9 ms·
When looking at France, at a zoom level where one can see the whole country, all the green dots are located next to nuclear power plants. It's a good reminder t
by skagenpilot 2y ago
When looking at France, at a zoom level where one can see the whole country, all the green dots are located next to nuclear power plants. It's a good reminder that the french grid is mostly powered by nuclear.
It'd be nice to see the same map over summer to see if the different electric mix then gives birth to a different map.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoif it wasn't for France having primarily used nuclear power decades ago, Europe as a whole would be in a much much worse state when it comes to CO2 emissions. That makes it abundantly clear that nuclear needs to be a part of the mix when it comes to non-emission generating energy production.
- immibis 2y agoUsually in a sentence like "X makes it abundantly clear that Y" X should be some kind of objective fact, not speculation.
- briandear 2y agoAny data on how much France has slowed the decrease of global temperatures? Is there a “nuclear power to degrees saved” converter?
- insane_dreamer 2y agosomeone could calculate the savings in CO2 emissions over all the power generated by nuclear energy each year in France, since the power stations were built, vs coal plants (which would have been the alternative at the time)
- ZeroGravitas 2y agoThey replaced oil burning plants in France, when the global oil supply got disrupted. If France had coal to burn they wouldn't have been burning oil in the first place.
- palata 2y agoI can't say if this question is asked in good faith. Pretty obviously it's better than what the other European countries have been doing.
- pyrale 2y agoFrance being about 1% of world's population, any effort won't make a huge dent in a global phenomenon. Also, that 1% pollutes a lot more than the average, so the efforts made on the electricity front are offset by other issues.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- fsh 2y agoFrance has 12% of Europe's population, and its primary energy is 45% from fossil fuels and 40% from nuclear power. The effect on Europe as a whole is therefore pretty small.
- realusername 2y agoFrance is simultaneously one of the most populated countries in the EU and the of the top transitioned countries, it does make a difference
- thrance 2y agoI think you included transportation in your stats: planes, cars, trucks and boats. The electrical mix in France includes only 8% from fossil fuels, of which 7% come from natural gas. The rest is mostly nuclear, hydroelectric, wind and solar. In that order. France also regularly sells its surplus to neighboring countries.
- masklinn 2y ago> France also regularly sells its surplus to neighboring countries. And in order to do that it has pretty massive lines to neighbours meaning it also acts as an exchange platform (for a profit) e.g. if there are strong winds it can buy electricity from an oversupplied german grid and sell it to italy. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/24h https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/24h provides live views of the european electricity grids, and France is the only country which is consistently green (and often dark green aka under 50gCO2eq/kWh) without being blessed with enough hydro for most or all of its requirements (as Iceland and Norway are).
- elihu 2y agoInteresting to see they have data for Russia now. I think that's new.
- fsh 2y agoMost countries use way more primary energy for heating and transportation than for electricity generation. It would be disingenuous not to include this.
- barbazoo 2y agoNot sure if that still holds true nowadays with renewable energy and storage having got cheaper and cheaper.
- realusername 2y agoThe result speaks for themselves, Germany still hasn't reached France 90s levels of emissions.
- pydry 2y agoEnergiewende didnt start in 1973, it was first authorized in late 2010. France's nuclear program was also very, very expensive: https://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_True_Costs_of_French_Nuclear_Power.php https://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_True_Costs_of_French_Nuclear_Po...
- kergonath 2y agoYou can say whatever you want when discussion the cost of nuclear in France because of the structure of its nuclear industry. Part of it comes from the government’s budget, so depending on your point of view it can be accounted for differently. Then, there are externalities (pollution, greenhouse gases, etc). And then there are strategic aspects and associated costs. The alternative in the 1970s was skyrocketing oil, which is much more costly at the planet’s level, and was on track to be much more costly at the country’s level as well. And in the meantime, consumers got reasonably cheap and clean electricity for decades. Skimming your source, I would not trust it very much.
- pydry 2y ago>The alternative in the 1970s was skyrocketing oil They imported and still import just as much oil as anyone else.
- RandomThoughts3 2y agoThey in fact import far less gas than Germany and let’s not even look at coal.
- layer8 2y agoGermany’s net power grid imports are less than 5% (17% imports vs. 12.5% exports in 24H1), despite having no active nuclear power plants anymore. Around 60% of their domestically generated power currently comes from renewables (up 8% from last year). I don’t think it’s abundantly clear.
- draven 2y agoCO2 equiv from https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/24h https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/24h: France: 40g/kWh Germany 557g/kWh If the goal is decarbonation, using wind+solar is alright (renewables are a bigger part of the mix in Germany) but burning gas and lignite when there's no sun or wind is not.
- natmaka 2y agoIn Germany the problem is coal (lignite): it remains a huge social and political 'asset'. Many jobs, low-priced electricity, no dependency towards fuel shipped by a foreign nation... France switched to nuclear because at the time it didn't have any fossil fuel ( https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-plan https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl... ), while Germany (especially the then-RDA part of it, Soviet-controlled) had huge reserves. Phasing-out coal is therefore difficult for Germany, however it does so and the acceleration after Fukushima (2011) and during its nuclear phase-out is impressive: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-coal?tab=chart&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-coal?ta... France & Germany (beware: check the scales...): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-generation-from-solar-and-wind-compared-to-coal?country=FRA~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-generation-fr... After Fukushima most German citizens didn't want nuclear reactors anymore: Which political parties switched most of the nuclear plants off since Fukushima? CDU/CSU: 14 FDP: 11 SPD: 9 Greens: 3 (source: https://x.com/HannoKlausmeier/status/1784158942823690561 https://x.com/HannoKlausmeier/status/1784158942823690561 )
- pyrale 2y agoNet balance over long time periods isn't very interesting: it doesn't tell you what happens on the market and who needs the trade to happen. What you need to look at is whether these exports are correlated with peaks in production or peaks in usage.
- dasKrokodil 2y agoLet's see... nuclear power is super expensive, relies on finite uranium resources and there is no safe solution to store the waste. Do we really want to rely on this?
- johanneskanybal 2y agoWhat other clean solution for variable reliable power do you know of?
- Aachen 2y agoKeep in mind that we should be comparing "super expensive" with climate adaptation consequences, as well as factoring in that e.g. Europe could collaborate and drive down reactor costs with economies of scale where we don't all need to independently reinvent how to build these things I'm happy for any energy (not just electricity) mix that ends up with a reasonable total cost, adding up current investments needed and future adaptation measures. The problem with ruling out a clean and safe energy source for irrational fears is that it delays net zero (higher future adaptation costs) and requires spending more on alternative solutions to guarantee a steady power supply (higher current investments) Wind and solar are currently much cheaper per kWp (opportunistic production) and so it seems like the quicker way to net zero, and during the first bit (where we are currently at) that's definitely true. The problem shifts when we want to actually stop using things like gas to make up the difference. Afaik we need to go quite a way beyond what cost-effective pumped hydro locations can supply in most of Europe, so we need to look beyond 2030 and think what power sources we need to have ready by, say, 2040 or 2050, start making specific plans, and break ground on whatever solution is the best compromise (I'm expecting some people to object to saying nuclear is not rationally dangerous. Please, prove me wrong! I'm happy to update my opinions based on non-cherry-picked data. I've previously looked into the cost in human health (not just deaths) of different energy sources, including dependencies such as uranium mining which is among the worst aspects. The only reliable data I've been able to find shows fission on par with renewables — iirc tending towards being safer, but probably not beyond the error margins due to the low percentage of nuclear energy) Edit: on the other hand, I'm afraid that this nuclear discussion (especially with germans, I say that as a foreigner living in Germany so I've heard different perspectives) only serves to divide the people who at least understand there is something we should be doing about climate change. I'm happy to compromise if that lets us finally settle on a concrete plan that'll land us in a place we want to be
- vr46 2y agoI was hoping to see a giant red line going from France directly into CERN, as Geneva (last I heard) was unable to supply them the power they needed.
- kuschku 2y agoThe map is purely a simulation, not actual data. That's why the map has nuclear powerplants in Germany still producing power.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]