6 ms·

The result speaks for themselves, Germany still hasn't reached France 90s levels of emissions.

pydry 2y ago
Energiewende 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 ago
  You 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 ago
      They in fact import far less gas than Germany and let’s not even look at coal.
- pyrale 2y ago
  That article is extremely loaded. It bemoans every factor that made building nuclear a sensible choice, as if these factors were unfair and shouldn't have existed (with that logic, I guess Norway should never have built dams, and it's unfair that they have all these mountains). It also insists that France should have added a lot of burdensome process, which reminds me of CIA's Simple Sabotage Field Manual. Also bonus point for complaining about the Tennessee Valley Authority. I've read many articles about pricing the French nuclear fleet, but this was a first. For people interested about a real inquiry discussing the price of the french nuclear program [1] which is actually exhaustive and well documented. [1]: https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/thematic_public_report_costs_nuclear_%20power_sector_012012.pdf https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/themat...
anton96 2y ago
I have no clew how come the difference on what's usually said on this forum and the situation in Europe.My only understanding is that the US as whole is more sunny that gives a better ratio solar panel and produced electricity. Maybe also it's a provider thing ? From country to country, you can always have things that seem randomly more expensive. Germany is more renewable but more expensive than France, is it because of their national company is benefiting citizen properly or is it because the remaining gas part drives up the cost ?
- thrance 2y ago
  Germany may use more renewables in volume, but it is absolutely dirtier than in France. Their electrical mix makes use of lots of natural gas and lignite coal, the worst kind, both expensive and very dirty.
  - qayxc 2y ago
    Compare to the PAST, not the present! As you can see, the trend is downwards and steadily at that: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Energy/Production/Tables/gross-electricity-production.html https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris... Rome wasn't built in a day and I find it hilarious to advocate for nuclear power instead, if the average construction time (not even taking into account the prior mountain of bureaucracy) is over a decade. Not a single nuclear power plant built in past 15 years in Europe has been on time or on budget. Not even close.
    - masklinn 2y ago
      > As you can see, the trend is downwards and steadily at that Lignite numbers: 2019: 114TWh, 18.7% 2020: 92TWh, 16% 2021: 110TWh, 18.8% 2022: 116TWh, 20% 2023: 88TWh, 17% I've seen steadier terminal alcoholics.
      - Symbiote 2y ago
        I think this graph from Wikipedia is better, as it goes back to 1990 [1]. Renewables have increased significantly, but much of that is displacing nuclear power. The remainder, plus a small increase in natural gas, his displaced hard coal and a small amount of lignite. Presumably hard coal is more expensive. The overall trend is coal is reducing, but it's a poor show compared to Great Britain [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#/media/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_in_Great_Britain#/media/File:UK_electricity_generation_by_type_of_fuel,_1998-2020.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_in_Great_Britain#/...
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Yes it has: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity?tab=chart&time=1990..latest&country=USA~CHN~IND~IDN~PAK~OWID_EU27~DEU~FRA~GBR~ESP~ITA~POL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity?tab=chart&t...
- pyrale 2y ago
  The data you provide quotes Germany being 50% more polluting than France per-GDP-unit, at the level France was at in 2007. The issue with it is that dividing by GDP rather than, say, population or total energy used is kind of disingenuous. For instance, France's 2007 GDP can't be compared to Germany's 2022 GDP, so it's extremely hard to have an idea of what you're comparing.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    2007 is not in the 1990s which is the point I responded to. France was cleaning up in the 1990s but Germany is still doing better than France in even 1999. As you helpfully point out they were about France's 2007 level (when they had 70% nuclear electricity, 40% nuclear power, a hair below their absolute peak 41% nuclear which they hit a few years later) in 2022, so catching up to a global leader with lots of nuclear despite phasing out their own nuclear. You can see the per capita numbers on the same site and it's the same basic story, France had a head start but Germany is cleaning up faster (while growing GDP faster). One of the anti-German memes going around is that their decarbonisation is via deindustrialization, so per GDP helps avoid that accusation and adjusts for people importing their carbon as the country with the heavy industry gets paid. Meanwhile the USA, which has the most nuclear plants and yet is clearly worse than Germany and the EU average, somehow gets a free pass. How odd. It's as if we attack the countries (and states) that reduce carbon without nuclear rather than the ones emitting lots of carbon.
    - pyrale 2y ago
      > so catching up to a global leader with lots of nuclear despite phasing out their own nuclear. No catching up happened, because France also improved in the meantime, despite building no new plant in the 2007-2022 interval. And that's the issue with this measurement: it measures plenty of parasitic information. For instance, GDP growth between the 90's and now explains a large part of what you're highlighting. Here's another chart from your site showing carbon intensity [1] which shows the improvement in carbon per energy generated is only a small part of the improvement shown in your graph. And here's a chart [2] showing how GDP growth is the dominating factor for Germany's evolution in your graph. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-consumption-carbon-intensity-energy?facet=metric&country=DEU~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-consumption-ca... [2]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/kaya-identity-co2?country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/kaya-identity-co2?country...

Energiewende 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 ago
You 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 ago
    They in fact import far less gas than Germany and let’s not even look at coal.
pyrale 2y ago
That article is extremely loaded. It bemoans every factor that made building nuclear a sensible choice, as if these factors were unfair and shouldn't have existed (with that logic, I guess Norway should never have built dams, and it's unfair that they have all these mountains). It also insists that France should have added a lot of burdensome process, which reminds me of CIA's Simple Sabotage Field Manual. Also bonus point for complaining about the Tennessee Valley Authority. I've read many articles about pricing the French nuclear fleet, but this was a first. For people interested about a real inquiry discussing the price of the french nuclear program [1] which is actually exhaustive and well documented. [1]: https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/thematic_public_report_costs_nuclear_%20power_sector_012012.pdf https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/themat...

anton96 2y ago

I have no clew how come the difference on what's usually said on this forum and the situation in Europe.My only understanding is that the US as whole is more sunny that gives a better ratio solar panel and produced electricity. Maybe also it's a provider thing ? From country to country, you can always have things that seem randomly more expensive. Germany is more renewable but more expensive than France, is it because of their national company is benefiting citizen properly or is it because the remaining gas part drives up the cost ?

thrance 2y ago
Germany may use more renewables in volume, but it is absolutely dirtier than in France. Their electrical mix makes use of lots of natural gas and lignite coal, the worst kind, both expensive and very dirty.
- qayxc 2y ago
  Compare to the PAST, not the present! As you can see, the trend is downwards and steadily at that: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Energy/Production/Tables/gross-electricity-production.html https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris... Rome wasn't built in a day and I find it hilarious to advocate for nuclear power instead, if the average construction time (not even taking into account the prior mountain of bureaucracy) is over a decade. Not a single nuclear power plant built in past 15 years in Europe has been on time or on budget. Not even close.
  - masklinn 2y ago
    > As you can see, the trend is downwards and steadily at that Lignite numbers: 2019: 114TWh, 18.7% 2020: 92TWh, 16% 2021: 110TWh, 18.8% 2022: 116TWh, 20% 2023: 88TWh, 17% I've seen steadier terminal alcoholics.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      I think this graph from Wikipedia is better, as it goes back to 1990 [1]. Renewables have increased significantly, but much of that is displacing nuclear power. The remainder, plus a small increase in natural gas, his displaced hard coal and a small amount of lignite. Presumably hard coal is more expensive. The overall trend is coal is reducing, but it's a poor show compared to Great Britain [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#/media/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_in_Great_Britain#/media/File:UK_electricity_generation_by_type_of_fuel,_1998-2020.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_in_Great_Britain#/...

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

Yes it has: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity?tab=chart&time=1990..latest&country=USA~CHN~IND~IDN~PAK~OWID_EU27~DEU~FRA~GBR~ESP~ITA~POL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity?tab=chart&t...

pyrale 2y ago
The data you provide quotes Germany being 50% more polluting than France per-GDP-unit, at the level France was at in 2007. The issue with it is that dividing by GDP rather than, say, population or total energy used is kind of disingenuous. For instance, France's 2007 GDP can't be compared to Germany's 2022 GDP, so it's extremely hard to have an idea of what you're comparing.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  2007 is not in the 1990s which is the point I responded to. France was cleaning up in the 1990s but Germany is still doing better than France in even 1999. As you helpfully point out they were about France's 2007 level (when they had 70% nuclear electricity, 40% nuclear power, a hair below their absolute peak 41% nuclear which they hit a few years later) in 2022, so catching up to a global leader with lots of nuclear despite phasing out their own nuclear. You can see the per capita numbers on the same site and it's the same basic story, France had a head start but Germany is cleaning up faster (while growing GDP faster). One of the anti-German memes going around is that their decarbonisation is via deindustrialization, so per GDP helps avoid that accusation and adjusts for people importing their carbon as the country with the heavy industry gets paid. Meanwhile the USA, which has the most nuclear plants and yet is clearly worse than Germany and the EU average, somehow gets a free pass. How odd. It's as if we attack the countries (and states) that reduce carbon without nuclear rather than the ones emitting lots of carbon.
  - pyrale 2y ago
    > so catching up to a global leader with lots of nuclear despite phasing out their own nuclear. No catching up happened, because France also improved in the meantime, despite building no new plant in the 2007-2022 interval. And that's the issue with this measurement: it measures plenty of parasitic information. For instance, GDP growth between the 90's and now explains a large part of what you're highlighting. Here's another chart from your site showing carbon intensity [1] which shows the improvement in carbon per energy generated is only a small part of the improvement shown in your graph. And here's a chart [2] showing how GDP growth is the dominating factor for Germany's evolution in your graph. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-consumption-carbon-intensity-energy?facet=metric&country=DEU~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-consumption-ca... [2]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/kaya-identity-co2?country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/kaya-identity-co2?country...