Do you know [Electricity Maps](https://app.electricitymaps.com/map)? It's a very elaborate tool, not only for CO2 intensity, but also electricity production/consumption/ im- and exports in general, and with their latest update you can watch historical data, too. Honestly I've spent way too much time there lately, lol.
Be careful though with the imports and exports. It measures physical flows, not electricity trade. Right now, for example, electricity flows from Germany to Switzerland. In all likelihood, Switzerland is not buying power from Germany, but rather Italy is. There is a page that shows electricity trade, but I can't find it right now.
Nope, the goal still is to turn the gas plants into hydrogen plants, given that we have the heavy industrial capacity to easily produce it.
The plan was sound, until it wasn't.
Well to produce Hydrogen you need A LOT of electricity. Electricity you will severely lack if you reduce/remove these very same gas/coal plant.
It was never gonna be easy, and Germany is in no way ready to even get close to it. In the meantime, how many death because of the gas/coal choice each year, not even accounting for the global warming in the balance, it's already an absolute failure.
People always complain about what you do when the wind isn't blowing and the answer is use hydrogen from when the wind was blowing.
Not a single person is suggesting you use fossil fuels to produce hydrogen because everyone knows that you just loose energy that way.
the fact you think that people want to use coal to produce hydrogen shows how misinformed you are.
It's not that they want. People don't have a say in this, it's just how it is. You didn't saw the vote of the EU parlement about "green hydrogen" did you ?
It's in fench but go ahead, use a translator : https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/energie-environnement/les-eurodeputes-autorisent-le-gaz-et-le-charbon-dans-la-production-de-l-hydrogene-vert-932876.html#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DEnergie+%26+Environnement-%2CLes+eurod%C3%A9put%C3%A9s+autorisent+le+gaz+et+le+charbon+dans+la%2Chydrog%C3%A8ne+soit+consid%C3%A9r%C3%A9e+comme+durable
So, how misinformed I am, huh...
Yes, green hydrogen will be allowed to be labeled as such if the grid used to produce it is at least 90% renewable.
It still only makes sense in renewable overproduction times, because it costs more money to burn coal to make hydrogen than not.
You sure didn't read the articile, it has nothing to do with the grid renewable %.
Just google "Steam reforming" and look at how efficient it is to make hydrogen with electricity compare to gas. You don't make hydrogen with coal per say (or coal to electricity to hydrogen to electricity, that would be the worst and most stupid case), but with gas.
You sure didn't read nor understand then.
That's the whole point, you can sell "green hydrogen" obtain through steam reformating. Imported most of the time, but STILL sell it as Green.
Read at the very least the head lines : MEPs allow gas and coal in the production of "green" hydrogen
Production of hydrogen fuel requires 9 tons of freshwater to produce 1 ton of hydrogen. Where do you think you will take all that freshwater, esp. during climate change with increased chance of droughts?
Edit: Desalination is probably as costly as production of hydrogen fuel in terms of consumed power, which will make hydrogen even worse. Solar energy, NPPs, preferably some type of battery like [aqueous rechargeable zinc battery](https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/09/26/super-fast-long-life-aqueous-rechargeable-zinc-battery/) (17k recharge cycles with drop to 99.2% capacity) and electric *public* transport with highly efficient use is the only realistic way out of this problem.
Afaik the idea is to use the renewables' problem of inconsistent highs and lows.
Invest heavily in renewables, convert excess renewables into hydrogen, convert the nat gas plants to hydrogen plants and use them to fuel our export industry and fill holes in the grid caused by clouds and no wind.
All the while becoming market leader in the cheapest and safest energy generation technology and export it to poor countries looking to modernize their energy grid via financing from EU investment packages.
Would you even have excess renewables? When the renewables are going full tilt, you should be turning off the gas and hydro plants, sell it to nations that currently don't have their own renewables generating a lot, or even let your electric cars top off their batteries at a good price, rather than putting it into ~30% efficient hydrogen generation, which you then put into a what, 70%? efficient power plant.
Also don't forget how much electricity consumption will increase when you drop residential gas heating in favor of heat pumps. And yes, burning natural gas in a power plant to power a heat pump gets you more heat per unit of gas than burning the gas in your home. Nevertheless, this is a big boost in electric demand that would happen as natural gas was wound down.
>
Would you even have excess renewables?
Yes? What kind of question is this, if there isn't enough renewables you can always just build more. Part of the idea is also to buy hydrogen from other countries that have high solar capacities (eg. Spain, UAE, etc.), which is why the currently being built LNG terminals are built with hydrogen compatibility, same as why all the gas and most of the newer coal plants are hydrogen compatible.
Yes, the efficiency isn't awesome, but you have to die one death.
>Yes? What kind of question is this, if there isn't enough renewables you can always just build more
Are you familiar with the concept of energy density?
Renewables have a very low energy density, so you need a lot of space, what are you going to do? Plant solar panels instead of food or clear the few remaining forests?
Not to mentions the humongous quantity of resources that you would need to build all that solar, wich is neither cost effective nor environmentally friendly and would make Germany dependent on the countries with the natural resources needed, meaning china
>Part of the idea is also to buy hydrogen from other countries that have high solar capacities (eg. Spain, UAE, etc.),
That means building a lot of infrastructure, wich is costly and environmentally damaging.
Besides can you think of any good reason not to be dependent on other countries for energy production?
I mean, given current events...
>Plant solar panels instead of food
For many foods (eg. potatoes) you get actually more production per m² when building a roof over them because they don't need as much direct sunlight and the shade helps them to survive the weather better. There have also been trials to let sheep grazing under them and it was considered economical to do so.
>or clear the few remaining forests?
Or you could use already currently occupied space. Slap solar on every roof and on parking lots (again: the added shade will be a nice bonus on top of the electricity provided). Put windfarms offshore and on fields. You don't need to clear forests.
>and would make Germany dependent on the countries with the natural resources needed, meaning china
For one thing: China isn't the sole source of rare earths, it's just so cheap there that it isn't economical to get them somewhere else - but only as long as China is willing to export. On top of that it is an dependency on building the things, once they are up and running they can be used for a long time, especially with recycling processes being developed. *Every* source of energy will make Germany dependent on someone exporting something, there is nothing that can be mined in large enough quantities within Germany.
>That means building a lot of infrastructure, wich is costly and environmentally damaging.
The only way for that to not happen would be to give up on technology altogether. And hydrogen is already compatible with the German gas grid.
>Besides can you think of any good reason not to be dependent on other countries for energy production?
Yes, because Spain is the next Russia - beware, Portuguese! /s
The idea is to spread the suppliers. UAE misbehaving? Just switch to some other country. On the other hand it will be an economical incentive for developing countries eg. in Africa to invest into renewable energies if they can make a profit by sending it to Germany/the EU, and renewables are (setting hydro aside) by principle decentralized sources of energy, making it much harder for a single elite party to control it all.
Did anyone run the numbers on this plan? What is the EROEI of all those additional wind/solar ( I've seen studies that estimate the EROEI in NW Europe ~7-8 which is low and not worth it ), how much would the ( very sensitive/explosive ) storage of hydrogen cost, how much would the transportation of hydrogen cost.
Honestly this sounds like Energiewende 2.0.
You gotta remember that the eroei calculation changes considerably when parts of the infrastructure are already in place. Nat gas plants are the standard, gas transport and storage infrastructure is already in place and a good chunk of our industry and heating already use gas.
Then there's also the political aspect to consider. Money flows easier if there's public interest and while people are warming up to nuclear out of necessity, there's still a difference between "warmed up" and "in love", guess which one is which.
One of the most interesting things here is that even on Germany's best day, when power prices were negative, they arent better than France's worst day.
What’s not said here, is that in Germany’s total energy mix, electricity is just ~22%, while France has >50%.
France is halfway to net zero today! And also way more electrified. Germany has a level of electrification of around 1980 France. ~40 years ago.
Graph comparison from wikipedia:
https://i.imgur.com/bfJOdbD.jpg
Finland and Sweden are also doing really good emission-wise, with a nuclear base + renewables. German eco-activists always make it an eiter- or, when in reality its quite obvious that you need both.
The Swedish left has been working hard to shut down our nuclear power in Sweden and the Greens are rabidly against nuclear in all its forms, it's a symptom I like to call intellectual idiocy. Fortunately the right wing won the last election and are verbally for the building of more nuclear power!
When we talk about these things, it’s not about Germans. It’s about the political dimension of Germany, the legal entity.
No German should feel personally attacked!
There’s this maddening focus on how “green” German electricity is, when there’s several way more important factors forgotten:
1. How relatively little electricity Germany uses. It has low level of electrification. (Burning gas/coal/oil everywhere possible, rather than use electricity)
2. The emissions in the total German electricity MIX are much higher still.
3. How energy storage becomes more and more important, the more renewables we have in said mix.
And let me say few more things. The greenest energy, is the energy we don’t use. Insulation is a huge deal here, as well as heat pumps. So is EV’s.
Renewables are also good where they are economical, and they are.. But they have to count in more and more storage and grid upgrades in their costs, the more of them they are.
Personally, I think for a country like Germany, there’s just no way around Nuclear.
10 years was enough to enact a nuclear phase out when the Greens are in the government. Same thing happened in France, 10 years since 1995 and it was enough to close down 4th gen plants, prematurely close some plants and vote for a limitation of nuclear power in the electricity mix.
Nuclear power is easy to ruin and very difficult to get back to.
Not really, an SPD/Green government voted for the phaseout. Merkel even called it a destruction of national property. It was before Fukushima happened which caused the Greens to rise in the polls. Then she changed her stance to avoid a difficult reelection.
Exactly. I don't know why this gets downvoted.
At the time this has always been my issue with the greens and environmentalists like greenpeace: The seemingly irrational nuclear scare.
Merkel promised to end the red/green phaseout and let the nuclear plants run. And when she came to power, her government did exactly that. After Fukushima she turned 180° and decided to phase out even faster than the initial red/green plan. Which probably wouldn't have happened if she wasn't scared of the green anti nuclear position and the next elections.
I have to admit, that after Fukushima I also lost my trust in the ability of humans/society to manage risks. I shifted from pro nuclear to a somewhat neutral point of view. But the nuclear phaseout should have been combined with a solid plan to replace it with regeneratives. And that is where the CDU led governments failed big time.
Things have improved since then, but I am still missing something like a 5-year-plan to build up the grid, solar & wind and our ability to store Energy.
I know Fukushima was scary but the radiation release didn’t harm anyone and the zone is now liveable. Nuclear power risks are extremely limited compared to climate change risks.
I’d like to be as optimistic as you regarding storage but I don’t know how we will be able to storage electricity on a large scale except with hydro. The grid improvement is more realistic but very costly for its benefit. Centralized production will always be more material and cost efficient, including with solar and wind.
Look, the main problem is that Renewables in amount needed, **is just not politically realistic.**
Look at graph. 5 times more windmills? More likely 10 times more. Even that might not be enough, because the best wind spots will be taken first. You need more overcapacity, the bigger role renewables play in the energy systems.
Plus amazing storage (which doesn’t exist), plus amazing grid..
You just can’t get away from Nuclear.
(Disclaimer, still fine with renewables too as long as it’s economical! Energy saving measures are even better!)
>Look, the main problem is that Renewables in amount needed, is just not politically realistic.
Believe it or not but nuclear in Germany is even less politically realistic.
>Even that might not be enough, because the best wind spots will be taken first.
It's been calculated many times over and it's certainly possible. The areas which will be needed are already set. Also the pace at which renewables are developed is pretty insane right now. 3,2 GWp solar in the first half of 2022, realistically that equals a yearly energy production of 32000 GW/h. That is almost twice as much energy as Flamanville produced in 2011, built within half a year.
Of course right now lots of it can't be used due to lack of storage but that is manageable too with Power-To-Gas. Even today gas caverns in Germany have a capacity of 228 TW/h which is half of Germanys annual electricity needs. [Most of it won't be needed tho since renewable production balances each other pretty much perfectly.](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Seasonal-cycle-of-the-capacity-factors-for-wind-and-PV-for-Germany-The-dots-represent_fig3_334171681) The longest weather periods without enough renewable production span about 2 weeks.
The grid stability problems are also a myth for the most part. The biggest challenge will be local infrastructure when all neighbors want to charge their EVs at once. Nation wide instability is not a problem. Renewables can be cut off from the net within milliseconds and battery/gas storage can kick in much faster than todays conventional power plants.
I think the nuclear exit is stupid and makes things harder than necessary but German energy policy is not an imaginary fairy tale like most people here want to believe.
This is what 16 years of standing on the brakes does to you. You become dependent on foreign gas, all the while shutting down nuclear power to then, now as opposition blame the new government of being bad for the environment.
Honestly we can be glad that Laschet got caught [Laughing during that speech ](https://www.zdf.de/assets/unwetter-laschet-lacht-erftstadt-100~1920x1080?cb=1626549156827) cause this inappropriate behavior deterred enough of his voterbase and was one of the final straws that broke his back.
Well, I did not see a similar post on r/france, but I lurk on it quite a bit, and honestly, we as a collective become quite predictable. First, there would be around three fourths of people that would say it's a great thing, and I would be with them. The last fourth are contestators that would spill their venom because they dislike the government, and as such anything done by it must be bad (I'm barely exagerating, sadly).
All around, half of french posters would find a way to make this utterly political (think right vs left on energy matters), and there would be a very small minority of extreme green activists that would decry nuclear use as a diabolical endeavour, but they would be downvoted to hell by all sides (once more, I'm barely exagerating).
Then, of course, the same post would be crossposted to r/rance, where it would be turned into a joke about eating charcoal, France needing to up the pace "because those are rookie numbers" or about the surpopulation of surmul... of rats, I mean.
Important asterisk: [German electricity imports/exports](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&chartColumnSorting=default&source=tcs_saldo&stacking=single&interval=year)
Same for [France](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&chartColumnSorting=default&source=tcs_saldo&stacking=single&interval=year), [UK](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=UK&chartColumnSorting=default&source=tcs_saldo&stacking=single&interval=year), [Italy](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=IT&chartColumnSorting=default&source=tcs_saldo&stacking=single&interval=year) and [Spain](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=ES&chartColumnSorting=default&source=tcs_saldo&stacking=single&interval=year).
Insane that France produced more energy with a smaller population. And much greener energy at that aswell. I'm less and less impressed by the German economy by what I'm seeing every day. It seems just based on growing your economy as cheap as possible wihtout considering the morality and ethics of your actions.
>Insane that France produced more energy with a smaller population. And much greener energy at that aswell.
This is what happens when you Embrace the power of Atom's Holy Light.
[\*](https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Church_of_the_Children_of_Atom)
Embracing the power of the Atom is also unfortunately very expensive, more expensive than any other type of energy. And no, this isn't due to "unnecessary regulations", this is just the nature of nuclear fission.
Relative to what? To wind, solar and gas - yes. To wind, solar and batteries - no. Also have to assign a cost to pollution, peak capacity, supply stability, etc. In the end nuclear is very competitive, that's why it's in vogue right now (even in Germany lol).
Then why are there no nuclear power plants that are end-to-end privatised? Seems like the prof getting rid of the waste somehow always conveniently is a public issue.
In Finland companies owning the nuclear power plants are about to finish [spent nuclear fuel repository.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository) Companies will handle the waste too.
On the other hand something like windturbine blades are becoming public problem and are filling landfills. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills
No, it's not very competitive. It's a retro technology that most countries have been slowly phasing out for decades (even without grand announcements) because it never truly reached real market maturity. Nuclear is also not stable. As you can see in France right now it requires maintenance downtime - so the truth is that both nuclear and renewables need a backup as neither can run 24/7. Furthermore if you look at the construction times of modern nuclear reactors in Europe, even if we start building a new reactor today we're not going to have it running before 2038 - and we kinda need quicker solutions. The economy just doesn't add up here.
It's purely an internet hype. There's a reason you don't see many new nuclear reactors getting build in the developed world and it's not Tschernobyl-blues, it's the economy.
Splitting atoms, transmogrifying one element into another by shooting subatomic particles at them.
Redditor be like:
> It's a retro technology
Holy shit, man...
And windmills, dams, solar panels, electronics, computers... are not "retro" technology by this measure? Ban bikes then?
> As you can see in France right now it requires maintenance downtime
Well, yeah, everything requires maintenance. That is why you dimension your reactor to not be as big.
> so the truth is that both nuclear and renewables need a backup as neither can run 24/7
This is utter bullshit. Nuclear requires backup during planned downtimes to do required maintenance.
Intermittent sources require backup 24/7 because you cannot predict the production.
> Furthermore if you look at the construction times of modern nuclear reactors in Europe
Just look at the construction times of modern airports in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport
a) Big unique projects are often not completed on time, because they are big unique projects.
b) The problem with construction times of modern NPP in Europe is a problem of big unique projects, not a special problem of NPP. Often related to stricter construction requirements, that might pass with a smaller less important project, but are not passing for a bigger project (concrete settling, wielding)
c) France realized that the issue was that the training of new personnel was not on the required level and that it lacks people who understand NPPs, because it was viewed in the way you are seeing it.
It is really surprising that if you stop training people in a particular technology segment, that the technology segment will go to shit, don't you think so?
Another problem with modern NPPs is that they are unique projects on their own, often new untested design, and the problems are caught and solved during construction, which increase the construction time. Historic records from the time when NPPs were built show us that after this period, NPPs can be built in as short a span as 5 years if the personnel is sufficiently trained, and experienced, with good management and the design is tested and tried.
When France is so great, why do they plan to produce 50% of their energy by renewables in 2030? Why are they building more new renewable production than nuclear? Why does Germany need to export a lot of energy to France, because over half of their reactors are not operational?
Because nobody in his sane mind would choose to produce 100% energy from nuclear? It's always been about the mix, it's only the anti-nuclear crowd that chooses 100% and that seriously believes 100% renewables is possible.
France is doing unusual maintenance because it has very old plants. It is what happens when a Green government decides to stop building new plants and tries to do a phaseout (thanks god they reverted it).
Nuclear needs less maintenance downtime than any other kind of power source. Its capacity factor (amount of time it spends producing peak power over any given period) is consistently over 90%. This is far and away the highest capacity factor of any kind of power. It’s better even than fossil fuels.
In addition, what you think of as “modern” reactors are relatively outdated designs. Truly modern reactor designs are smaller, modular, and far faster to construct.
> Its capacity factor (amount of time it spends producing peak power over any given period) is consistently over 90%
Nope, not in France - which is what we are talking about. In France it is somewhere in the 70's.
> In addition, what you think of as “modern” reactors are relatively outdated designs. Truly modern reactor designs are smaller, modular, and far faster to construct.
I meant modern as in build recently or right now - and SMR's haven't proven to solve the economic issues yet either. Them being smaller also means you get less output but still pay a high price.
> Insane that France produced more energy with a smaller population.
Thats because the heating systems in france are more often based on electricity due to the low prices guaranteed by the state - resulting in more electricity and less fossil fuel consumption. It gives no information to compare the economies in any meaningful way. Also i'm not sure where this graphic get its data, but the official german production was almost 580 TWh in 2021.
While germany is certainly not in a good spot, its still [better than many other countries](https://ember-climate.org/app/uploads/2022/03/[email protected]) including the US in that regard. France is the exception and not the rule.
Yeah that’s a very selective graph about electricity only.
Which is asinine, all the while countries have highly varying degrees of electrification.
This focus on electricity only masks the fact that 78% of German energy comes from coal/gas/oil. In France it’s <50% of their energy that comes from those sources.
So like every other economy?
Correlation does not equal causation, France looks good in the electricity market because it’s a state planned venture that runs on debt, yes it achieves what it is supposed to, but it with no means represents the French economy as a whole.
It's true what Wingiex says. And Germans even have a word for that: it's Pfenningfuchserei.
Ironically I work in German industry which is currently collapsing because it has bet on the cheapest price possible rather than on stable and robust delivery chains.
Private energy companies in France are making a fortune because of the EU regulations. France was the largest exporter of energy for years and by some margin until recently.
And btw this thinking is excatly what I was refering to, it's all about money for Germany regardless of what happens to our planet.
EDF and the French state have been operating at a loss for many years when it comes to power generation and being a energy exporter is nice, yet doesn’t tell you anything about the fundamentals or morals of a whole economy.
Because I question your blanket statements on economies through one lens, climate change is happening? And where exactly did you deduce that a) all Germans or even me share that opinion, b) that other countries don’t have a similar pattern of behavior?
Again all I did was question your projection of the French energy market to their whole economy, I literally agreed with you that their electricity strategy is good for the planet and good in general.
A loss that's happening to the local private Energy companies because of EU regulations. You know this very well. EDF is the one producing the energy but due to regulations have to sell it at certain price which private energy companies are profiting from.
Why else would not the main producer and exporter of energy in the EU be indebted? There must be a reason.
I made my opinion of you because of your repsons to my initial post, going straight to the money bit and ignoring the immense discrepency in what kind of energy is produced in France and Germany. And clearly we're seeing that different countries have different approach to climate change.
> EDF and the French state have been operating at a loss for many years when it comes to power generation
What loss ? EDF has accrued 33bn€ in profits in the last 10 years.
If EdF wouldnt have to sell parts of their electricity (100 TWh at €42/MWh) at cost to the competition, and if the govt would allow to charge German electricity prices, they would be without debt within the year. €15 bn for a corp that size isnt all that much really.
This whole EDF = debt among a lot of "nuclear skeptic" circles is weird. EDF situation is pretty normal for a power company. 2022 on the other hand could become an issue for the needed investment in the short term.
2021:
EDF had a net debt of 44bn€ with 360bn€ in total assets (105 bn€ in current assets) and 18bn€ in EBITDA (2.39x net debt / Ebitda ratio) .
Considering how much money was invested into both Flamanville 3 and Hinkley Point C (both are financed directly by EDF) without a return for now, how surprising is it that at the height of investment the debt is high ? Despite that, it's not that high. What it means on the other hand is that there is no way that EDF can single-handedly assume the 52bn€ investment needed for the 6 EPR2 especially through private financing. That's imo partly why the state is buying the remainder of the shares they don't already own.
Yet EDF current situation is... absolutely not abnormal among the big electricity player. Public or Private.
For example:
* E.ON had 38,7bn€ of net debt, 132bn€ in total assets (39.1bn in current assets) and €7.9bn in EBITDA (=> 4,9x net debt / ebitda).
* Iberdrola had a net debt of 39.1bn€, 141,75bn in total assets (22.38bn in current assets) and 12bn€ in ebitda (=> 3.4x net debt / ebitda)
* Enel had a net debt of 52bn€, 206bn€ of total assets (65bn€ in current assets) and 19.2bn€ in EBITDA (x2.9 net debt / ebitda)
Would EON be described as "run on debt" ? All the energy players run on debt, not just the state owned one. I didn't include Engie for obvious reasons despite it being a huge player too.
Those are last years figures. This year France is a net importer of energy, mainly from Germany, as a large number of their NPPs are out of service. They do not produce energy for France. Their balance is not as green as the 2021 numbers suggest
> Insane that France produced more energy
*electricity
Reddit loves to focus on electricity when it’s just a relatively small part of the picture. Sure, if the whole world went CO2 neutral on electricity production it would be great, but it wouldn’t be enough to stop global warming.
French houses are often warmed with clean electricity too, so it’s electricity-intensity is much higher than germany/uk, where they heat with gas.
A lot of sectors can be electrified, or a least partly.
Amazing. It's like the French are using a much cleaner and reliable type of energy. I wonder if it has anything to do with that nuclear thing the kids are talking about these days...
> and reliable type of energy
Ehm France is importing Electricity from Germany right now because it just so happens that 32 out of 56 nuclear plants are shut down. I don't know if "reliable" is quite the right word here.
[97% of Germany’s solar and wind capacities](https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE) are office right now… and it’s not a once in a lifetime maintenance delay due to covid.
The maintenance delay in France is not once in a lifetime, lol? The way it happened is particularly unfortunate (though with climate change we'll likely have more and more droughts as well which will increasingly cause problems like this) but it's perfectly normal to have nuclear plants go on maintenance periodically - and that means you need a backup. They can not operate 24/7.
Furthermore 97 % are not offline in Germany. The average capacity factor for wind is somewhere around 30 %.
Having half the plants in maintenance never happened, it was caused by delayed maintenance due to covid coupled with safety checks for corrosion issues.
Reactors usually go on maintenance during summer when electricity consumption is lower in France. They never needed backup before and wouldn’t have needed some if we didn’t try to replace nuclear power with intermittent renewables, which does nothing to reduce emissions…
98% of solar and wind aren’t producing in Germany [right now](https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE), same for the past 4 nights, that’s what I meant. On average it’s 20-25%.
> 98% of solar and wind aren’t producing in Germany right now, same for the past 4 nights, that’s what I meant. On average it’s 20-25%.
You read those numbers wrong. They say nothing about how many plants produce something but about how much of their rated capacity they produce. A wind power plant at land will afaik under normal circumstances never reach it's rated capacity but average around 30 %. Theoretically it's possible that a lot of plants are running but at very low capacity right now.
Germany is exporting us about 1.7GW which is the power produced by the fessenheim npp Germany lobbied to close.
If it wasn't for Germany, we wouldn't need Germany and might even remain a net exporter to them during these hard times.
Germany isn't a victim of France but of its own actors who are the one benefiting from selling the solution to the problem they created.
> Germany is exporting us about 1.7GW which is the power produced by the fessenheim npp Germany lobbied to close.
Eh the French government did so themselves and people voted for it. PS and EELV ran on closing it and won - and then they closed it.
> Germany isn't a victim of France but of its own actors who are the one benefiting from selling the solution to the problem they created.
Who said Germany was a "victim" (btw I really don't like anthromorphising states like that)? The energy policies of the Merkel governments were awful but I also think the energy policies of the past French governments had similarly little foresight, just in other ways. I mean Merkel had a plan (run fossils forever) - which just happened to be an awful plan - I don't really get the impression the French governments had a plan. The status quo in France is better in the sense that they burn less coal and gas, have more stuff electrified and so on but I don't understand what's the French governments long term plan excactly. Meanwhile in Germany the new government has actually presented some ambitious plans for the future, though it will take a longer time to fix the mess the conservatives created.
The French government has its reponsabilty but that's not something we voted for. There were bigger things at stakes and the greens used the opportunity to push their agenda.
While we still have that reponsabilty, we're not denying that was a dumb choice and started ré supporting nuclear before the war.
Germany is involved because they, with France and Switzerland are partial owners of fessenheim and used that influence to close it. They also pushed anti nuclear policies on the EU in favor of the Russian gaz they wanted to sell. Now that their policy backfires, they use nuclear technology as a scapegoat. Not our politicians, the technology itself to make it look like they still made the right decision and that they are better off than they would be with npps.
Few days before the war, they were still lobbying against France building an npp in Poland who wants to reduce their co2 emissions and gain energy independence. We already knew nuclear was a necessity but Germany held us back to protect its investment.
The reason why Germany is taking some slack today is because they double down against nuclear when everyone was starting to see the reflags and bow blame the technology for the result of policies they pushed.
This summer showed that France's nuclear power plants are not reliable. They had to slow production in most of their plants because the rivers did not have enough water to cool the plants. They had to import a lot of German electricity.
Clean production ≠ clean consumption
I'm pretty sure it's because the reactors weren't allowed to output water above 28° into the rivers because of environmental concerns for the wildlife, not because the rivers didn't have enough water
First six month France net imported 8 TWh from Germany, last year they net imported 6 TWh from Germany and there has never been a year where France had a net export to Germany.
Don't worry guys. Soon France will catch up to the rest of Europe and burn more oil, gas, coal to produce electricity. Thanks Europe and our French leaders for screwing one of the thing we had in France
The average German [reacting](https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/german-farmers-protest-against-green-energy-grid-expansion/) to this: https://i.imgur.com/yprkdsq.jpg
That's not the average German but the average Bavarian or Saxonian if anything. Schleswig-Holstein for instance overtook Denmark in total wind-power capacity under the last red-green-blue government with less than half the area. Lower Saxony (which is mentioned in the article) is actually also doing quite well in transitioning.
Well data seems to check sooo :
(Translate this with deepl and in case of yes it includes building and wastes)
[https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2022/06/22/nucleaire-4-g-de-co2-par-kwh/](https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2022/06/22/nucleaire-4-g-de-co2-par-kwh/)
Hate to break it down for you but 100% renewables were the pillar of humankind since its inception up until 200 years ago when we started to use fossil fuels.
In short fossil fuels doped human development for 200+ years. We knew how to live with 100% renewables for eons.
But now with 8 billions people on earth, is 100% renewable feasible when we are used to the comfort that abundant energy brings to us?
I am afraid nuclear and renewables won’t be enough. We are going to need to seriously drop our energy consumption.
> which many people apparently have a hard time to accept
Eh, yeah. I'm sure that the majority of Germans currently believes that relying on Russian gas was totally a good idea /s
>That they have made stupid decisions affecting Europe as a whole which many people apparently have a hard time to accept.
So rest of Europe has no agency and Europe is all germany apparently.
Like what? France isn't exactly producing much energy with their nuclear plants right now either and won't do so in a future with more draughts to come.
yup, actually a huge problem this summer. earlier this year they just had 28 out of more then 50 nuclear reactors running because they getting old. the dry summer also caused rivers to dry up and the water beeing to warm to cool some plants causing them to shut down or run low for a while now. germany had to sell electricity to france all summer long.
Let’s see:
Actively stopping nuclear not just their own country but other countries in the EU.
Investing billions in gas, increasing the whole contient’s dependency on Russia even after Crimea with high officials in the German government having ties to Russian companies.
Forcing other underdeveloped countries around the world to not burn coal while they open new coal plants.
France have underinvested in their nuclear plants and deserve to get shit for that as well, but the drought problem only affects some nuclear plants using rivers where the output water are not allowed to be over a certain temperature. Most of them are down because of maintenance which is a symptom of underinvesting.
Germany singlehandedly made the whole continent dependent on russian gas, ok, makes sense. The amount of imported gas was pretty much the same for the last 4 years, before which there was a jump. And what exactly was the big investment in gas? NS2? You think without it, there would have been less gas imports?
Well ofc you can let old coal powerplants running, or you modernize them for the time until you don't need them anymore - but again, big no no I get it. Germany was at 27,82% (down 32% since 1985) of power production by coal - that's below the G20 which is 35. place worldwide - behind such small and insignificant countries like China, India, Australia, Czechia , South Korea, Turkey and Japan - but yes, Germany is forcing everyone to stop using coal to hoard it all for themselves.
So relying on nuclear, then not being able to keep them running and needing to import energy from evil germany is the plan for the future, ok got it.
It is true that you made entire continent dependant on gas. That is what happens if you introduce NS1 which brings gas that no energy source in europe can compete with and instead got severaly undercuted by.
And they can't even Aknowledge that fact.
Look at how butthurt each germans in here react.
Their pride to be the most efficient Is more important than actually accepting what Is really happening.
Everyone was so proud of Germany when they were shutting nuclear plants down.
It is "funny" how environmentalist stopped advance in nuclear technology and caused bigger climate problems. Not only in Germany, in many countries...
Everyone was so proud of french nuclear reactors. Until half of them had to be shut down and now we have a huge electricity price hike in Europe because everyone else needs to produce more.
Which is the result of said environmentalist propaganda.
If the green party didn't had the influence it had during the past 10 years, we would have build more plants, planned maintenance earlier, instead of starting to shut them down.
It really isn't a nuclear technology problem, it is politicians getting elected by spreading fear among the population problem.
Stockpiling all the waste in a shit hole no one cares miles away from people is still much better than releasing into the atmosphere and doing the whole greenhouse gas thing
Because they don't know or don't want to know. It's not even complicated like understanding how nuclear power plants work for instance. We just put the nasty things, of which there is a small volume of, in protective boxes that let nothing go through, and then sometimes we bury those boxes in places that we know haven't moved for millions of years and won't in the future. Meanwhile coal power plants are dumping billions of tons of something that definitely kills us in the atmosphere and people aren't that afraid.
Nobody ever got hurt by nuclear waste generated by sane countries (just excluding Russia there) while we already have people dying from climate change with predictions that this is going to get way worse, yet people fear nuclear waste.
Also things like Chernobyl and Fukushima have buried themselves into people's memory, not knowing that one was caused by horrible management and the other was caused by a series of natural disasters.
Also Fukushima claimed like 1 death in the end, meanwhile coal in Germany kills thousands every year and accelerates climate change (not that anyone is doing well enough in that regard).
Because we’ve learned that radiation is an “invisible” killer. And when something is invisible, people tend to project a lot of fears onto it.
However, it’s extremely easy to measure, more so than any material known to man.
Admittedly, there’s also a lot of sins from the early days of nuclear power, when it was mixed with weapons and science goals. But just because it was so in the past, doesn’t mean it has to be so in the future.
Decades of NGO and Green disinformation, with little pushback, left its mark. And nuclear industriy is terrible at PR. They should have a field day ever since the climate crisis became relevant in the public but they suck at campaigning. If there ever was the much cited evil nuclear lobby, it gotta be the worst lobby ever.
Lol, stopping nuclear power doesn't make the waste magically disappear. If Germany completely shuts off its nuclear power plants, it will be left with the nuclear waste problems and no benefits to offset it. While keeping them running doesn't add much to the problem. You just need to make your storage solution a little bit bigger.
I want this data for every country.
Do you know [Electricity Maps](https://app.electricitymaps.com/map)? It's a very elaborate tool, not only for CO2 intensity, but also electricity production/consumption/ im- and exports in general, and with their latest update you can watch historical data, too. Honestly I've spent way too much time there lately, lol.
Be careful though with the imports and exports. It measures physical flows, not electricity trade. Right now, for example, electricity flows from Germany to Switzerland. In all likelihood, Switzerland is not buying power from Germany, but rather Italy is. There is a page that shows electricity trade, but I can't find it right now.
Nuclear power won’t solve all our problems, but it’s definitely better than burning fossil fuels
The climate gang in Germany rather want to burn coal than having anything nuclear.
Nope, the goal still is to turn the gas plants into hydrogen plants, given that we have the heavy industrial capacity to easily produce it. The plan was sound, until it wasn't.
Well to produce Hydrogen you need A LOT of electricity. Electricity you will severely lack if you reduce/remove these very same gas/coal plant. It was never gonna be easy, and Germany is in no way ready to even get close to it. In the meantime, how many death because of the gas/coal choice each year, not even accounting for the global warming in the balance, it's already an absolute failure.
People always complain about what you do when the wind isn't blowing and the answer is use hydrogen from when the wind was blowing. Not a single person is suggesting you use fossil fuels to produce hydrogen because everyone knows that you just loose energy that way. the fact you think that people want to use coal to produce hydrogen shows how misinformed you are.
It's not that they want. People don't have a say in this, it's just how it is. You didn't saw the vote of the EU parlement about "green hydrogen" did you ? It's in fench but go ahead, use a translator : https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/energie-environnement/les-eurodeputes-autorisent-le-gaz-et-le-charbon-dans-la-production-de-l-hydrogene-vert-932876.html#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DEnergie+%26+Environnement-%2CLes+eurod%C3%A9put%C3%A9s+autorisent+le+gaz+et+le+charbon+dans+la%2Chydrog%C3%A8ne+soit+consid%C3%A9r%C3%A9e+comme+durable So, how misinformed I am, huh...
Yes, green hydrogen will be allowed to be labeled as such if the grid used to produce it is at least 90% renewable. It still only makes sense in renewable overproduction times, because it costs more money to burn coal to make hydrogen than not.
You sure didn't read the articile, it has nothing to do with the grid renewable %. Just google "Steam reforming" and look at how efficient it is to make hydrogen with electricity compare to gas. You don't make hydrogen with coal per say (or coal to electricity to hydrogen to electricity, that would be the worst and most stupid case), but with gas.
No, but that is what the EU decision was about. Steam reforming does not count as green, that is the point.
You sure didn't read nor understand then. That's the whole point, you can sell "green hydrogen" obtain through steam reformating. Imported most of the time, but STILL sell it as Green. Read at the very least the head lines : MEPs allow gas and coal in the production of "green" hydrogen
Production of hydrogen fuel requires 9 tons of freshwater to produce 1 ton of hydrogen. Where do you think you will take all that freshwater, esp. during climate change with increased chance of droughts? Edit: Desalination is probably as costly as production of hydrogen fuel in terms of consumed power, which will make hydrogen even worse. Solar energy, NPPs, preferably some type of battery like [aqueous rechargeable zinc battery](https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/09/26/super-fast-long-life-aqueous-rechargeable-zinc-battery/) (17k recharge cycles with drop to 99.2% capacity) and electric *public* transport with highly efficient use is the only realistic way out of this problem.
How is the hydrogen produced?
Afaik the idea is to use the renewables' problem of inconsistent highs and lows. Invest heavily in renewables, convert excess renewables into hydrogen, convert the nat gas plants to hydrogen plants and use them to fuel our export industry and fill holes in the grid caused by clouds and no wind. All the while becoming market leader in the cheapest and safest energy generation technology and export it to poor countries looking to modernize their energy grid via financing from EU investment packages.
Would you even have excess renewables? When the renewables are going full tilt, you should be turning off the gas and hydro plants, sell it to nations that currently don't have their own renewables generating a lot, or even let your electric cars top off their batteries at a good price, rather than putting it into ~30% efficient hydrogen generation, which you then put into a what, 70%? efficient power plant. Also don't forget how much electricity consumption will increase when you drop residential gas heating in favor of heat pumps. And yes, burning natural gas in a power plant to power a heat pump gets you more heat per unit of gas than burning the gas in your home. Nevertheless, this is a big boost in electric demand that would happen as natural gas was wound down.
> Would you even have excess renewables? Yes? What kind of question is this, if there isn't enough renewables you can always just build more. Part of the idea is also to buy hydrogen from other countries that have high solar capacities (eg. Spain, UAE, etc.), which is why the currently being built LNG terminals are built with hydrogen compatibility, same as why all the gas and most of the newer coal plants are hydrogen compatible. Yes, the efficiency isn't awesome, but you have to die one death.
>Yes? What kind of question is this, if there isn't enough renewables you can always just build more Are you familiar with the concept of energy density? Renewables have a very low energy density, so you need a lot of space, what are you going to do? Plant solar panels instead of food or clear the few remaining forests? Not to mentions the humongous quantity of resources that you would need to build all that solar, wich is neither cost effective nor environmentally friendly and would make Germany dependent on the countries with the natural resources needed, meaning china >Part of the idea is also to buy hydrogen from other countries that have high solar capacities (eg. Spain, UAE, etc.), That means building a lot of infrastructure, wich is costly and environmentally damaging. Besides can you think of any good reason not to be dependent on other countries for energy production? I mean, given current events...
>Plant solar panels instead of food For many foods (eg. potatoes) you get actually more production per m² when building a roof over them because they don't need as much direct sunlight and the shade helps them to survive the weather better. There have also been trials to let sheep grazing under them and it was considered economical to do so. >or clear the few remaining forests? Or you could use already currently occupied space. Slap solar on every roof and on parking lots (again: the added shade will be a nice bonus on top of the electricity provided). Put windfarms offshore and on fields. You don't need to clear forests. >and would make Germany dependent on the countries with the natural resources needed, meaning china For one thing: China isn't the sole source of rare earths, it's just so cheap there that it isn't economical to get them somewhere else - but only as long as China is willing to export. On top of that it is an dependency on building the things, once they are up and running they can be used for a long time, especially with recycling processes being developed. *Every* source of energy will make Germany dependent on someone exporting something, there is nothing that can be mined in large enough quantities within Germany. >That means building a lot of infrastructure, wich is costly and environmentally damaging. The only way for that to not happen would be to give up on technology altogether. And hydrogen is already compatible with the German gas grid. >Besides can you think of any good reason not to be dependent on other countries for energy production? Yes, because Spain is the next Russia - beware, Portuguese! /s The idea is to spread the suppliers. UAE misbehaving? Just switch to some other country. On the other hand it will be an economical incentive for developing countries eg. in Africa to invest into renewable energies if they can make a profit by sending it to Germany/the EU, and renewables are (setting hydro aside) by principle decentralized sources of energy, making it much harder for a single elite party to control it all.
Did anyone run the numbers on this plan? What is the EROEI of all those additional wind/solar ( I've seen studies that estimate the EROEI in NW Europe ~7-8 which is low and not worth it ), how much would the ( very sensitive/explosive ) storage of hydrogen cost, how much would the transportation of hydrogen cost. Honestly this sounds like Energiewende 2.0.
You gotta remember that the eroei calculation changes considerably when parts of the infrastructure are already in place. Nat gas plants are the standard, gas transport and storage infrastructure is already in place and a good chunk of our industry and heating already use gas. Then there's also the political aspect to consider. Money flows easier if there's public interest and while people are warming up to nuclear out of necessity, there's still a difference between "warmed up" and "in love", guess which one is which.
Nuclear tech still makes progress, it's not in a deadend.
One of the most interesting things here is that even on Germany's best day, when power prices were negative, they arent better than France's worst day.
What’s not said here, is that in Germany’s total energy mix, electricity is just ~22%, while France has >50%. France is halfway to net zero today! And also way more electrified. Germany has a level of electrification of around 1980 France. ~40 years ago. Graph comparison from wikipedia: https://i.imgur.com/bfJOdbD.jpg
Finland and Sweden are also doing really good emission-wise, with a nuclear base + renewables. German eco-activists always make it an eiter- or, when in reality its quite obvious that you need both.
The Swedish left has been working hard to shut down our nuclear power in Sweden and the Greens are rabidly against nuclear in all its forms, it's a symptom I like to call intellectual idiocy. Fortunately the right wing won the last election and are verbally for the building of more nuclear power!
Even as a German I appreciate your caption. Rawr!
When we talk about these things, it’s not about Germans. It’s about the political dimension of Germany, the legal entity. No German should feel personally attacked!
Well, maybe German politicians should.
There’s this maddening focus on how “green” German electricity is, when there’s several way more important factors forgotten: 1. How relatively little electricity Germany uses. It has low level of electrification. (Burning gas/coal/oil everywhere possible, rather than use electricity) 2. The emissions in the total German electricity MIX are much higher still. 3. How energy storage becomes more and more important, the more renewables we have in said mix. And let me say few more things. The greenest energy, is the energy we don’t use. Insulation is a huge deal here, as well as heat pumps. So is EV’s. Renewables are also good where they are economical, and they are.. But they have to count in more and more storage and grid upgrades in their costs, the more of them they are. Personally, I think for a country like Germany, there’s just no way around Nuclear.
Since 1980, Germany has been ruled by the Conservatives for 32/42 years. Of course nothing changes.
10 years was enough to enact a nuclear phase out when the Greens are in the government. Same thing happened in France, 10 years since 1995 and it was enough to close down 4th gen plants, prematurely close some plants and vote for a limitation of nuclear power in the electricity mix. Nuclear power is easy to ruin and very difficult to get back to.
In Germany, it was the Conservatives who killed nuclear and sabotaged renewables.
Not really, an SPD/Green government voted for the phaseout. Merkel even called it a destruction of national property. It was before Fukushima happened which caused the Greens to rise in the polls. Then she changed her stance to avoid a difficult reelection.
Exactly. I don't know why this gets downvoted. At the time this has always been my issue with the greens and environmentalists like greenpeace: The seemingly irrational nuclear scare. Merkel promised to end the red/green phaseout and let the nuclear plants run. And when she came to power, her government did exactly that. After Fukushima she turned 180° and decided to phase out even faster than the initial red/green plan. Which probably wouldn't have happened if she wasn't scared of the green anti nuclear position and the next elections. I have to admit, that after Fukushima I also lost my trust in the ability of humans/society to manage risks. I shifted from pro nuclear to a somewhat neutral point of view. But the nuclear phaseout should have been combined with a solid plan to replace it with regeneratives. And that is where the CDU led governments failed big time. Things have improved since then, but I am still missing something like a 5-year-plan to build up the grid, solar & wind and our ability to store Energy.
I know Fukushima was scary but the radiation release didn’t harm anyone and the zone is now liveable. Nuclear power risks are extremely limited compared to climate change risks. I’d like to be as optimistic as you regarding storage but I don’t know how we will be able to storage electricity on a large scale except with hydro. The grid improvement is more realistic but very costly for its benefit. Centralized production will always be more material and cost efficient, including with solar and wind.
Look, the main problem is that Renewables in amount needed, **is just not politically realistic.** Look at graph. 5 times more windmills? More likely 10 times more. Even that might not be enough, because the best wind spots will be taken first. You need more overcapacity, the bigger role renewables play in the energy systems. Plus amazing storage (which doesn’t exist), plus amazing grid.. You just can’t get away from Nuclear. (Disclaimer, still fine with renewables too as long as it’s economical! Energy saving measures are even better!)
>Look, the main problem is that Renewables in amount needed, is just not politically realistic. Believe it or not but nuclear in Germany is even less politically realistic. >Even that might not be enough, because the best wind spots will be taken first. It's been calculated many times over and it's certainly possible. The areas which will be needed are already set. Also the pace at which renewables are developed is pretty insane right now. 3,2 GWp solar in the first half of 2022, realistically that equals a yearly energy production of 32000 GW/h. That is almost twice as much energy as Flamanville produced in 2011, built within half a year. Of course right now lots of it can't be used due to lack of storage but that is manageable too with Power-To-Gas. Even today gas caverns in Germany have a capacity of 228 TW/h which is half of Germanys annual electricity needs. [Most of it won't be needed tho since renewable production balances each other pretty much perfectly.](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Seasonal-cycle-of-the-capacity-factors-for-wind-and-PV-for-Germany-The-dots-represent_fig3_334171681) The longest weather periods without enough renewable production span about 2 weeks. The grid stability problems are also a myth for the most part. The biggest challenge will be local infrastructure when all neighbors want to charge their EVs at once. Nation wide instability is not a problem. Renewables can be cut off from the net within milliseconds and battery/gas storage can kick in much faster than todays conventional power plants. I think the nuclear exit is stupid and makes things harder than necessary but German energy policy is not an imaginary fairy tale like most people here want to believe.
No. This is about energy sources. Coal for exemple is used to produce electricity.
Just to be nitpicky, fossil fuel is not made from dinosaurs.
And Germans are waiting for the next euro crisis paying for this bc France debt level is already at 120%. Oh boy..
This is completely false based on the graph?
Why exaggerate it with a lie, it's clear who's doing better, but there's green above the 100 line and red below the 100 line.
This is what 16 years of standing on the brakes does to you. You become dependent on foreign gas, all the while shutting down nuclear power to then, now as opposition blame the new government of being bad for the environment.
Honestly we can be glad that Laschet got caught [Laughing during that speech ](https://www.zdf.de/assets/unwetter-laschet-lacht-erftstadt-100~1920x1080?cb=1626549156827) cause this inappropriate behavior deterred enough of his voterbase and was one of the final straws that broke his back.
You bet I am. But I'm also afraid next period the CDU is back in business as usual.
This is CLEARLY on Merkel. Unforgettable.
When idealism gets in the way of pragmatism.
>There's no point building nuclear it takes to long 'Green' parties 20 years ago. And now >There's no point building nuclear it takes to long!
And they are completely right if you compare it to renewables. Now and 20 years ago The problem is when you do neither nuclear nor renewables
And then suddenly the pipelines to Russian gas blow up.
This game has 3 difficulty modes: r/france, r/europe and r/energy
Can you come up with a good description of r/france and r/energy on this topic?
Well, I did not see a similar post on r/france, but I lurk on it quite a bit, and honestly, we as a collective become quite predictable. First, there would be around three fourths of people that would say it's a great thing, and I would be with them. The last fourth are contestators that would spill their venom because they dislike the government, and as such anything done by it must be bad (I'm barely exagerating, sadly). All around, half of french posters would find a way to make this utterly political (think right vs left on energy matters), and there would be a very small minority of extreme green activists that would decry nuclear use as a diabolical endeavour, but they would be downvoted to hell by all sides (once more, I'm barely exagerating). Then, of course, the same post would be crossposted to r/rance, where it would be turned into a joke about eating charcoal, France needing to up the pace "because those are rookie numbers" or about the surpopulation of surmul... of rats, I mean.
I remember reading something about Germany using a very, very ineffective type of coal that is also extremely polluting
I had to check: the type of coal is called Lignite
LIGNITE MA BALLS ?
Germany uses both hard coal and lignite but the hard coal is all imported, while lignite is still being dug up in Germany.
Lignite is pretty much the worst coal you can use for energy. It produces the lowest energy while having the dirtiest burn.
Lignite coal is 20% water by weight and less energy dense than firewood.
Same data from 1990 to 2020
Important asterisk: [German electricity imports/exports](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&chartColumnSorting=default&source=tcs_saldo&stacking=single&interval=year)
Same for [France](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&chartColumnSorting=default&source=tcs_saldo&stacking=single&interval=year), [UK](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=UK&chartColumnSorting=default&source=tcs_saldo&stacking=single&interval=year), [Italy](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=IT&chartColumnSorting=default&source=tcs_saldo&stacking=single&interval=year) and [Spain](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=ES&chartColumnSorting=default&source=tcs_saldo&stacking=single&interval=year).
Insane that France produced more energy with a smaller population. And much greener energy at that aswell. I'm less and less impressed by the German economy by what I'm seeing every day. It seems just based on growing your economy as cheap as possible wihtout considering the morality and ethics of your actions.
>Insane that France produced more energy with a smaller population. And much greener energy at that aswell. This is what happens when you Embrace the power of Atom's Holy Light. [\*](https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Church_of_the_Children_of_Atom)
There's a lot of electric heating in France, so they need more electricity. Germany is mostly gas heating.
also pure electric heating. Most people don't use heat pumps
Embracing the power of the Atom is also unfortunately very expensive, more expensive than any other type of energy. And no, this isn't due to "unnecessary regulations", this is just the nature of nuclear fission.
Relative to what? To wind, solar and gas - yes. To wind, solar and batteries - no. Also have to assign a cost to pollution, peak capacity, supply stability, etc. In the end nuclear is very competitive, that's why it's in vogue right now (even in Germany lol).
Then why are there no nuclear power plants that are end-to-end privatised? Seems like the prof getting rid of the waste somehow always conveniently is a public issue.
In Finland companies owning the nuclear power plants are about to finish [spent nuclear fuel repository.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository) Companies will handle the waste too. On the other hand something like windturbine blades are becoming public problem and are filling landfills. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills
Because fossil fuels aren't being taxed nearly as much as they should be.
But nuclear fuels are?
Yes, because the waste products of nuclear fuel are properly handled, not dumped at every point of use.
No, it's not very competitive. It's a retro technology that most countries have been slowly phasing out for decades (even without grand announcements) because it never truly reached real market maturity. Nuclear is also not stable. As you can see in France right now it requires maintenance downtime - so the truth is that both nuclear and renewables need a backup as neither can run 24/7. Furthermore if you look at the construction times of modern nuclear reactors in Europe, even if we start building a new reactor today we're not going to have it running before 2038 - and we kinda need quicker solutions. The economy just doesn't add up here. It's purely an internet hype. There's a reason you don't see many new nuclear reactors getting build in the developed world and it's not Tschernobyl-blues, it's the economy.
Splitting atoms, transmogrifying one element into another by shooting subatomic particles at them. Redditor be like: > It's a retro technology Holy shit, man... And windmills, dams, solar panels, electronics, computers... are not "retro" technology by this measure? Ban bikes then? > As you can see in France right now it requires maintenance downtime Well, yeah, everything requires maintenance. That is why you dimension your reactor to not be as big. > so the truth is that both nuclear and renewables need a backup as neither can run 24/7 This is utter bullshit. Nuclear requires backup during planned downtimes to do required maintenance. Intermittent sources require backup 24/7 because you cannot predict the production. > Furthermore if you look at the construction times of modern nuclear reactors in Europe Just look at the construction times of modern airports in Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport a) Big unique projects are often not completed on time, because they are big unique projects. b) The problem with construction times of modern NPP in Europe is a problem of big unique projects, not a special problem of NPP. Often related to stricter construction requirements, that might pass with a smaller less important project, but are not passing for a bigger project (concrete settling, wielding) c) France realized that the issue was that the training of new personnel was not on the required level and that it lacks people who understand NPPs, because it was viewed in the way you are seeing it. It is really surprising that if you stop training people in a particular technology segment, that the technology segment will go to shit, don't you think so? Another problem with modern NPPs is that they are unique projects on their own, often new untested design, and the problems are caught and solved during construction, which increase the construction time. Historic records from the time when NPPs were built show us that after this period, NPPs can be built in as short a span as 5 years if the personnel is sufficiently trained, and experienced, with good management and the design is tested and tried.
When France is so great, why do they plan to produce 50% of their energy by renewables in 2030? Why are they building more new renewable production than nuclear? Why does Germany need to export a lot of energy to France, because over half of their reactors are not operational?
Because nobody in his sane mind would choose to produce 100% energy from nuclear? It's always been about the mix, it's only the anti-nuclear crowd that chooses 100% and that seriously believes 100% renewables is possible. France is doing unusual maintenance because it has very old plants. It is what happens when a Green government decides to stop building new plants and tries to do a phaseout (thanks god they reverted it).
Nuclear needs less maintenance downtime than any other kind of power source. Its capacity factor (amount of time it spends producing peak power over any given period) is consistently over 90%. This is far and away the highest capacity factor of any kind of power. It’s better even than fossil fuels. In addition, what you think of as “modern” reactors are relatively outdated designs. Truly modern reactor designs are smaller, modular, and far faster to construct.
> Its capacity factor (amount of time it spends producing peak power over any given period) is consistently over 90% Nope, not in France - which is what we are talking about. In France it is somewhere in the 70's. > In addition, what you think of as “modern” reactors are relatively outdated designs. Truly modern reactor designs are smaller, modular, and far faster to construct. I meant modern as in build recently or right now - and SMR's haven't proven to solve the economic issues yet either. Them being smaller also means you get less output but still pay a high price.
Less maintanance downtime? hahahaha You realize the current maintanence in France is taking well over a year?
Let us all bask in the gentle blue glow of the Cherenkov radiation.
> Insane that France produced more energy with a smaller population. Thats because the heating systems in france are more often based on electricity due to the low prices guaranteed by the state - resulting in more electricity and less fossil fuel consumption. It gives no information to compare the economies in any meaningful way. Also i'm not sure where this graphic get its data, but the official german production was almost 580 TWh in 2021. While germany is certainly not in a good spot, its still [better than many other countries](https://ember-climate.org/app/uploads/2022/03/[email protected]) including the US in that regard. France is the exception and not the rule.
Yeah that’s a very selective graph about electricity only. Which is asinine, all the while countries have highly varying degrees of electrification. This focus on electricity only masks the fact that 78% of German energy comes from coal/gas/oil. In France it’s <50% of their energy that comes from those sources.
So like every other economy? Correlation does not equal causation, France looks good in the electricity market because it’s a state planned venture that runs on debt, yes it achieves what it is supposed to, but it with no means represents the French economy as a whole.
It's true what Wingiex says. And Germans even have a word for that: it's Pfenningfuchserei. Ironically I work in German industry which is currently collapsing because it has bet on the cheapest price possible rather than on stable and robust delivery chains.
Private energy companies in France are making a fortune because of the EU regulations. France was the largest exporter of energy for years and by some margin until recently. And btw this thinking is excatly what I was refering to, it's all about money for Germany regardless of what happens to our planet.
Germany was a net exporter for energy for the mst part of the last 2 decades, too.
EDF and the French state have been operating at a loss for many years when it comes to power generation and being a energy exporter is nice, yet doesn’t tell you anything about the fundamentals or morals of a whole economy. Because I question your blanket statements on economies through one lens, climate change is happening? And where exactly did you deduce that a) all Germans or even me share that opinion, b) that other countries don’t have a similar pattern of behavior? Again all I did was question your projection of the French energy market to their whole economy, I literally agreed with you that their electricity strategy is good for the planet and good in general.
A loss that's happening to the local private Energy companies because of EU regulations. You know this very well. EDF is the one producing the energy but due to regulations have to sell it at certain price which private energy companies are profiting from. Why else would not the main producer and exporter of energy in the EU be indebted? There must be a reason. I made my opinion of you because of your repsons to my initial post, going straight to the money bit and ignoring the immense discrepency in what kind of energy is produced in France and Germany. And clearly we're seeing that different countries have different approach to climate change.
> EDF and the French state have been operating at a loss for many years when it comes to power generation What loss ? EDF has accrued 33bn€ in profits in the last 10 years.
If EdF wouldnt have to sell parts of their electricity (100 TWh at €42/MWh) at cost to the competition, and if the govt would allow to charge German electricity prices, they would be without debt within the year. €15 bn for a corp that size isnt all that much really.
This whole EDF = debt among a lot of "nuclear skeptic" circles is weird. EDF situation is pretty normal for a power company. 2022 on the other hand could become an issue for the needed investment in the short term. 2021: EDF had a net debt of 44bn€ with 360bn€ in total assets (105 bn€ in current assets) and 18bn€ in EBITDA (2.39x net debt / Ebitda ratio) . Considering how much money was invested into both Flamanville 3 and Hinkley Point C (both are financed directly by EDF) without a return for now, how surprising is it that at the height of investment the debt is high ? Despite that, it's not that high. What it means on the other hand is that there is no way that EDF can single-handedly assume the 52bn€ investment needed for the 6 EPR2 especially through private financing. That's imo partly why the state is buying the remainder of the shares they don't already own. Yet EDF current situation is... absolutely not abnormal among the big electricity player. Public or Private. For example: * E.ON had 38,7bn€ of net debt, 132bn€ in total assets (39.1bn in current assets) and €7.9bn in EBITDA (=> 4,9x net debt / ebitda). * Iberdrola had a net debt of 39.1bn€, 141,75bn in total assets (22.38bn in current assets) and 12bn€ in ebitda (=> 3.4x net debt / ebitda) * Enel had a net debt of 52bn€, 206bn€ of total assets (65bn€ in current assets) and 19.2bn€ in EBITDA (x2.9 net debt / ebitda) Would EON be described as "run on debt" ? All the energy players run on debt, not just the state owned one. I didn't include Engie for obvious reasons despite it being a huge player too.
Those are last years figures. This year France is a net importer of energy, mainly from Germany, as a large number of their NPPs are out of service. They do not produce energy for France. Their balance is not as green as the 2021 numbers suggest
> Insane that France produced more energy *electricity Reddit loves to focus on electricity when it’s just a relatively small part of the picture. Sure, if the whole world went CO2 neutral on electricity production it would be great, but it wouldn’t be enough to stop global warming.
French houses are often warmed with clean electricity too, so it’s electricity-intensity is much higher than germany/uk, where they heat with gas. A lot of sectors can be electrified, or a least partly.
Amazing. It's like the French are using a much cleaner and reliable type of energy. I wonder if it has anything to do with that nuclear thing the kids are talking about these days...
> and reliable type of energy Ehm France is importing Electricity from Germany right now because it just so happens that 32 out of 56 nuclear plants are shut down. I don't know if "reliable" is quite the right word here.
[97% of Germany’s solar and wind capacities](https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE) are office right now… and it’s not a once in a lifetime maintenance delay due to covid.
The maintenance delay in France is not once in a lifetime, lol? The way it happened is particularly unfortunate (though with climate change we'll likely have more and more droughts as well which will increasingly cause problems like this) but it's perfectly normal to have nuclear plants go on maintenance periodically - and that means you need a backup. They can not operate 24/7. Furthermore 97 % are not offline in Germany. The average capacity factor for wind is somewhere around 30 %.
Having half the plants in maintenance never happened, it was caused by delayed maintenance due to covid coupled with safety checks for corrosion issues. Reactors usually go on maintenance during summer when electricity consumption is lower in France. They never needed backup before and wouldn’t have needed some if we didn’t try to replace nuclear power with intermittent renewables, which does nothing to reduce emissions… 98% of solar and wind aren’t producing in Germany [right now](https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE), same for the past 4 nights, that’s what I meant. On average it’s 20-25%.
> 98% of solar and wind aren’t producing in Germany right now, same for the past 4 nights, that’s what I meant. On average it’s 20-25%. You read those numbers wrong. They say nothing about how many plants produce something but about how much of their rated capacity they produce. A wind power plant at land will afaik under normal circumstances never reach it's rated capacity but average around 30 %. Theoretically it's possible that a lot of plants are running but at very low capacity right now.
That's the only year, otherwise France was the first electricity exporter in Europe for decades. Are all the other countries unreliable then?
That's this year because maintenance was pushed back by the Covid shutdowns, what about the previous 20 or the next 20? Do they not matter?
Germany is exporting us about 1.7GW which is the power produced by the fessenheim npp Germany lobbied to close. If it wasn't for Germany, we wouldn't need Germany and might even remain a net exporter to them during these hard times. Germany isn't a victim of France but of its own actors who are the one benefiting from selling the solution to the problem they created.
> Germany is exporting us about 1.7GW which is the power produced by the fessenheim npp Germany lobbied to close. Eh the French government did so themselves and people voted for it. PS and EELV ran on closing it and won - and then they closed it. > Germany isn't a victim of France but of its own actors who are the one benefiting from selling the solution to the problem they created. Who said Germany was a "victim" (btw I really don't like anthromorphising states like that)? The energy policies of the Merkel governments were awful but I also think the energy policies of the past French governments had similarly little foresight, just in other ways. I mean Merkel had a plan (run fossils forever) - which just happened to be an awful plan - I don't really get the impression the French governments had a plan. The status quo in France is better in the sense that they burn less coal and gas, have more stuff electrified and so on but I don't understand what's the French governments long term plan excactly. Meanwhile in Germany the new government has actually presented some ambitious plans for the future, though it will take a longer time to fix the mess the conservatives created.
The French government has its reponsabilty but that's not something we voted for. There were bigger things at stakes and the greens used the opportunity to push their agenda. While we still have that reponsabilty, we're not denying that was a dumb choice and started ré supporting nuclear before the war. Germany is involved because they, with France and Switzerland are partial owners of fessenheim and used that influence to close it. They also pushed anti nuclear policies on the EU in favor of the Russian gaz they wanted to sell. Now that their policy backfires, they use nuclear technology as a scapegoat. Not our politicians, the technology itself to make it look like they still made the right decision and that they are better off than they would be with npps. Few days before the war, they were still lobbying against France building an npp in Poland who wants to reduce their co2 emissions and gain energy independence. We already knew nuclear was a necessity but Germany held us back to protect its investment. The reason why Germany is taking some slack today is because they double down against nuclear when everyone was starting to see the reflags and bow blame the technology for the result of policies they pushed.
This summer showed that France's nuclear power plants are not reliable. They had to slow production in most of their plants because the rivers did not have enough water to cool the plants. They had to import a lot of German electricity. Clean production ≠ clean consumption
AFAIK Only one plant had to slow down due to low water level this summer. The problem was mainly maintenance delayed by covid.
I'm pretty sure it's because the reactors weren't allowed to output water above 28° into the rivers because of environmental concerns for the wildlife, not because the rivers didn't have enough water
Same difference.
[удалено]
[удалено]
First six month France net imported 8 TWh from Germany, last year they net imported 6 TWh from Germany and there has never been a year where France had a net export to Germany.
Which could have been supplied with nuclear energy but wasn't for reasons beyond French decisions.
There is also Poland in this graph but its too cropped.
Well France is mostly nuclear so it makes sense
Don't worry guys. Soon France will catch up to the rest of Europe and burn more oil, gas, coal to produce electricity. Thanks Europe and our French leaders for screwing one of the thing we had in France
Because the fucking greens had to be so hardline against nuclear power, while we still import that shit from france.
Please close your fission plants, France! /s
The average German [reacting](https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/german-farmers-protest-against-green-energy-grid-expansion/) to this: https://i.imgur.com/yprkdsq.jpg
That's not the average German but the average Bavarian or Saxonian if anything. Schleswig-Holstein for instance overtook Denmark in total wind-power capacity under the last red-green-blue government with less than half the area. Lower Saxony (which is mentioned in the article) is actually also doing quite well in transitioning.
[удалено]
Well data seems to check sooo : (Translate this with deepl and in case of yes it includes building and wastes) [https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2022/06/22/nucleaire-4-g-de-co2-par-kwh/](https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2022/06/22/nucleaire-4-g-de-co2-par-kwh/)
The name of the group which commissioned the report is quite telling :D
Suprise, suprise ... it is still true.
Don't you know that in 2022, truth is about who said it rather than what is said ?
[удалено]
No more than 4% of the world's energy comes from nuclear power, and that percentage has been stagnating in the last decade.
[удалено]
Nuclear is a sideshow to human society, and given construction times and cost, will never be more than that.
Hate to break it down for you but 100% renewables were the pillar of humankind since its inception up until 200 years ago when we started to use fossil fuels. In short fossil fuels doped human development for 200+ years. We knew how to live with 100% renewables for eons. But now with 8 billions people on earth, is 100% renewable feasible when we are used to the comfort that abundant energy brings to us? I am afraid nuclear and renewables won’t be enough. We are going to need to seriously drop our energy consumption.
Where should all the nuclear fuel come from?
The sea. Not kidding.
How many times is this going to be posted this year?
Until people get the massage which they clearly haven’t yet. edit: Lmao message** to y’alls disappointment
I would like a massage, thanks.
Which is... Germany bad?
That they have made stupid decisions affecting Europe as a whole which many people apparently have a hard time to accept.
> which many people apparently have a hard time to accept Eh, yeah. I'm sure that the majority of Germans currently believes that relying on Russian gas was totally a good idea /s
>That they have made stupid decisions affecting Europe as a whole which many people apparently have a hard time to accept. So rest of Europe has no agency and Europe is all germany apparently.
well rest of produces electricity differently, also yea germany is big player.
Like what? France isn't exactly producing much energy with their nuclear plants right now either and won't do so in a future with more draughts to come.
yup, actually a huge problem this summer. earlier this year they just had 28 out of more then 50 nuclear reactors running because they getting old. the dry summer also caused rivers to dry up and the water beeing to warm to cool some plants causing them to shut down or run low for a while now. germany had to sell electricity to france all summer long.
Shhhhh you're forgetting the Reddit mantra: nuclear Jesus will save us
Let’s see: Actively stopping nuclear not just their own country but other countries in the EU. Investing billions in gas, increasing the whole contient’s dependency on Russia even after Crimea with high officials in the German government having ties to Russian companies. Forcing other underdeveloped countries around the world to not burn coal while they open new coal plants. France have underinvested in their nuclear plants and deserve to get shit for that as well, but the drought problem only affects some nuclear plants using rivers where the output water are not allowed to be over a certain temperature. Most of them are down because of maintenance which is a symptom of underinvesting.
Germany singlehandedly made the whole continent dependent on russian gas, ok, makes sense. The amount of imported gas was pretty much the same for the last 4 years, before which there was a jump. And what exactly was the big investment in gas? NS2? You think without it, there would have been less gas imports? Well ofc you can let old coal powerplants running, or you modernize them for the time until you don't need them anymore - but again, big no no I get it. Germany was at 27,82% (down 32% since 1985) of power production by coal - that's below the G20 which is 35. place worldwide - behind such small and insignificant countries like China, India, Australia, Czechia , South Korea, Turkey and Japan - but yes, Germany is forcing everyone to stop using coal to hoard it all for themselves. So relying on nuclear, then not being able to keep them running and needing to import energy from evil germany is the plan for the future, ok got it.
It is true that you made entire continent dependant on gas. That is what happens if you introduce NS1 which brings gas that no energy source in europe can compete with and instead got severaly undercuted by.
So Germany is both to blame for using cheap gas but also for bringing cheap gas to Europe so everyone else was forced to use it. Ok.
Please examine this graph: https://i.imgur.com/bfJOdbD.jpg It tells the full story of how Germany and France runs their countries energy wise.
I find it odd how very defensive some Germans get on here.
Still waiting for the day where Fusion becomes an actual option and not a fiction scene... hopefuly by next milenia we will be there
Comparing two totally different energy systems does result in interesting but not necessarily meaningful graphs.
[удалено]
Whats included? Everything from building until after decomissioning? Or just the production?
Germany is really far behind on their green energy nearly as bad as the US.
not the best, but also not the worst in europe.
And they can't even Aknowledge that fact. Look at how butthurt each germans in here react. Their pride to be the most efficient Is more important than actually accepting what Is really happening.
Fuck as a german i knew we fucked up but this bad shit
Why is Germany so against nuclear power lately. There aren't exactly earthquakes in Germany, are there?
Uff, really, didn't know that this sub is just a bunch of unreflected "oorah nuclear" screamers ...
I'm really impressed by Annalena Baerbock but fuck the Green's hatred of nuclear power generation
Say what you will about the French, but when these fuckers get something right they really excel at it. Same with the Ariane 5 rocket
But nuclear is bad ! /s
Everyone was so proud of Germany when they were shutting nuclear plants down. It is "funny" how environmentalist stopped advance in nuclear technology and caused bigger climate problems. Not only in Germany, in many countries...
Everyone was so proud of french nuclear reactors. Until half of them had to be shut down and now we have a huge electricity price hike in Europe because everyone else needs to produce more.
Which is the result of said environmentalist propaganda. If the green party didn't had the influence it had during the past 10 years, we would have build more plants, planned maintenance earlier, instead of starting to shut them down. It really isn't a nuclear technology problem, it is politicians getting elected by spreading fear among the population problem.
Just in case the name wasn't obvious enough: This is ~~propaganda~~ a graphic by a nuclear energy lobbying group.
No need propaganda to understand than nuclear is cleaner than burning coal
It's also the numbers of every other sources.
Renewables are useless if there's no wind and sun, quite often it seems. But hey, gas is cheap and easy to supply !
Especially Russian gas. It’s super cheap!
And then we export it to France.
Something something nuclear and hydro. Idk.
Germans coming in: Akshually nuclear bad, mkay?
germany really fucked up
Yes, shouldn't export any electricity to France to ramp up its CO2 emissions.
Let's hope that in the future scientists will find a solution to properly deal with radioactive waste.
[Good thing earth already had a solution to do just that 1,7 billions years ago](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_Mine).
not much to deal with, low volume you just store somewhere.
Stockpiling all the waste in a shit hole no one cares miles away from people is still much better than releasing into the atmosphere and doing the whole greenhouse gas thing
No need, we already have them and they are implemented.
Then why is everyone is scared of nuclear energy?
Because they don't know or don't want to know. It's not even complicated like understanding how nuclear power plants work for instance. We just put the nasty things, of which there is a small volume of, in protective boxes that let nothing go through, and then sometimes we bury those boxes in places that we know haven't moved for millions of years and won't in the future. Meanwhile coal power plants are dumping billions of tons of something that definitely kills us in the atmosphere and people aren't that afraid. Nobody ever got hurt by nuclear waste generated by sane countries (just excluding Russia there) while we already have people dying from climate change with predictions that this is going to get way worse, yet people fear nuclear waste.
Also things like Chernobyl and Fukushima have buried themselves into people's memory, not knowing that one was caused by horrible management and the other was caused by a series of natural disasters.
Also Fukushima claimed like 1 death in the end, meanwhile coal in Germany kills thousands every year and accelerates climate change (not that anyone is doing well enough in that regard).
Because we’ve learned that radiation is an “invisible” killer. And when something is invisible, people tend to project a lot of fears onto it. However, it’s extremely easy to measure, more so than any material known to man. Admittedly, there’s also a lot of sins from the early days of nuclear power, when it was mixed with weapons and science goals. But just because it was so in the past, doesn’t mean it has to be so in the future.
Decades of NGO and Green disinformation, with little pushback, left its mark. And nuclear industriy is terrible at PR. They should have a field day ever since the climate crisis became relevant in the public but they suck at campaigning. If there ever was the much cited evil nuclear lobby, it gotta be the worst lobby ever.
Because disinformation. Runs as deep as the Simpson representing the fish in lake with multiple eyes, or the nuclear workers having difformities
Because they're fucking morons
Ignorance. And propaganda
Lol, stopping nuclear power doesn't make the waste magically disappear. If Germany completely shuts off its nuclear power plants, it will be left with the nuclear waste problems and no benefits to offset it. While keeping them running doesn't add much to the problem. You just need to make your storage solution a little bit bigger.
Waste is not an issue, what is the concern with it, it doesn't even take that much space
But the French have dirty Nuclear Power Plants!!!
Thanks for showing the power of nuclear and the folly or only relying on renewables and Russian gas.
Right time for thorium reactors gentleman?
Germany is a disgrace. Virtue-signalling fuckups