4y ago
>> Indeed (this is a work in progress, and may indeed not be possible), however the industry already uses huge amounts of H (therefore short-term storage for intermittency compensation is possible), and more and more vehicles do so (therefore a quite large distribution network for intermittent consumers is possible). > Incorrect. We have plenty of experience working with hydrogen produced by steam reformation. But that emits CO2 Not pertinent: I was writing about green hydrogen (no CO2 emissions), as stated above: "green-hydrogen-fueled gas turbines". > cannot be used for energy storage Many factories do have hydrogen tanks, the unknown territory is storing huge amounts of it in the long term (ongoing experiments try to use salt caves), both goals not necessary for the electrical system. > Energy storage is a problem that has resisted an effective solution for a long time There was no incentive, as fossil fuels are incredibly convenient. >> France > So investing in nuclear yielded great reductions in CO2 emissions Not-so great, if you consider that electricity is only at max a quarter of consumed (final) energy, and also the total amount of emissions (taking into account importations): abstaining from emitting is easy if other nations are producing goods for you. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-trade?tab=chart&region=Europe&country=FRA~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-tra... > and brought fossil fuel use to near zero. In France 9% of electricity is produced by burning fossil fuel. In France fossil fuels remain the main source of energy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuels-share-energy?tab=chart&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuels-share-energy... >> Germany >> really launched its transition in 2011 > So Germany invested in renewables and even after more than 30 years of investment Sorry but 2011 to now is 11 years, not 30 > it hasn't seen nearly as big a reduction in CO2 emissions. Starting from a way higher amount of consumed energy, in a way more difficult context (crisis...), without de-industrializing as much as France... in 2010 Germany's emission intensity were 471 (before shuting down many nuclear reactors) and in 2020 314. This is a pretty good result! France also reduced its emissions, but only thanks to renewable sources (no new nuclear reactor since 1999, because an attempt to build a new one, ongoing since 2007, fails) https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-intensity-10 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-i...