3 ms·

“Except in France where they went all in on nuclear and ended up exactly as screwed as they are in Germany.” Can someone translate this narrative into actual n

“Except in France where they went all in on nuclear and ended up exactly as screwed as they are in Germany.” Can someone translate this narrative into actual numbers? It sounds like a political soundbite but to those not following the problem there’s gotta be more to “exactly”

glogla 4y ago
France has lot more electricity demand in winter than in summer (due to electric heating and not a lot of AC). They traditionally stop their plants in summer to maintain and refuel them. So it is easy to look in the middle of summer and say "Look, half of France's reactors are offline! It is obviously not working out! They should have been green like us and use lignite and Russian gas!!!" France also messed up when they decided to postpone some maintenance due to COVID (not sure how that was a valid reason) and they have a lot to do this time, so it is taking longer than usual.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
France and Germany's natural gas use for electricity production is about the same, 9% vs 12%. France has nuclear and hydro, while Germany as is much discussed, has coal and renewables. Coal is of course bad (they even imported some from Russia), but renewables seem to have been the smart choice and what everyone, France included, will be moving to. (Germany probably uses more gas for manufacturing things too)
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  24% coal, 12% nuclear for Germany. Hardly a smart choice and one that has been generating huge emissions, especially compared to France.
  - pydry 4y ago
    France built its nuclear power stations in the 1970s decades before anybody was interested in global warming and for completely different reasons. Germany really only kicked off Energiewende in the early 2000s.
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      I think some people obstinately refuse to acknowledge that Germany has had a disastrous energy policy. Be it, putting the brakes on nuclear, continued and extensive use of coal, and reliance on Russia. Germany is still a massive emitter because of this, in addition to being cornered because of its reliance on Russia and decision to cut it off without alternative in place. > for completely different reasons. Main reason being strategic energy independence. Something Germany is suddenly being reminded is important. Low emissions have come as an added benefit. Choices were made...
      - pydry 4y ago
        >I think some people obstinately refuse to acknowledge that Germany has had a disastrous energy policy. Because it's a lie and it's always been a lie. The nuclear power stations that were turned off contributed a relatively small amount compared to solar and wind added to the mix. And they cost more. It's just that turning them off made certain groups (Vattenfall, American government) furious. This was nothing to do with environmentalism or energy independence but led to a lot of propaganda about both. The supposed environmentalists who spat venom at the German greens for "not turning off coal plants fast enough" were not in the slightest bit bothered by Poland next door not turning off their coal plants at all. >Main reason being strategic energy independence. Something Germany is suddenly being reminded is important. And because France was unwilling to shoulder the eye watering costs of maintaining and replacing their aging nuclear plants they're in exactly the same position. Instead of $3 billion wind farms with a 65% load factor theyve got $15 billion nuclear plants with a 75% load factor. What a win for nuclear power. The only people who this hasnt dawned on yet is the people who lapped up the anti german nuclear propaganda. The hole currently filled with natural gas that France has dug for itself because of nuclear power's insane cost is something that they simply dont think about. Nuclear propaganda always avoids mentioning cost. Had Germany had another 6-7 years to prepare theyd be in a better position to withstand the gas being cut off then France instead of roughly the same. Their dependence was going down, France's up.
        mytailorisrich 4y ago

glogla 4y ago

France has lot more electricity demand in winter than in summer (due to electric heating and not a lot of AC). They traditionally stop their plants in summer to maintain and refuel them. So it is easy to look in the middle of summer and say "Look, half of France's reactors are offline! It is obviously not working out! They should have been green like us and use lignite and Russian gas!!!" France also messed up when they decided to postpone some maintenance due to COVID (not sure how that was a valid reason) and they have a lot to do this time, so it is taking longer than usual.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

France and Germany's natural gas use for electricity production is about the same, 9% vs 12%. France has nuclear and hydro, while Germany as is much discussed, has coal and renewables. Coal is of course bad (they even imported some from Russia), but renewables seem to have been the smart choice and what everyone, France included, will be moving to. (Germany probably uses more gas for manufacturing things too)

mytailorisrich 4y ago
24% coal, 12% nuclear for Germany. Hardly a smart choice and one that has been generating huge emissions, especially compared to France.
- pydry 4y ago
  France built its nuclear power stations in the 1970s decades before anybody was interested in global warming and for completely different reasons. Germany really only kicked off Energiewende in the early 2000s.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    I think some people obstinately refuse to acknowledge that Germany has had a disastrous energy policy. Be it, putting the brakes on nuclear, continued and extensive use of coal, and reliance on Russia. Germany is still a massive emitter because of this, in addition to being cornered because of its reliance on Russia and decision to cut it off without alternative in place. > for completely different reasons. Main reason being strategic energy independence. Something Germany is suddenly being reminded is important. Low emissions have come as an added benefit. Choices were made...
    - pydry 4y ago
      >I think some people obstinately refuse to acknowledge that Germany has had a disastrous energy policy. Because it's a lie and it's always been a lie. The nuclear power stations that were turned off contributed a relatively small amount compared to solar and wind added to the mix. And they cost more. It's just that turning them off made certain groups (Vattenfall, American government) furious. This was nothing to do with environmentalism or energy independence but led to a lot of propaganda about both. The supposed environmentalists who spat venom at the German greens for "not turning off coal plants fast enough" were not in the slightest bit bothered by Poland next door not turning off their coal plants at all. >Main reason being strategic energy independence. Something Germany is suddenly being reminded is important. And because France was unwilling to shoulder the eye watering costs of maintaining and replacing their aging nuclear plants they're in exactly the same position. Instead of $3 billion wind farms with a 65% load factor theyve got $15 billion nuclear plants with a 75% load factor. What a win for nuclear power. The only people who this hasnt dawned on yet is the people who lapped up the anti german nuclear propaganda. The hole currently filled with natural gas that France has dug for itself because of nuclear power's insane cost is something that they simply dont think about. Nuclear propaganda always avoids mentioning cost. Had Germany had another 6-7 years to prepare theyd be in a better position to withstand the gas being cut off then France instead of roughly the same. Their dependence was going down, France's up.
      - mytailorisrich 4y ago