7 ms·

And by "record low", we mean "nearly six times that of neighboring France." Compare: https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&interval=

• kleiba 3y ago
  Unsurprising, given the countries' opposing views on nuclear power.
  • kleiba 3y ago
    However, in 2023, Germany has for the first time produced most of its electrical power (52%) from renewable energy sources [1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-2023-renewable-power-installations-hit-record-wind-sector-lags-2024-01-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-2023-renewa...
    • toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Currently at 80GW of solar and 66GW of wind with a goal of 215GW cumulative solar capacity by 2030. Roughly speaking, they’ll have over 300GW of wind and solar by the end of the decade assuming at least another 20GW of wind gets built. For comparison, this is five times more than all existing French nuclear generation capacity (61GW), and does not include hydro, pumped hydro, batteries, and interconnectors. So the whole nuclear argument is frankly silly. This will be done before even a few GWs of nuclear were to come online. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/11/22/germanys-january-october-solar-capacity-additions-hit-11-7-gw/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/11/22/germanys-january-octo...
      • kgabis 3y ago
        Capacity is not generation.
        • toomuchtodo 3y ago
          Generation capacity * capacity factor = reasonable estimate of generation over a window of time.
          • kgabis 3y ago
            Maybe it's better to use numbers based on generation estimate then? Comparing capacity of baseload and intermittent energy sources is very misleading.
            • toomuchtodo 3y ago
              The need for baseload generation is a myth. https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/MarkBaseloadFallacyANZSEE.pdf https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/pub... https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-better/ https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothi... https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210 https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-in...
              • kgabis 3y ago
                Sure, renewables+gas can be considered a baseload source of electricity. Though it's not very cheap nor carbon neutral.
                • toomuchtodo 3y ago
                  Overproduction of renewables, transmission, and battery/pumped hydro storage negates the need for fossil gas for that last bit of power. Certainly, today, fossil gas is used to fill the gaps, but as the world begins deploying in excess of 1TW/year of renewables this year, that fossil gas will be rapidly pushed out of the mix. And it is arguably better to let those generation facilities become stranded and require decommissioning vs more nuclear (which is orders of magnitude more expensive to decomm due to the nature of nuclear fuel, spent, unspent, and anything it has exposed). Once the world is awash in clean, renewable energy, we can then scale up direct air carbon capture, paying back the carbon debt we incurred through industrialization burning fossil fuels. No nuclear required.
• redder23 3y ago
  Yeah because France uses Nuclear, Germany does not and energy is expensive AF there.
• toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Germany renewable generation capacity is relatively new, France will have to pay the bill to replace their legacy nuclear fleet as it approaches end of life. France is coasting on old capital investments that will eventually come due. Cost of renewables and batteries continues to decline, the cost of nuclear does not. Pencil out what it would cost to replace all current French nuclear generation at today’s nuclear build costs. It’s astronomical.
  • kgabis 3y ago
    Germany will have to replace all of it's solar and wind capacity long before most French reactors become EOL.
    • ViewTrick1002 3y ago
      Which is factored in the cost. Sometimes companies upgrade early because the newer versions are more efficient. The French are looking to have their entire nuclear fleet become EOL the next 20 years and for replacement they have 1 reactor being constructed. That is an awful spot to be in.
      • kgabis 3y ago
        What is not factored in, however, is that nuclear reactors can work for much longer than 40 years (which is a time span used by LCOE). Not to mention storage and grid extension. French reactors will have their lifetime extended beyond 60 years which gives France plenty of time to restart it's nuclear industry.
        • locallost 3y ago
          It's often tossed around that reactors can work for 80 years, but not a single one has managed that yet. The longest running nuclear plant is Beznau in Switzerland, now running for 54 years. But it needed extensive and expensive repairs around 10 years ago costing billions [1]. Swiss media reported that the reactor contains thousands of holes. [2] So the reality is less simple and rosy than people like to pretend. [1] https://www.axpo.com/ch/en/about-us/energy-knowledge.detail.html/energy-knowledge/nuclear-power-plant-beznau.html https://www.axpo.com/ch/en/about-us/energy-knowledge.detail.... [2] https://www.thelocal.ch/20151008/worlds-oldest-nuclear-reactor-like-emmental https://www.thelocal.ch/20151008/worlds-oldest-nuclear-react...