4 ms·

> France also improved in the meantime, despite building no new plant in the 2007-2022 interval Thanks to renewables: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electr

> 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.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      >> Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction > The underproduction episode in 2022 was mostly handled thanks to imports and consumer sobriety. Source? > France would be better served by electrifying its non-electric energy usages rather than trying to replace one clean production by another. I disagree: Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2020..latest&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa... A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment. Producing more electricity enables us to contain its price, boosting electrification. Starting right now to build in order to replace 40-years old nuclear plants (on average) seems adequate to me. New nuclear (Flamanville-3 EPR) isn't adequate (6x times overcostly, at least 12 years late). > France has a healthy margin before needing to rush production, Electrification has to ramp up, therefore if everything goes as planned it will soon be over. Waiting is dangerous. > with electricity usage going down for two decades Production nearly-flat from 2004 until COVID: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption > a significant share of its power being exported currently. The challenge (getting rid of fossil fuels and the necessary powergrid, see ENTSO-e) is at continental-scale.
      - pyrale 2y ago
        > Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity Why the hell would you show me the same graph I showed you earlier, but with only 3 years of history? That graph, over time, shows that fossil hovers around 10%, has been for decades now. Renewables is not decreasing fossil use here. > A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment. As France is a market economy, the issue isn't resources, money is. > Starting right now to build in order to replace 40-years old nuclear plants Here is the issue: you don't give a fuck about CO2, all you care about is for renewables to replace nuclear, another clean energy source. All of your discourse is warped and dishonest because you want to pretend that you care about catbon emissions when, in fact, you don't. If you cared about carbon emissions you would focus on means to lower carbon emissions: electrifiying.

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.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    >> Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction > The underproduction episode in 2022 was mostly handled thanks to imports and consumer sobriety. Source? > France would be better served by electrifying its non-electric energy usages rather than trying to replace one clean production by another. I disagree: Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2020..latest&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa... A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment. Producing more electricity enables us to contain its price, boosting electrification. Starting right now to build in order to replace 40-years old nuclear plants (on average) seems adequate to me. New nuclear (Flamanville-3 EPR) isn't adequate (6x times overcostly, at least 12 years late). > France has a healthy margin before needing to rush production, Electrification has to ramp up, therefore if everything goes as planned it will soon be over. Waiting is dangerous. > with electricity usage going down for two decades Production nearly-flat from 2004 until COVID: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption > a significant share of its power being exported currently. The challenge (getting rid of fossil fuels and the necessary powergrid, see ENTSO-e) is at continental-scale.
    - pyrale 2y ago
      > Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity Why the hell would you show me the same graph I showed you earlier, but with only 3 years of history? That graph, over time, shows that fossil hovers around 10%, has been for decades now. Renewables is not decreasing fossil use here. > A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment. As France is a market economy, the issue isn't resources, money is. > Starting right now to build in order to replace 40-years old nuclear plants Here is the issue: you don't give a fuck about CO2, all you care about is for renewables to replace nuclear, another clean energy source. All of your discourse is warped and dishonest because you want to pretend that you care about catbon emissions when, in fact, you don't. If you cared about carbon emissions you would focus on means to lower carbon emissions: electrifiying.