7 ms·

Fun fact: The US achieved more for the climate with fracking gas than Germany did with its "Energiewende".

by mpweiher 1y ago

kla-s 1y ago
Do you care to explain more, id be interested :)
- mpweiher 1y ago
  In 2005, both the US and Germany had specific emissions of around 600g CO₂/kWh. In 2015, due mostly to fracking gas, the US was down to around 450g CO₂/kWh. Germany, with its Energiewende, was at around 560g CO₂/kWh. Because, of course, the Energiewende was not about climate change. It was about shutting down climate-friendly (CO₂ free) nuclear plants. Both could have done better. France is currently at something like 32g CO₂/kWh and has been at roughly that level for decades.
  - RandomLensman 1y ago
    Shutting down nuclear was a pretty popular policy. But that aside, what the Energiewende was not about was removing obstacles to building out energy infrastructure rapidly (e.g., the delay on the north-south connections).
    - gf000 1y ago
      Well, populism is no good reason to do something dumb. Maybe laymen should not directly have a say over experts in deeply technical discussions.
      - RandomLensman 1y ago
        Yes, not supporting energy infrastructure construction better was a mistake. Removing what would be nasty targets in a war perhaps in the current light not so much.
        mpweiher 1y ago
        No shutting down cheap, reliable, CO₂ free and already paid for energy infrastructure was. That's about as idiotic as you can get. And simply by not destroying this already existing infrastructure you wouldn't even have needed north-south links.
        RandomLensman 1y ago
        End of live would have come sooner or later anyway. But why take the risk of fission reactors becoming targets in a war?
        pqtyw 1y ago
        Because presumably France for instance would likely view someone blowing up one of their plants the same way as a nuclear attack. Given their nuclear deterrence policies that would end up badly for both sides
        RandomLensman 1y ago
        Germany doesn't have a nuclear deterrence and in the event of a nuclear war still might want to avoid having particular bad targets. I'd rather put any new money for nuclear into fusion instead of building large fission reactors.
        natmaka 1y ago
        A nuclear plant may be hit by despair, even if it isn't the target, and in any case finding who hit it may be difficult. Right now in Ukraine...
        mpweiher 1y ago
        Right now in Ukraine, the nuclear plants are what's keeping the grid alive. They are extremely tough targets, and fairly easy to defend.
  - oneshtein 1y ago
    In 2024, US was at 384 gCO₂/kWh, while Germany was at 344 gCO₂/kWh. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric...
    - mpweiher 1y ago
      The US fracking boom lasted until about 2015. And according to energycharts.de Germany was at 395g CO₂/kWh in 2023. Again, both pale in compare to France.

Fun fact: The US achieved more for the climate with fracking gas than Germany did with its "Energiewende".

kla-s 1y ago

Do you care to explain more, id be interested :)

mpweiher 1y ago
In 2005, both the US and Germany had specific emissions of around 600g CO₂/kWh. In 2015, due mostly to fracking gas, the US was down to around 450g CO₂/kWh. Germany, with its Energiewende, was at around 560g CO₂/kWh. Because, of course, the Energiewende was not about climate change. It was about shutting down climate-friendly (CO₂ free) nuclear plants. Both could have done better. France is currently at something like 32g CO₂/kWh and has been at roughly that level for decades.
- RandomLensman 1y ago
  Shutting down nuclear was a pretty popular policy. But that aside, what the Energiewende was not about was removing obstacles to building out energy infrastructure rapidly (e.g., the delay on the north-south connections).
  - gf000 1y ago
    Well, populism is no good reason to do something dumb. Maybe laymen should not directly have a say over experts in deeply technical discussions.
    - RandomLensman 1y ago
      Yes, not supporting energy infrastructure construction better was a mistake. Removing what would be nasty targets in a war perhaps in the current light not so much.
      - mpweiher 1y ago
        No shutting down cheap, reliable, CO₂ free and already paid for energy infrastructure was. That's about as idiotic as you can get. And simply by not destroying this already existing infrastructure you wouldn't even have needed north-south links.
        RandomLensman 1y ago
        End of live would have come sooner or later anyway. But why take the risk of fission reactors becoming targets in a war?
        pqtyw 1y ago
        Because presumably France for instance would likely view someone blowing up one of their plants the same way as a nuclear attack. Given their nuclear deterrence policies that would end up badly for both sides
        RandomLensman 1y ago
        Germany doesn't have a nuclear deterrence and in the event of a nuclear war still might want to avoid having particular bad targets. I'd rather put any new money for nuclear into fusion instead of building large fission reactors.
        natmaka 1y ago
        A nuclear plant may be hit by despair, even if it isn't the target, and in any case finding who hit it may be difficult. Right now in Ukraine...
        mpweiher 1y ago
        Right now in Ukraine, the nuclear plants are what's keeping the grid alive. They are extremely tough targets, and fairly easy to defend.
- oneshtein 1y ago
  In 2024, US was at 384 gCO₂/kWh, while Germany was at 344 gCO₂/kWh. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric...
  - mpweiher 1y ago
    The US fracking boom lasted until about 2015. And according to energycharts.de Germany was at 395g CO₂/kWh in 2023. Again, both pale in compare to France.