5 ms·

And still one of the worst European CO2 footprints..

by nixass 3y ago

x3874 3y ago
[flagged]
dunefox 3y ago
It's also one of the largest countries in the eu.
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  Not too different from France in size but very different in co2 footprint
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Still considerable more people so.
    - nixass 3y ago
      CO2 per KWh produced has nothing to do with population
      - hef19898 3y ago
        I know, Frqnce is lucly to have a huge nuclear fleet, allowing them a low CO2 foot print. Still, more households, large indutrial foot print play a role. Actual size of a country much less so.
smallnix 3y ago
Per capita or total?
- floitsch 3y ago
  Usually it's per consumed/produced kWh: https://app.electricitymaps.com/ https://app.electricitymaps.com/ Thanks to solar Germany is mostly in the middle of the pack right now.
halicarnassus 3y ago
Most CO2 footprints are not meaningful, because they are measuring the total and not per capita, and the CO2 footprint is counted against the producers and not the consumers. Steel- or car-producing countries, like Germany, will always have higher CO2 footprints than the countries, which consume the steel and cars. Of course, those producing countries shouldn't burn anything to reap the energy from it.
- Phil_Latio 3y ago
  It's about Co2 emitted per energy produced. Germany emits on average 5 times more Co2 than France.
  - fundatus 3y ago
    Might be true (didn't check the numbers) but German coal/lignite plants (which are the biggest contributors to the German CO2 footprint) will be phased off gradually over the next 7 years. So that will change drastically. It would probably have been wiser to keep the nuclear shut-off at 2030, but Fukushima changed that and when the energy crisis hit it was already too late to change course.
    - Phil_Latio 3y ago
      You can't phase them all out, you can only decrease their usage. You need coal and natural gas to cover base load. Germany will never reach or come near the Co2 emissions of France. In theory it can work without nuclear by installing MASSIVE storage for solar/wind energy, but this is still all theory and has enormous costs attached.
      - uoaei 3y ago
        If we acknowledge the inevitability of distributed energy storage (stationary and mobile batteries), as nuke advocates are so keen to insist on the inevitability of distributed microreactors, we might actually get somewhere in our conversations.
Gwypaas 3y ago
Going from an entirely fossil grid to on average having 78% renewables last week is nothing to scoff at? Perfect is the enemy of good. https://energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=week https://energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?...
- gobip 3y ago
  And yet, Germany is worse than France. France has 35% of renewables, Germany has 75% of renewables! And they pollute ten times more than France. 26gr of Carbon intensity vs 260gr. Check it out live here: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map Germany has failed, and keeps pushing for its failure so that it can turn into a miracle, and it won't.
  - Gwypaas 3y ago
    Given the state of Flamanville 3 and Olkiluoto 3 if Germany had chosen nuclear instead of renewables they would still be running close to 100% fossil fuels today. Yes, coming from the oil crisis in the 70s France chose energy independence through nuclear while Germany at the same time chose coal. Today nuclear is a black hole of cost while Germany is building the future. So what are you even arguing about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
    - gobip 3y ago
      Yes. France relies only on Flamanville 3, and only Flamanville 3 powers the entire country. Germany keeps polluting. Nature cares about co2, nature doesn't care about your economical strategy. Co2 is what matters the most, and your renewable, while being 75% of your electricity, doesn't help at all. Also, you forget to mention why Germany really gave up on nuclear. Enjoy Russian's blood money, Schröder, people are willing to defend your treason act, even in 2023.
  - throwbadubadu 3y ago

And still one of the worst European CO2 footprints..

by nixass 3y ago

And still one of the worst European CO2 footprints..

x3874 3y ago

[flagged]

dunefox 3y ago

It's also one of the largest countries in the eu.

Moldoteck 3y ago
Not too different from France in size but very different in co2 footprint
- hef19898 3y ago
  Still considerable more people so.
  - nixass 3y ago
    CO2 per KWh produced has nothing to do with population
    - hef19898 3y ago
      I know, Frqnce is lucly to have a huge nuclear fleet, allowing them a low CO2 foot print. Still, more households, large indutrial foot print play a role. Actual size of a country much less so.

smallnix 3y ago

Per capita or total?

floitsch 3y ago
Usually it's per consumed/produced kWh: https://app.electricitymaps.com/ https://app.electricitymaps.com/ Thanks to solar Germany is mostly in the middle of the pack right now.

halicarnassus 3y ago

Most CO2 footprints are not meaningful, because they are measuring the total and not per capita, and the CO2 footprint is counted against the producers and not the consumers. Steel- or car-producing countries, like Germany, will always have higher CO2 footprints than the countries, which consume the steel and cars. Of course, those producing countries shouldn't burn anything to reap the energy from it.

Phil_Latio 3y ago
It's about Co2 emitted per energy produced. Germany emits on average 5 times more Co2 than France.
- fundatus 3y ago
  Might be true (didn't check the numbers) but German coal/lignite plants (which are the biggest contributors to the German CO2 footprint) will be phased off gradually over the next 7 years. So that will change drastically. It would probably have been wiser to keep the nuclear shut-off at 2030, but Fukushima changed that and when the energy crisis hit it was already too late to change course.
  - Phil_Latio 3y ago
    You can't phase them all out, you can only decrease their usage. You need coal and natural gas to cover base load. Germany will never reach or come near the Co2 emissions of France. In theory it can work without nuclear by installing MASSIVE storage for solar/wind energy, but this is still all theory and has enormous costs attached.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      If we acknowledge the inevitability of distributed energy storage (stationary and mobile batteries), as nuke advocates are so keen to insist on the inevitability of distributed microreactors, we might actually get somewhere in our conversations.

Gwypaas 3y ago

Going from an entirely fossil grid to on average having 78% renewables last week is nothing to scoff at? Perfect is the enemy of good. https://energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=week https://energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?...

gobip 3y ago
And yet, Germany is worse than France. France has 35% of renewables, Germany has 75% of renewables! And they pollute ten times more than France. 26gr of Carbon intensity vs 260gr. Check it out live here: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map Germany has failed, and keeps pushing for its failure so that it can turn into a miracle, and it won't.
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  Given the state of Flamanville 3 and Olkiluoto 3 if Germany had chosen nuclear instead of renewables they would still be running close to 100% fossil fuels today. Yes, coming from the oil crisis in the 70s France chose energy independence through nuclear while Germany at the same time chose coal. Today nuclear is a black hole of cost while Germany is building the future. So what are you even arguing about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
  - gobip 3y ago
    Yes. France relies only on Flamanville 3, and only Flamanville 3 powers the entire country. Germany keeps polluting. Nature cares about co2, nature doesn't care about your economical strategy. Co2 is what matters the most, and your renewable, while being 75% of your electricity, doesn't help at all. Also, you forget to mention why Germany really gave up on nuclear. Enjoy Russian's blood money, Schröder, people are willing to defend your treason act, even in 2023.
- throwbadubadu 3y ago