8 ms·

The electricity mix in France is still way cleaner than in California: - France: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/FR/5y/yearly https://app.electricitym

The electricity mix in France is still way cleaner than in California: - France: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/FR/5y/yearly https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/FR/5y/yearly - California: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-CAL-CISO/5y/yearly https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-CAL-CISO/5y/year... And their kWh costs less than 20 Cents in the standard plan: - https://particulier.edf.fr/content/dam/2-Actifs/Documents/Offres/Grille_prix_Tarif_Bleu.pdf https://particulier.edf.fr/content/dam/2-Actifs/Documents/Of... They even offer flex prices going down as low as 12,32 Cents/kWh. Nuclear power rules.

alecco 1y ago
Nothing to be proud of. Dangerous ancient reactors owned by an almost bankrupt company about to be nationalized. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/02/03/the-long-road-to-extending-life-of-french-nuclear-reactors_6014297_7.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/02/03/the-long...
- olejorgenb 1y ago
  https://archive.ph/RQxKM https://archive.ph/RQxKM
- pas 1y ago
  if they can run them safely they should. is ASN not trustworthy? they are doing reviews every 10 year, and as they get older they can increase the frequency of reviews. also the article mentions no dangers with regards to the reactors.
- KptMarchewa 1y ago
  >almost bankrupt company "Published on February 3, 2023" Since then, in 2023 and 2024 EDF posted over 10 billion a year profits.
  - alecco 1y ago
    In 2022 they lost 18bn because they had to repair widespread "stress corrosion cracking". And it was nationalized.
    - mpweiher 1y ago
      Incorrect. It was always a public/nationalized company. It started 100% owned by the government. In the 2000s, around 15% were sold to pension funds, so way over 80% in the hands of the state, which by EU rules (and common sense) makes it a state company. The floating shares were bought back in order to facilitate the nuclear expansion plans. The losses in 2022 were largely due to the energy crisis because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which interacted rather nastily with the French ARENH program that requires EDF to sell 25% of its power output for 4 cents/kWh, no matter what the market rates. And no matter if it needs that power itself. When the energy crunch hit in 2022, wholesale electricity rates rose up to €1 / kWh. So EDF had to sell its electricity for 4 cents, then buy it back at 25x markup for €1. Oh, and the government actually increased the ARENH quotas to more than 25%, because it used EDF to subsidize consumer/industry energy prices, something that was done by the states directly in other countries. The problems with a part of the fleet, largely due to deferred maintenance during COVID, also didn't help.
mrtksn 1y ago
Good luck building nuclear in non-generational timescales and at reasonable prices. The future is solar simply because these electricity catchers from the sky fusion are mass producible goods that you can just keep pumping and pointing it to the sky in matter of days at dirt cheap prices.
- xondono 1y ago
  > Good luck building nuclear in non-generational timescales and at reasonable prices. Or we could treat nuclear rationally and stop increasing the price three orders of magnitude past diminishing returns..
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - cheema33 1y ago
    > Or we could treat nuclear rationally and stop increasing the price three orders of magnitude past diminishing returns Who is we here? Do you have examples of any countries having successfully done what you are proposing?
    - streptomycin 1y ago
      China https://x.com/bataille_chris/status/1981476968202752109 https://x.com/bataille_chris/status/1981476968202752109
      - adrianN 1y ago
        And still even China is adding as much solar as their total nuclear capacity on a yearly basis.
    - Hammershaft 1y ago
      'We' could refer to democratic societies that regulate nuclear energy with absurdly stringent standards beyond how we regulate other forms of energy. Just the regulatory cost of approving a new small reactor design exceeds 500 Million Dollars! That's the lifetime earnings of thousands of engineers and bureaucrats.
sgustard 1y ago
Quebec has them both beat. Hydro rules! https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/CA-QC/5y/yearly https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/CA-QC/5y/yearly (To be transparent, there's controversy around calling hydroelectric renewable.)
- foobarian 1y ago
  Hydro does rule. Top 8 power stations are hydro right now. And the top power station has been a hydro for over a hundred years now. Very cool! Three Gorges has capacity of 22.5 GW.
  - zdragnar 1y ago
    I really hope nothing bad happens at the three gorges dam. There's nearly half a billion people that would have to be evacuated, and tens of millions who likely wouldn't be able to evacuate in time due to proximity. I'd rather live near a modern nuclear plant myself.
    - Yeul 1y ago
      Dutch people live under sea level but everyone trusts in the engineering.
- idiotsecant 1y ago
  I am a bit biased, as an engineer who works exclusively in hydro powerplants, but i think they're awesome too. With that said, it's becoming more apparent that in addition to the biosphere issues they cause, they also cause a pretty significant amount of methane to be released. https://www.hydropower.org/blog/new-study-sheds-light-on-reservoir-emissions-over-a-long-time-period https://www.hydropower.org/blog/new-study-sheds-light-on-res... It would put me out of a job but I'd still rather see a surge in nuke generation and solar with storage, at least until we get fusion figured out.
  - throwaway2037 1y ago
    > I'd still rather see a surge in nuke generation and solar with storage How about wind?
derriz 1y ago
Electricity prices are set by the French government not the wholesale cost or cost of production. Which is why EDF - the operator of the French nuclear fleet - regularly posts massive losses. Like the €18 billion loss in 2023. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/02/17/france-s-edf-posts-record-annual-loss-debt-swells_6016197_7.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/02/17/france-s...
- KptMarchewa 1y ago
  2022, not 2023. That was due to one time effect of corrosion repairs. For 2023 and 2024 EDF was profitable, with net income of those two years exceeding that 2022 loss.
  - mikeyouse 1y ago
    And I’m generally a nuclear proponent but one of the worst investments the French utility made was investing in the UKs reactor debacle at Hinkley C.
    - caminante 1y ago
      Per wiki, cost midrange is now 45 BEUR. That's ~14 MEUR/MW capacity (v. solar @ ~1MEUR/MW). Ouch!
      - Tade0 1y ago
        To make matters worse gas peaker plants cost approximately €1mln/MW as well, so at the cost of that plant you could have massively overprovisioned solar, backup gas plants and plenty of money for fuel to spare which you wouldn't be spending immediately, so it could be invested instead.
        caminante 1y ago
        Yes, though gas plant install prices are 2-3MEUR/MW these days due to demand/supply.
idreyn 1y ago
These maps are such a cool resource, thanks for sharing! "The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed." - William Gibson
ViewTrick1002 1y ago
The French are wholly unable to build new nuclear power. 3 is 7x over budget and 12 years late on a 5 year construction program. The EPR2 program is in absolute shambles. Currently they can’t even agree on how to fund the absolutely insanely bonkers subsidies. Now targeting investment decision in H2 2026. And the French government just fell because they are underwater in debt and have a spending problem which they can’t agree on how to fix. A massive handout to the dead end nuclear industry sounds like the perfect solution!
ZeroGravitas 1y ago
Even the poster boy for nuclear is reducing nuclear output as its fleet ages and filling that gap with renewables (reducing its electricity emissions from 2005 when their nuclear peaked too). So it apparently doesn't matter what your existing grid is, coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, of whatever mix, the thing you should be building now is mostly solar, wind and (not quite caught on globally but just about to make a very big splash) batteries.
- cm2187 1y ago
  The batteries mentioned in the article have only a few hours of capacity, and are designed to smooth the peak usage intraday. I think many people are confused and seem to think batteries are a viable way to address the volatility of wind, where you may deal with weeks with no/low wind, or solar, which in countries with cold winters is of little help. I have yet to see a cheap scalable alternative to carbon to deal with that volatility. Hydro perhaps in a handful of smaller, mountainous countries (and if you are not too regarding of the environmental damages). Right now the UK is using LNG to compensate wind.
  - Veliladon 1y ago
    Normally this would be handled by a wider synchronized network. The EU has a continent wide synchronized network and the UK isn’t part of it. There are also other ways to store energy. For polar regions sand batteries are capable of storing heat for months. High grade heat to the point they can siphon off that heat for power generation.
    - dfawcus 1y ago
      The interconnectors between UK and the continent are HVDC. As such they are essentially massive switching-mode PSUs, and there is no possibility of having a synchronised connection, as the AC has to be synthesised, following the local spinning iron.
      - cm2187 1y ago
energy123 1y ago
This shouldn't be confused for an argument to build new nuclear power in the year 2025 when far cheaper alternatives exist. It is an observation that nuclear works really well if it already exists and the fixed costs have been paid for, and that nuclear was the best choice a few decades ago.
- DeepSeaTortoise 1y ago
  The only reason nuclear is more expensive than any alternative are absurd regulations, reporting duties, the practice of financing these projects on borrowed money with high interests and that many of the companies running these projects are career parking spots and accelerators for the social circles around politicians and the bureaucratic aristocracy. Complexity-wise they're about halfway between gas and coal.
  - derriz 1y ago
    I'm not sure how you are measuring complexity. The plant and equipment required to maintain a stable nuclear reaction and extract its heat is far more complex than that required to control a coal or natural gas firebox. This is reflected in the fact that to run 1GW of nuclear generation, on average (in the US) requires about 700 FTE to operate. The average for coal generation is about a third of that number. And the average for a combined cycle gas plant is about 60 FTE. And nuclear fission produces low-grade heat - around 320°C - compared to coal (around 550°C) or natural gas (over 1300°C). Thus are less thermally efficient and require huge cooling towers and much larger turbines to extract the thermal energy. Which, of course, are more expensive and complex to build and maintain.
    - DeepSeaTortoise 1y ago
      Kind of my fault, I specifically thought only about the powerplant + fuel part. Of course nuclear is much more complex as a whole, because it comes with at least two, sometimes three different business sections attached by default: Production and sale of rare isotopes, on-site laboratories and research and recycling of spent fuel. It's hard to beat gas. The small double digit MW plant in my town literally has only one on-site full-time employee. My guess the only reason the FTE hits even 60 (didn't check) is because there are so many small installations. Coal has a lot of fuel processing on-site just for its own demand, the mostly very sensible environmental regulations add a lot of complexity to processing the flue gasses and this adds A LOT of moving parts. Nuclear can be built simple enough that people are literally thinking about dropping it down a mile deep hole, barely the width of a US-standard human. On the "hands off" scale it can't beat gas, barely anything but solar, geothermal and nuclear thermal electric can, but it could beat coal and hydro and possibly even wind via scale. Just how often should one have to send a report to some oversight body on the number of functional overhead lights and whether the change in microclimate didn't displace any rare insect species before one can say: "You didn't read the last 20, you're not getting another one."
epistasis 1y ago
California has been an oil state from the beginning. To this day there is urban oil extraction over various parts of LA: https://www.pbssocal.org/news-community/l-a-s-long-troubled-history-with-urban-oil-drilling-is-nearing-an-end-after-years-of-health-concerns https://www.pbssocal.org/news-community/l-a-s-long-troubled-... It is only very recently that California started trying to decarbonize. When France did their amazing nuclear build, it was for energy independence, not for decarbonization purposes. It was a very forward thinking move, even if it wasn't as cheap initially imagined and ended up being stopped before fully completed. It was a national security project. However nuclear is cheap when the high upfront capital costs have been paid off, and it's down to just the operating expenses. Building it is oppressively expensive, however, especially as labor costs have risen in the many decades since the 1970s while. As France's nuclear fleet ages out and needs to be replaced, it seems unlikely that they will be able to pull off a build of a second fleet. Their efforts at prototyping the next design, the EPR, have been fairly disastrous, with builds at Flamanville and in Finland going very poorly. I suspect that Germany & California's current route to decarbonization through renewables will be followed by France in the coming decades.
- boringg 1y ago
  I will counter this. I think theres going to be a significant work to push down the costs of re-powering the aging nuclear fleet. Renewables will continue to be a force and work around the edges. Too much on the line to shut down nuclear for France. It will get subsidized and it provides energy independence. Potentially but not certain future where other people are also purchasing nuclear assets which pushes down maintenance / manufacturing costs. Risk is that China deploys globally and is the operator. France isn't known for high quality - reasonably costed items - fast time line products. As well - unspoken part of renewable is in case of a security incident in Europe (see Russia) - nuclear is much more stable work load then solar (could easily scatter bomb solar assets). I know that sounds unintuitive given peoples concern about Nuclear - but there is a such a common good to protect nuclear assets due to fallout where solar assets are localized. Germany de-carbonization path (shutting down their nuclear plants) was a massive mistake and have seriously hindered their economic long run competitiveness. Its been a black eye for them.
dakial1 11mo ago
If we are comparing the progress made over time, my vote goes to Brazil, which holds a 50-year advantage in its green energy focus. https://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/energy-issues/brazil/index.shtml https://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/energy-issues/braz...

alecco 1y ago

Nothing to be proud of. Dangerous ancient reactors owned by an almost bankrupt company about to be nationalized. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/02/03/the-long-road-to-extending-life-of-french-nuclear-reactors_6014297_7.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/02/03/the-long...

olejorgenb 1y ago
https://archive.ph/RQxKM https://archive.ph/RQxKM
pas 1y ago
if they can run them safely they should. is ASN not trustworthy? they are doing reviews every 10 year, and as they get older they can increase the frequency of reviews. also the article mentions no dangers with regards to the reactors.
KptMarchewa 1y ago
>almost bankrupt company "Published on February 3, 2023" Since then, in 2023 and 2024 EDF posted over 10 billion a year profits.
- alecco 1y ago
  In 2022 they lost 18bn because they had to repair widespread "stress corrosion cracking". And it was nationalized.
  - mpweiher 1y ago
    Incorrect. It was always a public/nationalized company. It started 100% owned by the government. In the 2000s, around 15% were sold to pension funds, so way over 80% in the hands of the state, which by EU rules (and common sense) makes it a state company. The floating shares were bought back in order to facilitate the nuclear expansion plans. The losses in 2022 were largely due to the energy crisis because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which interacted rather nastily with the French ARENH program that requires EDF to sell 25% of its power output for 4 cents/kWh, no matter what the market rates. And no matter if it needs that power itself. When the energy crunch hit in 2022, wholesale electricity rates rose up to €1 / kWh. So EDF had to sell its electricity for 4 cents, then buy it back at 25x markup for €1. Oh, and the government actually increased the ARENH quotas to more than 25%, because it used EDF to subsidize consumer/industry energy prices, something that was done by the states directly in other countries. The problems with a part of the fleet, largely due to deferred maintenance during COVID, also didn't help.

mrtksn 1y ago

Good luck building nuclear in non-generational timescales and at reasonable prices. The future is solar simply because these electricity catchers from the sky fusion are mass producible goods that you can just keep pumping and pointing it to the sky in matter of days at dirt cheap prices.

xondono 1y ago
> Good luck building nuclear in non-generational timescales and at reasonable prices. Or we could treat nuclear rationally and stop increasing the price three orders of magnitude past diminishing returns..
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- cheema33 1y ago
  > Or we could treat nuclear rationally and stop increasing the price three orders of magnitude past diminishing returns Who is we here? Do you have examples of any countries having successfully done what you are proposing?
  - streptomycin 1y ago
    China https://x.com/bataille_chris/status/1981476968202752109 https://x.com/bataille_chris/status/1981476968202752109
    - adrianN 1y ago
      And still even China is adding as much solar as their total nuclear capacity on a yearly basis.
  - Hammershaft 1y ago
    'We' could refer to democratic societies that regulate nuclear energy with absurdly stringent standards beyond how we regulate other forms of energy. Just the regulatory cost of approving a new small reactor design exceeds 500 Million Dollars! That's the lifetime earnings of thousands of engineers and bureaucrats.

sgustard 1y ago

Quebec has them both beat. Hydro rules! https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/CA-QC/5y/yearly https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/CA-QC/5y/yearly (To be transparent, there's controversy around calling hydroelectric renewable.)

foobarian 1y ago
Hydro does rule. Top 8 power stations are hydro right now. And the top power station has been a hydro for over a hundred years now. Very cool! Three Gorges has capacity of 22.5 GW.
- zdragnar 1y ago
  I really hope nothing bad happens at the three gorges dam. There's nearly half a billion people that would have to be evacuated, and tens of millions who likely wouldn't be able to evacuate in time due to proximity. I'd rather live near a modern nuclear plant myself.
  - Yeul 1y ago
    Dutch people live under sea level but everyone trusts in the engineering.
idiotsecant 1y ago
I am a bit biased, as an engineer who works exclusively in hydro powerplants, but i think they're awesome too. With that said, it's becoming more apparent that in addition to the biosphere issues they cause, they also cause a pretty significant amount of methane to be released. https://www.hydropower.org/blog/new-study-sheds-light-on-reservoir-emissions-over-a-long-time-period https://www.hydropower.org/blog/new-study-sheds-light-on-res... It would put me out of a job but I'd still rather see a surge in nuke generation and solar with storage, at least until we get fusion figured out.
- throwaway2037 1y ago
  > I'd still rather see a surge in nuke generation and solar with storage How about wind?

derriz 1y ago

Electricity prices are set by the French government not the wholesale cost or cost of production. Which is why EDF - the operator of the French nuclear fleet - regularly posts massive losses. Like the €18 billion loss in 2023. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/02/17/france-s-edf-posts-record-annual-loss-debt-swells_6016197_7.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/02/17/france-s...

KptMarchewa 1y ago
2022, not 2023. That was due to one time effect of corrosion repairs. For 2023 and 2024 EDF was profitable, with net income of those two years exceeding that 2022 loss.
- mikeyouse 1y ago
  And I’m generally a nuclear proponent but one of the worst investments the French utility made was investing in the UKs reactor debacle at Hinkley C.
  - caminante 1y ago
    Per wiki, cost midrange is now 45 BEUR. That's ~14 MEUR/MW capacity (v. solar @ ~1MEUR/MW). Ouch!
    - Tade0 1y ago
      To make matters worse gas peaker plants cost approximately €1mln/MW as well, so at the cost of that plant you could have massively overprovisioned solar, backup gas plants and plenty of money for fuel to spare which you wouldn't be spending immediately, so it could be invested instead.
      - caminante 1y ago
        Yes, though gas plant install prices are 2-3MEUR/MW these days due to demand/supply.

idreyn 1y ago

These maps are such a cool resource, thanks for sharing! "The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed." - William Gibson

ViewTrick1002 1y ago

The French are wholly unable to build new nuclear power. 3 is 7x over budget and 12 years late on a 5 year construction program. The EPR2 program is in absolute shambles. Currently they can’t even agree on how to fund the absolutely insanely bonkers subsidies. Now targeting investment decision in H2 2026. And the French government just fell because they are underwater in debt and have a spending problem which they can’t agree on how to fix. A massive handout to the dead end nuclear industry sounds like the perfect solution!

ZeroGravitas 1y ago

Even the poster boy for nuclear is reducing nuclear output as its fleet ages and filling that gap with renewables (reducing its electricity emissions from 2005 when their nuclear peaked too). So it apparently doesn't matter what your existing grid is, coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, of whatever mix, the thing you should be building now is mostly solar, wind and (not quite caught on globally but just about to make a very big splash) batteries.

cm2187 1y ago
The batteries mentioned in the article have only a few hours of capacity, and are designed to smooth the peak usage intraday. I think many people are confused and seem to think batteries are a viable way to address the volatility of wind, where you may deal with weeks with no/low wind, or solar, which in countries with cold winters is of little help. I have yet to see a cheap scalable alternative to carbon to deal with that volatility. Hydro perhaps in a handful of smaller, mountainous countries (and if you are not too regarding of the environmental damages). Right now the UK is using LNG to compensate wind.
- Veliladon 1y ago
  Normally this would be handled by a wider synchronized network. The EU has a continent wide synchronized network and the UK isn’t part of it. There are also other ways to store energy. For polar regions sand batteries are capable of storing heat for months. High grade heat to the point they can siphon off that heat for power generation.
  - dfawcus 1y ago
    The interconnectors between UK and the continent are HVDC. As such they are essentially massive switching-mode PSUs, and there is no possibility of having a synchronised connection, as the AC has to be synthesised, following the local spinning iron.
    - cm2187 1y ago

energy123 1y ago

This shouldn't be confused for an argument to build new nuclear power in the year 2025 when far cheaper alternatives exist. It is an observation that nuclear works really well if it already exists and the fixed costs have been paid for, and that nuclear was the best choice a few decades ago.

DeepSeaTortoise 1y ago
The only reason nuclear is more expensive than any alternative are absurd regulations, reporting duties, the practice of financing these projects on borrowed money with high interests and that many of the companies running these projects are career parking spots and accelerators for the social circles around politicians and the bureaucratic aristocracy. Complexity-wise they're about halfway between gas and coal.
- derriz 1y ago
  I'm not sure how you are measuring complexity. The plant and equipment required to maintain a stable nuclear reaction and extract its heat is far more complex than that required to control a coal or natural gas firebox. This is reflected in the fact that to run 1GW of nuclear generation, on average (in the US) requires about 700 FTE to operate. The average for coal generation is about a third of that number. And the average for a combined cycle gas plant is about 60 FTE. And nuclear fission produces low-grade heat - around 320°C - compared to coal (around 550°C) or natural gas (over 1300°C). Thus are less thermally efficient and require huge cooling towers and much larger turbines to extract the thermal energy. Which, of course, are more expensive and complex to build and maintain.
  - DeepSeaTortoise 1y ago
    Kind of my fault, I specifically thought only about the powerplant + fuel part. Of course nuclear is much more complex as a whole, because it comes with at least two, sometimes three different business sections attached by default: Production and sale of rare isotopes, on-site laboratories and research and recycling of spent fuel. It's hard to beat gas. The small double digit MW plant in my town literally has only one on-site full-time employee. My guess the only reason the FTE hits even 60 (didn't check) is because there are so many small installations. Coal has a lot of fuel processing on-site just for its own demand, the mostly very sensible environmental regulations add a lot of complexity to processing the flue gasses and this adds A LOT of moving parts. Nuclear can be built simple enough that people are literally thinking about dropping it down a mile deep hole, barely the width of a US-standard human. On the "hands off" scale it can't beat gas, barely anything but solar, geothermal and nuclear thermal electric can, but it could beat coal and hydro and possibly even wind via scale. Just how often should one have to send a report to some oversight body on the number of functional overhead lights and whether the change in microclimate didn't displace any rare insect species before one can say: "You didn't read the last 20, you're not getting another one."

epistasis 1y ago

California has been an oil state from the beginning. To this day there is urban oil extraction over various parts of LA: https://www.pbssocal.org/news-community/l-a-s-long-troubled-history-with-urban-oil-drilling-is-nearing-an-end-after-years-of-health-concerns https://www.pbssocal.org/news-community/l-a-s-long-troubled-... It is only very recently that California started trying to decarbonize. When France did their amazing nuclear build, it was for energy independence, not for decarbonization purposes. It was a very forward thinking move, even if it wasn't as cheap initially imagined and ended up being stopped before fully completed. It was a national security project. However nuclear is cheap when the high upfront capital costs have been paid off, and it's down to just the operating expenses. Building it is oppressively expensive, however, especially as labor costs have risen in the many decades since the 1970s while. As France's nuclear fleet ages out and needs to be replaced, it seems unlikely that they will be able to pull off a build of a second fleet. Their efforts at prototyping the next design, the EPR, have been fairly disastrous, with builds at Flamanville and in Finland going very poorly. I suspect that Germany & California's current route to decarbonization through renewables will be followed by France in the coming decades.

boringg 1y ago
I will counter this. I think theres going to be a significant work to push down the costs of re-powering the aging nuclear fleet. Renewables will continue to be a force and work around the edges. Too much on the line to shut down nuclear for France. It will get subsidized and it provides energy independence. Potentially but not certain future where other people are also purchasing nuclear assets which pushes down maintenance / manufacturing costs. Risk is that China deploys globally and is the operator. France isn't known for high quality - reasonably costed items - fast time line products. As well - unspoken part of renewable is in case of a security incident in Europe (see Russia) - nuclear is much more stable work load then solar (could easily scatter bomb solar assets). I know that sounds unintuitive given peoples concern about Nuclear - but there is a such a common good to protect nuclear assets due to fallout where solar assets are localized. Germany de-carbonization path (shutting down their nuclear plants) was a massive mistake and have seriously hindered their economic long run competitiveness. Its been a black eye for them.

dakial1 11mo ago

If we are comparing the progress made over time, my vote goes to Brazil, which holds a 50-year advantage in its green energy focus. https://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/energy-issues/brazil/index.shtml https://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/energy-issues/braz...