10 ms·
Do you care to explain more, id be interested :)
by kla-s 1y ago
Do you care to explain more, id be interested :)
- mpweiher 1y agoIn 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 agoShutting 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 agoWell, 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 agoYes, 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 agoNo 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 agoEnd of live would have come sooner or later anyway. But why take the risk of fission reactors becoming targets in a war?
- pqtyw 1y agoBecause 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 agoGermany 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 agoA 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 agoRight now in Ukraine, the nuclear plants are what's keeping the grid alive. They are extremely tough targets, and fairly easy to defend.
- natmaka 1y agoIt is not about blackouts but about the risk induced by a nuclear plant in a warzone. That's what International Atomic Energy Agency's (UN agency in charge of civilian nuclear) boss said about it: "Director General Grossi reiterated his deep concern about the apparent increased use of drones near nuclear power plants since early this year, saying such weaponry posed a clear risk to nuclear safety and security" "any military attack on a nuclear site – with or without drones – jeopardizes nuclear safety and must stop immediately" https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-303-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-303-iae...
- oneshtein 1y agoIn 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 agoThe 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.