5 ms·
... and yet Germany looks awful on https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map . Is that a measurement problem, or something else th
by nbuet 3y ago
... and yet Germany looks awful on https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map . Is that a measurement problem, or something else that we should know?
- luto 3y agoBurning lots of coal does that.
- silvester23 3y agoI guess that's because most of the non-renewable electricity is generated with lignite so even with the 85% renewables generation the map shows at this moment, there are still significant CO2 emissions.
- skrause 3y agoOn this map Germany always looks bad until you zoom out enough to see the USA.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago> it's mostly Americans pointing That’s such a random claim to make…
- llampx 3y agoAt least the US has cheap energy. Germany has high taxes, high energy prices and still manages to be dirty while being morally arrogant.
- skrause 3y agoI don't see Germany to be morally arrogant here, they're fully aware that there are problems with the transition to renewables.
- Archelaos 3y agoFor a fair judgement one must look at the bigger picture for example by looking at the CO2 emissions in general per capita. The latest data I could find is of 2021.[1] Germany is 8.09t, while Australia is 15.09t, USA is 14.86t, Canada is 14.30t. Germany is not so far away from countries which are very "green" on the map you linked, such as Iceland (9.11t -- more than Germany!) Norway (7.57t), Austria (7.24t) and Finland (6.79t). This is only an example. Also CO2 emissions per capita does not provide us with a complete picture. (For example, if a country emits CO2 in the production of export goods, to what extent should the emissions actually be attributed to the importing countries?) By phasing out nuclear energy, Germany has made a major contribution to environmental protection. However, since this is a completely different category of environmental protection, it cannot objectively be offset against presumably associated CO2 emissions. In an open democratic society, such considerations are therefore not the task of a technical elite, but of the people as a whole. As an individual, of course, one can always take a different view of such majority opinions on the matter and campaign for them to be revised. However, one should always be aware that the weighing of such alternatives is fundamentally opinionated. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-per-capita-marimekko?tab=table https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-per-capita-marimekko?...
- makomk 3y agoA lot of Iceland's CO2 emissions seem to be from tourism and metal production for export, particularly aluminium. It obviously doesn't make too much sense to think about this in per-capita terms since they're a tiny country population-wise and there's not really much relationship between their population and the amount of energy used for those things. Also, a large part of the reason that Iceland has so much aluminium smelting is that they have a lot of cheap, low-CO2 power that makes it both more viable and less polluting to do it there than elsewhere. (By comparison, China also has a lot of aluminium smelting these days, but it's so inefficient and high-CO2 compared to the alternatives that it shouldn't be viable - the general reckoning is that it's heavilty subsidised by the government there.)