Well, this is something!
Well, this is something!
282 留言
-
You are aware that this is over 5 years old data (2017!) for the German electricity mix, right?
Please don't get me wrong, the scale up of renewable energy sources is certainly not going fast enough in Germany (thanks to our conservative government that ruled the country for 16 years until 2021!), but please argue this position using the real data for 2023 (57.7% renewables in the German electricity mix)!
-
You're right, I'm sorry. I chose the picture because it was the first okay one I found in English. I'll change it right away.
-
And please don't forget that Germany exports 26.3% of its electricity, while France imports 16.4% of it.
So, Germany could cut 26.3% of its fossil fuel generation and go up to 84% renewables if countries like France wouldn't depend on it that much.
-
I love how we literally can’t do shit for ourselves here in Italy
-
You keep repeating this point but renewable energy HAS to be exported when production is over the grid absorption rate. And coal plants have to be on continuously to guarantee baseload due to you moronic energy policies. You can't bring up a (cherripicked for a single extraordinary year) graph you don't understand and think it's a gotcha. Not even mentioning the fact that France exports its energy too.
-
-
Good for providing up to date data.
But damn, Germany could have been 65% fossil free if they hadn't closed the nuclear plants prematurely.
Such a waste of carbon budget.
Anyway, you're probably going to have a conservative government again after this one. Hope you don't become the big laggards.
-
Noooooooo... The decision to get out of nuclear was made over ten years ago. It is done. The last three nuclear plants that shut down this and last year were not serviced, not licensed, had no fuel and no newly trained operators. Stop reviving this debate. What is the real crime here is that the conservative government did next to nothing to push renewables as an alternative. They were bought/lulled by cheap russian gas. Even now, conservative governments in the south and the east of the country refuse to build up renewable energy production for purely ideological reasons. Even if those decisions hurt their own economy.
-
If the approval process continues as it currently does and solar installations do not slow down massivly, by the end of the term the approved renewbales projects should bring Gemany above 80% renewables. Practically speaking that would be the coal exit done. Maybe not fully, but they would not matter much.
As for the rest, the current plan for hydrogen power plants is currently being negotiated with the EU. The good news it looks like a deal has been reached and if the plans shown by the current government are implemented, that would basicly mean a full coal exit and the starategic storage question being answered.
Basicly the current German government has passed laws for an estimated 64% redcution of emissions by 2030 compared to 1990. The current target is 65%. So with a bit of luck it will work out.
-
Yes, I see the advantage of CO2 neutrality, but:
The amount of active Nuclear repository sites for spent nuclear fuel and high level waste is... underwhelming.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
60 years time to find a suitable hole to drop the waste into and very limited success so far. Nobody wants it in the own backyard (even if it would be suited.).
The other end of the chain (mining and enrichment) doesn't look like an environmental success story either, or does it? Poisoned groundwater looks like an issue to me... also if it happens in Canada or Kazakhstan.
The dots in between... One meltdown around every 20 years (worldwide) ? - the area here is just too densely populated to risk one here. They started to dismantle the first plant in Germany in 89 - still not done.
Edit: in my eyes the cons (I just named a few of them) outweigh the advantages. I mean the co2- neutrality is a big plus, but is it enough to justify the risks and damages? Aren't there better alternatives? Am I wrong? Please bring facts.
Edit again: thinking further, for me the question to answer is not, either add more CO2 to the atmosphere or have (more) nuclear fission plants. It is the question, how to remove fossils from the energy mix without having to use nuclear fission. With the one extreme to only use what you have and its many backdraws.
-
Germany could be 84% fossil free if they didn't have to
run their neighbors electricity gridssubsidize their neighbors.
-
-
-
This is for sure fantastic, don't get me wrong, but Europe has also exported some of its most polluting industries abroad. And then we also wag our finger at places like China and India.
-
China and India are great with solar: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capacity
-
but Europe has also exported some of its most polluting industries abroad.
Don't even need to go that far. The french have outsourced their fossil-based electricity industry to Germany.
I don't know how much of french electricity is actually fossil-free, but when someone says "68% nuclear in the mix" they should maybe mention the 16.4% foreign electricity in their mix, as well.
-
You know France is the largest exporter of electricity right?
It's not because you've picked one period to prove your point that it's the truth over a longer period. And France has been a net exporter to Germany for much longer than the opposite.
-
Guess where all that Italian import comes from. Really, it's clear you have very superficial understanding and very strong opinions. Typical for germans tbh
-
-
The EU's consumption based emissions per capita have also fallen.
-
-
Meanwhile Germany could cut more than 13% of its fossil electricity sources if it didn't have to export electricity to "97% fossel-free" France. Overall, Germany exports 26.3% of its electricity.
So it could go straight to 84% renewables if other countries weren't dependent on its electricity.
-
We have a deep-seated problem with corruption. Most politicians are just cockpuppets of the economy, and fossil fuel corporations have plenty of politicians stuck on their cocks. We were the forerunners of green energy, now we're just cum-soaked removed.
-
Least horny upset german.
-
-
Wtf is going on in Italy?
-
We’re lazy fucks.
-
-
France usually exports electricity, this year is an abnormality.
-
Germany typically imports power from France.
2017 called, it wants to ask when anomalies become the normal.
-
Exporting? Electricity doesn't know about economics, it has its own laws.
-
if it didn't have to export electricity to "97% fossel-free" France.
I mean, it doesn't HAVE to, does it? Presumably it's a voluntary trade?
Edit: Lol. Just like Reddit, get downvoted for asking a neutral question.
-
Presumably it’s a voluntary trade?
Well, I'd think so, too, but I'm not sure France voluntarily shuts off their nuclear reactors during the summer.
-
France also had to close a nuclear plant because of germany, it was close to the frontier so created political tensions with germany.
But France also have a strong anti nuclear lobby, so it's hard to build more nuclear sadly.
-
-
Gritinks from Poland!
-
Italy isn't any less
-
Consumption by source
Weird way to put it... also wtf is hydro storage generating?
-
-
Schleswig-Holstein is at 100% wind since 2014. It's Southern Germany that lags behind. https://spd-geschichtswerkstatt.de/wiki/Energiewende
-
I couldn’t be less surprised
-
That number is slightly misleading because practically we should subtract Hamburg's consumption from our overproduction. Someone does have to power the peppersacks and it of course should be us, to keep them dependent.
-
Lots of coal burning leads to a powerful coal lobby leads to lots of coal burning, it's the circle of life. All that's missing is coal entering the food chain, IMO we should bring back coal butter, so the country can depend on coal even more and the coal lobby can make even more profits.
-
That was a horrible thing to read but a wonderful thing to know.
"Coal butter! Power yourself with the power of coal! Available in lignite and anthracite! And for those extremely demanding consumer: new charcoal butter! 100% natural sourced!"
(I'll excuse myself now.)
-
Thanks for the TIL about coal butter!
-
-
Damn all these German tears in the comments could be used for enough hydro electricity to actually make the German grid cleaner.
-
That wouldn't be long lived, though, because when implemented in the current German fashion, they won't be using salt water resistant equipment for cost cutting reasons and neglect all maintenance to cut even more costs. The tear powered hydroelectric plants will be rusted through and seized up in no time.
-
No it wouldn't. It would never be built because the FDP would block it and Söder would refuse to have it built in Bavaria and Merz would say something about immigrants using up all our German salt on the tax payers dime all day long and Sahra Wagenknecht would mention that we wouldn't need it if we were all good friends with Putin and the SPD would do nothing anyway and the AfD would blame the green party for not reactivating 45 year old reactors instead of building it,...
-
-
-
Meanwhile here next door in the Netherlands, we have wind farms and solar all over, and we sell our energy to the UK...meanwhile we have some of the highest consumer energy costs in the EU.
Consumers get screwed over here a lot.
-
Kind of selfish form you, aren't you thinking about the shareholders?
-
I’m baaaad that way.
-
-
If only you swamp-Germans knew our mobile numbers! You could send us ll a Tkkie for the electric! 😝
-
What? On your “handy”? 😜
-
-
The crazy thing is that renewable energy (particularly land-based) is much, much cheaper than conventional generation. This makes sense, as while construction and maintenance costs might be higher over the life of the plant, there is no fuel cost. And yet, consumers end up paying more for this cheap energy.
Detaching the generation market from the consumption market was down right evil.
-
We really don't, or at least, don't have to pay more for clean energy. When the wind blows or the sun shines my electricity prices goes down. Way down! Through the floor down. It all depends on your tariff.
It's gas generators that pin the price high in the UK.
-
We’re very pro-business here. We talk a lot about it.
We’re also not so consumer friendly - that, you hear decidedly less about.
-
-
-
Since it says "right now", I doubt this listing is qualified for discussing the general state of the energy transition in these countries.
Edit: I checked it. Spain's gas share (as a random example) was significantly higher than 17% all over 2023 when summed up monthwise with wind contributing up to 30%.
Edit2: correct data for Germany for the same time mark: 52% fossil free (38% wind)
-
The reason Czechs use „mld.“ instead of „Mrd.“ like Germans for billions (miliardy/Milliarden) is because mrd means “fuck” (noun) in Czech.
-
Those poor Czechs just cannot afford vowels.
-
We totally can! Look, my address is
Petr Zhltal
Strmý vrch 14 (čtrnáct)
Čtvrť zmrdů
Krnov 5 (pět) – Srch
ČR
-
-
-
It's very a good sign, but I do have doubts about those figures. It's all too easy to look at total demand and total renewable generation, while ignoring the fact that the country is a net exporter and thus produces more than 100% of its demand - with the remaining uncounted percentage not being green.
"Fossil free" isn't exactly a recognised term, either, in which case fossil free =/= net zero =/= completely green.
-
This data is plain wrong, at least for some countries.
96% for Portugal would be amazing, but that seemed excessive so I looked it up, renewables accounted for 73% only.
I mean, it not bad, but we could be 99% there by now if the governments weren't pandering to utilities and fossil companies so much.
Edit: sorry forgot to link the source for power data
-
Yeah I agree. Scotland has a tiny population and isn't actually a country. It's a part of the larger UK that definitely has more fossil fuels.
Here is the UK grid: https://grid.iamkate.com/
-
Scotland is a country, but so is the UK, and the UK governs over Scotland.
It's a similar mess with the transmission network. You have NGET owning the transmission lines in England and Wales, but SPT and SHET for Scotland, however all of these are overseen by NGESO, the system operator, who balance the generation and load. Just to make it even more confusing, the Wales and South West distributor WPD has been brought back into British ownership as part of the National Grid group, so you have NGED providing some distribution as well.
-
Scotland is a "country", but "country" is a vague term. Scotland is not a sovereign state, which is what most people think of when they think of countries. In fact, other than the weirdness that is the UK, I can't think of any place that has "countries" that are not also sovereign states.
There are some places like Catalonia, or the Basque area that want to be / claim to be countries, but that's more about sovereign status. They wouldn't be satisfied being recognized as "countries" while still under the rule of Spain / France.
The only time this weirdness really shows up is at the World Cup, where the 3 separate countries within the UK each try to send a team. Meanwhile at the olympics they compete as one under the Team GB banner (which is its own weirdness because normally Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland, which is only included when you talk about the United Kingdom. But, Team GB includes Northern Ireland. In yet another exception, sometimes athletes from Northern Ireland compete as part of Ireland in some sports, not as part of the UK / Team GB.
-
-
IIRC, France exports its excess nuclear power in the summer (little need for AC until recently), but imports during the winter (electric heat for the most part). Mostly to and from Germany, which uses some terribly dirty sources. Don't know if that's changed in the last few years, though.
-
They did import a lot that one year in summer when all their nuclear plants broke due to low river levels and some sort of maintenance issue.
-
-
The mix will fluctuate on a day-by-day basis. You could be 100% renewable on one day, wind solar, and hydroelectric (although that's problematic in and of itself) with the inevitable nuclear for base load.
The next day you could be still and overcast and you've already used all of your water from the dam so you have to run more natural gas in the mix.
To pick any random day and to say that that date is representative of the year as a whole is silly, you need averages over the course of a year.
-
-
Meanwhile in Germany: +13 GW new renewables so far this year...
-
Thanks to Russia
-
ehhh Germany is buying less gas from Russia since they invaded Ukraine, which means that gas is more expensive and renewable energy is likely a more viable option. In no way would I thank Russia for that.
-
-
we may all say a big "THANK YOU!" to Philipp Rösler (FDP) and Peter Altmaier (CDU) for both destroying the German PV-industry, establishing the "Solar-Ausbaudeckel" and the CDU/CSU as a whole to block and hinder wind power for over a decade very effectively.
And their very hard work to make Germany overly dependent on fossil fuels, to keep it that way and therefore blow ALL climate goals appears to be a success model, as the CDU/CSU are currently winning the public opinion with that intend, whilst those trying to follow the steps of our european neighors are slammed into the ground (just as our PV industry).
In other words: Germans don't want clean air. They don't want a future.
-
Hey, coal and gas were cheap in those days... - why thinking about the future?
-
And new Putin's yachts were new and shiny
-
-
-
Climate impact by energy type in Europe can be monitored live on this site.
-
I'm Portuguese and as much as I'd love to run on 96% green energy I can't believe it... Last time I checked (it was quite a while ago I'll give them that) we imported a lot of nuclear energy from France. So unless France is 100% green and still has a green energy surplus (which it isn't/doesn't) we're just transfering our carbon footprint...
We do have a lot of wind turbines so maybe we don't import as much anymore but still...
-
Nuclear is green though, so France is a good place to be importing from. It also has the lowest mortality rate per kWh of all power sources, Chernobyl included.
-
There's definitely some figure manipulation going on here. Portugal might claim it's importing green energy from France, meanwhile France might stack up its renewable generation against its overall demand to make its claims, meaning both are ignoring much of the fossil fuel generation from France.
It's still good progress, but the devil really is in the details. There's a reason this post doesn't call it "net-zero" or any other industry recognised term.
-
The biggest chunk of our yearly consumption is still gas. And France's carbon intensity is much lower than ours still (one of the lowest in Europe), so any energy we're importing from them is actually lowering our CO2 average.
-
-
Meanwhile in my country, renewable energy sources are frowned upon and the government just announced plans to build 3 new coal powerplants.
-
RIP air quality
-
Rational governments get that fossil fuels aren't going anywhere, coal and oil will stay just where they like they have for longer than humans have been a thing.
Capitalist societies tho... private companies own those fossil fuels rights and they want to sell as much as they can for as long as they can.
We should be planning centuries in advance, not a financial quarter at a time.
-
Ha! “Planning”
-
That will require the end of capitalism first. We're kind of having an issue with abolishing that fast enough to save the planet.
-
-
I'm going to assume that those numbers only represent electric power generation. I wonder how much international import/export of power might change them.
-
Also would like to see heat generation (I.e. gas boilers) included
-
-
Here in Hungary, 90% of electricty mix is putin 🤣( 36% putin's nuclear fuel, 44% putin's natural gas) as his slave orban prohibited building of wind turbines, makes solar investments unpredictable, insecure, and we dont have any fast rivers for hydro
-
Good cherry picking about "current mix" and not something along the lines of "current cleanest mixes"
-
Even worse, as he is comparing a cherry picked current mix with the german total over 6 months (Jan to June), Germany's current mix is very similar to the current mixes he has shown.
-
-
Checked for my countrt, Slovenia: ~25 percent of electricity generated is fossil fuel based, around 15% is imported.
-
At the time of posting the UK energy mix is a disappointing 50% FF. Not a lot of wind in the North Sea I guess. At peak it could be 25% FF or even lower with clear skies. At least there's usually more wind at the same time lower temperatures increase demand.
-
Very disappointing. I think a large part of that is because up until earlier this year it was basically impossible to get permission for new wind turbines in England. That has now technically changed, but only insofar as it's now just next to impossible as opposed to actually impossible.
-
Well that doesn't help, but installed capacity is over 20GW (well, it was before Dogger bank, it's probably more now). It was very satisfying last Christmas when high winds, along with mild temperatures, and a lot of shops and offices being closed meant wind was able to cover a substantial amount of the reduced demand. FF generators were under 2GW at one point, pretty much idle standby.
-
-
You're looking at the overall generation portfolio though, I'm pretty sure the OP's figures are just taking total renewable generation against total demand - meaning it doesn't account for the exported generation, eg how Scotland exports to the UK and Europe.
-
-
Do the Swedish still use peat as fuel for fossil-free energy? They did a few years ago, but I can't find recent data on this.
-
Peat is referred to as a fossil fuel in most circumstances [1] and it's usage for energy is declining rapidly. [2]
-
You're right, it turns out that since 2018 peat is not reffered as fossil free in the EU anymore.
https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/bioenergy/biomassen
-
-
-
I don't know which word I like more steinkohle or braunkohle. Either way Germany can shove their energy policy right up their steinkohle.
-
But I know I know, it's not viable because night time exists (Even though so does artificial sunlight and batteries)
-
Wait are you proposing to run solar via artificially created sunlight in the night?
Wouldn’t it just be simpler to siphon off some energy from your perpetual motion machine?
-
You're still using perpetual motion machines? Bro do you even siphon energy directly from The Ether with your mind?
-
-
Also fans exist so you can just blow those at the wind turbine.
-
Right?
-
-
-
Does this include vehicles? 😅
-
Why would electrical grid power production include vehicles?
-
True that the specific metric by definition excludes any use of fossil fuels that doesn't have an electricity step (ICE cars, gas for heating/cooking/water heating).
However it is a relevant question to consider, to the extent those non-electricity applications remain an obstacle for reducing greenhouse emissions. An ICE car being replaced by an EV means more grid load, a Gas furnace being replaced with a heat pump means more grid load.
As an example, in my region they are talking about increased load incurred in part from EVSE and heat pump conversions. To meet that demand, a part of the plan is actually building out even more natural gas electricity generation (alongside energy storage, solar, and wind).
While it's encouraging to see grids fairly claim reduction in carbon emissions (others have raised questions about whether this is a totally fair claim, but I have no idea), the total consumption picture is important to keep in mind.
-
-
It could, if cheap, light, efficient EVs become legal and popular in Europe.
I personally want something that would never be legal; A 4-wheeled, beefed up, 100+ km/h electric velomobile with something like CanAm Spyder tires (and track width) and a proper comfortable seat. A bit like the LCC rocket, but fully enclosed and possibly lighter.
I could get something more dangerous, like a motorcycle. While this would be in an illegal limbo between car and motorcycle.
The Renault Twizy is a too tall, simply ugly, and thoroughly nerfed version of a simile of what I wish for, and Europe will continue just vaguely trying (and complacently falling) to make speed-limited microcars for cities of type L6e and L7e the "green option" looking for adoption, but that will never reach any kind of tipping point and we all know it. Not quite designed to fail, but definitely not designed for mass adoption.
The legal limbo of what I think would be more appealing is due to both the public and the governing bodies being entirely unwilling to tolerate what safety-wise amounts to a motorcycle with a car's stability, without reducing speed. They'd never expect to successfully lock motorcycles down to "max 45 km/h", but the category of "motorcycle" is uniquely privileged as a traditionally recognized transport device permitted to trade away safety for other benefits. Presumably because the trade is explicit enough, as there's no mistaking it for a car.
Anyways...
The conclusion is that no, "it" doesn't include vehicles, and won't any time soon. The only desirable electric cars will remain massive and heavy and expensive (but thoroughly armored), so adoption will continue to be fairly slow, and they'll be a big drain on the grid.
I'll end on the note that motorcycles not being popular is a huge part of why western bureaucrats (barely) tolerate them. If this was to become popular among young guys who want a cheap fast car, it'd be extremely problematic for them, and not at all worth the accelerated energy transition.
Last note, Sierra Echo is also one I've been keeping my eye on, but since it's fast and light, it's also open-air like all these things apparently have to be. Oh, and it's also not cheap.
-
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
-
-
-
Cleverly not counting nuclear as fossil is a joke.
-
How is nuclear fossil?
-
Ah, yes, "cleverly". Almost as clever as not counting mud as food.
-
-
You are comparing apples to oranges, Germany also has times where we use 100% renewables.
You cant just compare momentary data to averages
-
"has times where we use 100% renewables. You cant just compare momentary data to averages"
Then feel free to cite averages instead ¯(ツ)/¯
-
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20220126-1
It's just a quick web search, but there are the EU countries listed with their avg. renewable electricity 2021.
As mentioned, the momentary data isn't worth much. There are bad days with only 20% renewable electricity and there are good days with 120% renewable-only generation compared to the load. For years, European electricity prices turn negative on those days, as renewables alone in Germany generate 10TW more than the load.
That's why annual average is important and not to single out good or bad days pretending this is the norm.
-
-
-
Lets not celebrate nuclear energy. The french plants are in a bad state and nuclear energy is not clean. Why does everyone forget the nuclear waste it produces?
-
Solar and wind produce waste as well...
Nuclear produces a fairly small amount of waste, and it's almost all caputered, which is great (the waste that isn't captured is mining waste).
-
Let's not be pedants about the problems of nuclear power at a time when the world's climate is getting fucked ever faster due to CO2 emissions.
-
Nobody forgets it, but neither short-, nor long-term storage is nearly an unsolvable problem (as climate change is), and with rising supply and demand "waste" will soon become an economically viable raw resource for refining new fuel.
-
-
But that doesn't matter. The real issue is that people heat their homes with oil or gas. Luckily our great leaders are fighting the actual problems! /s
-
It "doesn't matter" ?! I mean electricity is still a pretty massive chunk of the energy used in day to day life. I would certainly not say it doesn't matter.
Also, a lot of people heat their homes with electricity, and sometimes even with heat pumps.
And I say that as someone still convinced we will not win against climate change.
-
You missed their /s. I assume their entire comment is sarcastic.
-
-
I would not discount the utility of creating a culture of sustainability. If your entire populace engages in more environmentally friendly behavior, they are going to demand the same of their government and regulations on businesses. The Nordic countries didn’t accidentally become relatively environmentally friendly. There is pressure on all sides there.
People mocked Obama for saying to fill our car tires, but that’s what he was driving at. If we are more cognizant of our waste and inefficiencies, it creates a culture that is more environmentally friendly.
Also landfills ain’t gonna stop filling themselves!
-
In Denmark we heat our homes with cooling water from power plants...
-
Yes, God forbid that we as a society could move onward towards more recent technologies. Nah, let's just keep using dead dinosaur soup to heat our homes.
-
-
Where is nuclear fossil free? Show me the unranium tree please.
-
Even though it certainly isn't renewable, Uranium is not a fossil fuel. That would imply it's made with the remains of dead organisms.
-
It's even worse than fossil fuel:
Carbondioxide has its natural circle, if we stop burning fossil fuels nature can remove carbondioxide by itself.
This does not work for uranium or plutonium, and the pathetic tries to get it into a circle have polluted e. g. Sellafield UK and other countrisides.
-
Do you know what the word "fossil" means?
-
Show me the rare earth tree for solar panels, or the carbon fiber tree for windmills.
-
There is zero percent rare earth in solar panels.
-
You get that a "carbon fibre tree" is literally just a tree right?
(also, wind turbines tend to be made out of much cheaper glass fibre. Admittedly this does not grow on trees, but unless you're willing to ban windows and home insulation too it doesn't make that much sense to complain about it.)
-
At least these material are theoretical recycleable while uranium is not (once an atom is split you don't put it together again)
-
-
I was mistaken as i thought fossil free == renewable, but the definition is actually different, which makes "fossil free" a useless goal.
-
The lobby green washed it, that's how.
The term fossil free is just easier to accomplish, we should be using environment friendly, because that's the goal.
The last time i checked, producing environmental dangerous trash for millenniums isn't environment friendly.
Even in the best case it's a bad solution, but now they are really really safe, not like before, trust me bro
-
282 留言