5 ms·

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 b

by 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...
  - natmaka 2y ago
    > France also improved in the meantime, despite building no new plant in the 2007-2022 interval Thanks to renewables: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2007..latest&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
    - pyrale 2y ago
      Renewables didn't move the needle since french electricity was already clean. Your graph shows that fossil didn't move over the time period. The difference has been cleaner energy use (e.g. better car motors) and cleaner production on non-electric energy.
      - natmaka 2y ago
        Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction: without them France would have burnt more fossil fuels. Moreover ~60% of France's final energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels => France must electrify (replace fossil fuel by electricity) => produce more gridpower => deploy new gridpower-producing equipment and such heavy industry thingies cannot be built overnight. Upon an economic viewpoint electrifying is facilitated by the sheer availability of low-priced electricity.
        pyrale 2y ago
        It feels like you've got your answer and are looking for a way to find the fit problem. > Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction The underproduction episode in 2022 was mostly handled thanks to imports and consumer sobriety. > Moreover ~60% of France's final energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels Yeah, that's my point. France would be better served by electrifying its non-electric energy usages rather than trying to replace one clean production by another. > => deploy new gridpower-producing equipment and such heavy industry thingies cannot be built overnight. France has a healthy margin before needing to rush production, with electricity usage going down for two decades, and a significant share of its power being exported currently.

by pyrale 2y ago

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...
- natmaka 2y ago
  > France also improved in the meantime, despite building no new plant in the 2007-2022 interval Thanks to renewables: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2007..latest&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
  - pyrale 2y ago
    Renewables didn't move the needle since french electricity was already clean. Your graph shows that fossil didn't move over the time period. The difference has been cleaner energy use (e.g. better car motors) and cleaner production on non-electric energy.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction: without them France would have burnt more fossil fuels. Moreover ~60% of France's final energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels => France must electrify (replace fossil fuel by electricity) => produce more gridpower => deploy new gridpower-producing equipment and such heavy industry thingies cannot be built overnight. Upon an economic viewpoint electrifying is facilitated by the sheer availability of low-priced electricity.
      - pyrale 2y ago
        It feels like you've got your answer and are looking for a way to find the fit problem. > Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction The underproduction episode in 2022 was mostly handled thanks to imports and consumer sobriety. > Moreover ~60% of France's final energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels Yeah, that's my point. France would be better served by electrifying its non-electric energy usages rather than trying to replace one clean production by another. > => deploy new gridpower-producing equipment and such heavy industry thingies cannot be built overnight. France has a healthy margin before needing to rush production, with electricity usage going down for two decades, and a significant share of its power being exported currently.