It's a not a valid point, it's a silly point dressed up to sound reputable. First he tried to minimize the accomplishment of having 40% of consumption coming f

It's a not a valid point, it's a silly point dressed up to sound reputable. First he tried to minimize the accomplishment of having 40% of consumption coming from PVs by saying that it was from a very small percentage of the total energy consumption. When it was pointed out that was over all types of consumption, he claimed that electricity could be a higher percentage of consumption if it were not from solar (presumably from nuclear plants). That is where the goalposts were moved. He went from saying "Well, it's not really that much" to "Oh, it would be even higher if it weren't solar". Let me point out a few things: Germany is further north, and its population weighted climate is cooler. It has larger heating needs than France. Electricity is an godawful energy source for heating. Check out payback periods of solar hot water when substituting for NG hot water heaters vs electric water heaters. If Germany wanted to substitute low/no carbon heating they'd be better off with passive solar systems or geothermal - not solar PV or nuclear electricity. The very article he linked to was about France having to buy German electricity because they couldn't heat their own country w/ their huge nuclear fleet in a cold snap. The conclusion to be drawn there is that France's energy policy is flawed, not Germany's. Also, heating methods aside, the metric is not honest. France has a smaller demand base than Germany (quick research: approximately 650TWh vs 525TWh in the mid 2000s) and Germany's economy is more industrial and energy intensive, which frequently doesn't permit electrical substitution. Anyway, I don't have time to write more or edit this a bunch. But I hate to see poorly organized thought spreading anti-memes about clean energy.