6th highest emissions per kWh of electricity produced in EU (1): 380g per kWh.
US: 370g per kWh.
France: 56g per kWh.
Sweden: 40g per kWh.
Which shows how far along the EU is in terms of clean tech rollout. Also your numbers are from 2023. With more renewables, less coal and more gas German emissions should have fallen rather quickly.
Not great indeed. At least it’s getting better. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/38897/umfrage/co2-emissionsfaktor-fuer-den-strommix-in-deutschland-seit-1990/
Like what amazing technology did France apply, since I know they don’t have geothermal power. Like what can produce energy with such low emissions. Why is the world not simulating this
Nuclear
Nuclear, however they keep having problems with it because it’s so phenomenally expensive in comparison to renewables (they often buy from Germany in times of overproduction), too hot weather, not enough water… and then there’s the problem to get enough refined fuel rods, since the biggest seller of those is indeed Russia.
The 2023’ numbers of Germany were indeed awful (worsened by those LNG terminals and other emergency measures due to Russia’s invasion in Ukraine), it gets better quickly though. The Green Party is doing its thing; we just have to hope the next, probably far-right government doesn’t undo all of this progress like we see in other countries.
Hydro and quite a bit of it.
10% of yearly electricity production in France comes from hydro (1)
Pro tip: These numbers are probably from Electricity Maps. That site is apparently run by nuclear fanboys who apply the very lowest gCO2e/kWh for nuclear that they could find. Otherwise, France (and Sweden) would have higher numbers somewhere in the 100-200 gCO2e/kWh range
2nd source (Eurostat and European Environment Agency) corroborates the first: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/greenhouse-gas-emission-intensity-of-1
The Energiewende seems to be progressing okay as far as I can tell: Solar rollout is exceeding expectations; wind is lagging but still proceeding.
They seem to be struggling more in a couple of other Wende: The Wärmewende hasn’t even gotten to the point where they ban fossil heating in new construction (we banned oil furnaces in existing buildings back in 2020 here in Norway).
And as for the Verkehrswende, the rule seems to be don’t mention the Verbrenner. They seem to be pretty good at pulling out any excuse not to drive less, or at the very least drive electric. Meanwhile with some tax breaks on EVs and high taxes on fossil cars Norway almost has no new fossil car sales; even the buses here in Oslo are almost all electric now.
I guess at least they’re paying us well for the fossil fuels we sell them. It’s starting to feel a bit like being a sober drug dealer.
This is really nice but Germany can’t sustain itself with just solar during most of the year without storage capacity.
They have plenty of wind energy too.
Yes I know. My point is just that we need to diversify. And most of Germany is still heated up during winter with oil, coal and gas, so no amount of electricity generation will change that until we upgrade heating systems.
We need a thousand solutions to fight climate change, so I always try to remind people that there’s no silver bullet. Solar, wind, nuclear, none of them will save the day by itself.
Waiting for the nuclear gang to drop in and tell us that all windmills and solar panels should be dismantled in favor of clean nuclear power plants and that Germany should never have abandoned the atom.
What if they advocate for nuclear power and say leave the solar panels up?
Then they can tell us where the budget comes from then fail to explain why it’s worth five times the price of other renewables with grid storage.
Germany shut down it’s reactors as they reached end of life. It isn’t economical to build new reactors.
Nuclear has always been a military and strategic concern. Better than importing fossil fuels from potential bad actors during the cold war and you get some MAD weapons along with it.
If you support the weapons proliferation, you support nuclear. You believe in the cold war stand off and think it’s valuable. If you don’t, want nuclear war, you have to count that as another negative.
Arguing it’s an efficient way to produce electricity, even if it’s replacing fossil fuels, is disingenuous.
Pick two out of powerful, efficient, safe. That’s nuclear power.
There are new reactors that have nothing to do with weapons manufactoring.
And they are all uneconomical.
The nuclear industry only works economically when either we need weapons grade material as a byproduct or we happen to produce electricity as a byproduct when making weapons grade material.
They aren’t an efficient use of resources.
I honestly don’t enough about this topic to understand if your telling the truth or not. My instinct says that it’s not that simple.
It isn’t that simple. Solar power wasn’t economical until China made a push to manufacture at scale.
Wind power received that push in Europe. Then China and India have joined in.
Not buying the massive nuclear reactors and buying smaller units could be possible. They exist. Alternative technologies also exist.
But nuclear generates heat, which we use to heat water into steam. Which drives a turbine to produce AC electricity.
Massive steam turbines are massive because they are efficient. Multistage turbines range from near 70% efficient for massive ones to 25% efficient for the smallest ones in serious use.
NTAC-TE is a technology that converts the radiation into electric current. Like solar panels converting the sun’s radiation into electric current.
NASA uses it in space craft.
If we can get that working at an efficient rate smaller radioactive units will produce power without the efficiency loss of small steam generators. Then we can talk about small modular nuclear energy.
Unfortunately every pro nuclear person parrots the same gumf about nuclear being good, therefore we need to build the massive nuclear reactors.
They only consider talking about any other technology to try and defend nuclear when you point out why they shouldn’t be built anymore.
So in 20 years, if we stop building massive nuclear reactors with the money, we might be able to complete some research and start building the correct nuclear technology at scale.
But that 20 years is vital and we need to spend that on carbon reduction now. That’s reducing usage through insulation. That’s renewables being added to the supply directly now. That’s grid level storage to allow us to stop relying on massive steam turbines to hold a steady grid load.
In 20 years we can talk about nuclear again. Add an additional time for every wasted effort on a reactor like Hinckley C or Olkiluoto 3. Starting out as a thin justification and just economically viable.
But then spending 400% of their budget meaning carbon reduction would have been much higher investing elsewhere.
Nuclear reactors do not need to use weapons-grade materials or byproducts.
They don’t use it but they can produce it.
Only one type of reactor, the old uranium design, produces anything weapons grade (Which then requires an additional step to purify). Don’t use that reactor design.
Agreed.
Also, don’t waste money on experimenting with the others. Just build renewables and grid storage.
Low-weaponization nuclear reactors already exist, industrial-scale grid storage doesn’t, but yes the answer to this dispute would be much more clear if it did!
