141–150 of 205 posts
It's not super clear. It says it's using 2 hour slots, but there's no clock saying when it was last updated or anything.
A specialty in austria (in the middle of the map) is pumped-storage hydroelectricity. Since there are so many mountains and valleys, lakes are used as giant batteries. Water can be pumped up in times of excessive supply and released to produce energy when there's higher demand. This keeps the power lines stable and compensates for factors like lack of wind in wind power stations, startup/shutdown times of thermal pow…
Worldwide, Switzerland is the main user and beneficiary of PHS relative to its electric capacity. Total it’s China, Japan, and the USA, they’re the only countries breaking 2 figures (in GW of generating capacity).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if it wasn't for France having primarily used nuclear power decades ago, Europe as a whole would be in a much much worse state when it comes to CO2 emissions. That makes it abundantly clear that nuclear needs to be a part of the mix when it comes to non-emission generating energy production.
Germany’s net power grid imports are less than 5% (17% imports vs. 12.5% exports in 24H1), despite having no active nuclear power plants anymore. Around 60% of their domestically generated power currently comes from renewables (up 8% from last year). I don’t think it’s abundantly clear.
The current carbon intensity per KWh in Germany is 526g, vs 50g for France.
The average yearly carbon intensity per KWh in Germany, is 354g.
So, either the rest 40% of domestically generated power are hyper-polluting, or the other statistics don't hold up.
Either way, with such a high carbon intensity, there is nothing to brag about.
And that's before entering the discussion about how the repercussions of the poor long-term German energy plan is currently killing their economy, and, indirectly, their social fabric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear, not 40%. No, it gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear.
[flagged]
There's nothing pro- or anti-nuclear in this argument, since primary energy consumption can be electrified with or without nuclear.
I get irrationally angry when a map is skewed in this way and there is no way to change it. The more you zoom in, the worse the distortion is made to be. Even zooming all the way out does not eliminate the angular distortion. This took actual effort on some programmer's part! Who ever thought that this is a good idea?!? It's like those navigational mini maps (car or computer game) that won't keep north pointing up...…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if it wasn't for France having primarily used nuclear power decades ago, Europe as a whole would be in a much much worse state when it comes to CO2 emissions. That makes it abundantly clear that nuclear needs to be a part of the mix when it comes to non-emission generating energy production.
Germany’s net power grid imports are less than 5% (17% imports vs. 12.5% exports in 24H1), despite having no active nuclear power plants anymore. Around 60% of their domestically generated power currently comes from renewables (up 8% from last year). I don’t think it’s abundantly clear.
> net power grid imports are less than 5% (17% imports vs. 12.5% exports in 24H1)
depending on when those happen. If they import French electricity whenever the wind is taking a break from blowing, that prevents craptons of pollution (including, but far from exclusively, CO2) from the massive German coal plant I live near to. If it's more random, say if it's just helping with some peaks when everyone's making bratwurst and coal currently doesn't cut it, then it's not reducing them from running
There are also times where we hear electricity prices are negative or near zero for a time, afaik usually caused by too much wind-based production. Exporting that may balance the thing out so that the net value is near zero
I'm sure it'll be some mix of those and other scenarios, but I'm not sure that looking at the net result says very much about whether nuclear electricity exports helped reduce emissions in surrounding countries like Germany. I'm more inclined to say the claim of the person you're responding to is likely correct (though I'd say "helpful to be" part of the mix, rather than "needs to be")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany’s net power grid imports are less than 5% (17% imports vs. 12.5% exports in 24H1), despite having no active nuclear power plants anymore. Around 60% of their domestically generated power currently comes from renewables (up 8% from last year). I don’t think it’s abundantly clear.
Ah, the well loved trick of playing with statistics to make something look good. The current carbon intensity per KWh in Germany is 526g, vs 50g for France. The average yearly carbon intensity per KWh in Germany, is 354g. So, either the rest 40% of domestically generated power are hyper-polluting, or the other statistics don't hold up. Either way, with such a high carbon intensity, there is nothing to brag about. And…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if it wasn't for France having primarily used nuclear power decades ago, Europe as a whole would be in a much much worse state when it comes to CO2 emissions. That makes it abundantly clear that nuclear needs to be a part of the mix when it comes to non-emission generating energy production.
Let's see... nuclear power is super expensive, relies on finite uranium resources and there is no safe solution to store the waste. Do we really want to rely on this?
I'm happy for any energy (not just electricity) mix that ends up with a reasonable total cost, adding up current investments needed and future adaptation measures. The problem with ruling out a clean and safe energy source for irrational fears is that it delays net zero (higher future adaptation costs) and requires spending more on alternative solutions to guarantee a steady power supply (higher current investments)
Wind and solar are currently much cheaper per kWp (opportunistic production) and so it seems like the quicker way to net zero, and during the first bit (where we are currently at) that's definitely true. The problem shifts when we want to actually stop using things like gas to make up the difference. Afaik we need to go quite a way beyond what cost-effective pumped hydro locations can supply in most of Europe, so we need to look beyond 2030 and think what power sources we need to have ready by, say, 2040 or 2050, start making specific plans, and break ground on whatever solution is the best compromise
(I'm expecting some people to object to saying nuclear is not rationally dangerous. Please, prove me wrong! I'm happy to update my opinions based on non-cherry-picked data. I've previously looked into the cost in human health (not just deaths) of different energy sources, including dependencies such as uranium mining which is among the worst aspects. The only reliable data I've been able to find shows fission on par with renewables — iirc tending towards being safer, but probably not beyond the error margins due to the low percentage of nuclear energy)
Edit: on the other hand, I'm afraid that this nuclear discussion (especially with germans, I say that as a foreigner living in Germany so I've heard different perspectives) only serves to divide the people who at least understand there is something we should be doing about climate change. I'm happy to compromise if that lets us finally settle on a concrete plan that'll land us in a place we want to be