- cross-posted to:
- upliftingnews@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- upliftingnews@lemmy.world
Meanwhile in Germany:
You must log in or register to comment.
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?
Also fans exist so you can just blow those at the wind turbine.
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.
our conservative government that ruled the country for 16 years
and the next 16 years, if everything works well Ü
!please kill me!<
The past 16 years have been conservative. The next 16 are for the far-right populists. Their’s a difference.
Hence the formulation “if everything works well”
Schleswig-Holstein is at 100% wind since 2014. It’s Southern Germany that lags behind. https://spd-geschichtswerkstatt.de/wiki/Energiewende
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.
I couldn’t be less surprised
So you say they would also be at 100% wind energy if they only had more wind? And it has nothing to do with the miniscule amount of wind turbines?
I’m saying the south would need at least 5x (you can fight me on the exact number) the turbines of the North to get to 100%.
This is due to
- higher energy consumption due to energy intensive industry
- lower wind turbine output due to less wind
Therefore it’s not worth it to build a ton of turbines in the south. Sure, we could have more in those locations where it’s worth it (dark spots on the map).
I grew up in a village near the Alps, one of the few with it’s own citizen-financed wind turbine. My parents invested. They’re lucky to get their money back because the return is so bad. Once the state money ran out it barely paid for itself
Like most of the time, the answer is complex: Yes, there is less wind in the south, but also yes, the south could approve more wind turbines. Yes, the south slows down the construction of high voltage power lines from the wind-rich north to the energy-hungry south, but the states that have to be crossed also do “their part”.
In the end a couple different electricity-pricing regions would help in balancing all of this.
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.
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.
And France has been a net exporter to Germany
Not for the last 6 years, at least. And I’m pretty sure those 13 TWh didn’t just randomly appear in 2017, you usually don’t abruptly go from exporter to importer.
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20230112-france-exports-electricity-to-its-european-neighbours-again
With nuclear production low, France has been a net importer of electricity for almost the whole year (except February, May and from the end of December), something that has not happened in 42 years.
France has almost always been net exporter, don’t change the facts please.
The EU’s consumption based emissions per capita have also fallen.
China and India are great with solar: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capacity
Current government in India is heavily pushing for solar energy.
Incredibly based
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).
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%.
Gritinks from Poland!
Consumption by source
Weird way to put it… also wtf is hydro storage generating?
Electricity? Like, you use excess power to lift water and generate power from letting it descend when you need power. The latter is generated. Or am I not getting something?
I know. It never generates more than it consumes so it has negative production overall. Or is this a real-time chart despite saying “past 12 months”?
“consumption takes imports and exports into account, production ignores them”
I think the idea is that it only uses excess energy that would otherwise be wasted to fill it, so it kind of generates energy as it’s essentially filled for free.
Italy isn’t any less
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
Strmý vrch 14 (čtrnáct)
Mlžná čtvrť
Krnov 7 (sedm) – Srch
Cleverly not counting nuclear as fossil is a joke.
You are comparing apples to oranges, Germany also has times where we use 100% renewables.
You cant just compare momentary data to averages
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.)
The utter beauty of the whole thing is that with the overall efficiency of the process of making coal butter, we could justify lots and lots of more lignite strip mining to both make the actual coal butter and to power the butter making process. Coal lobbyists will love it!
Thanks for the TIL about coal butter!
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.
In Denmark we heat our homes with cooling water from power plants…
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!
I agree that creating a culture of sustainability is a good thing, but the example I gave does the exact opposite. It alienates people, especially the ones who now live in fear of going bankrupt when their heating breaks and they aren’t allowed to repair it anymore.
Jesus fucking Christ, why can’t people listen or read anymore? You’re allowed to repair your stone age heating devices. They give you 13 fucking years until that’s not possible anymore. The government throws money at you to transition to technologies that will benefit you from day one. Germans are just fucking bad at using the internet and believe all the far right bullshit that is spread by CxU and AfD.
Edit: people will go broke once the CO2 tax kicks in in the coming few years. Im not shedding a single tear for all those idiots.
Over here we got government help to replace our gas heater for a heat pump.
Note: here is not in Germany.
But still.
The government paid 45% of my new heat pump, here in germany
I got 45% of the costs back from our German government for throwing out my 30 year old oil heating unit and hooking up to the local “Fernwärme” that runs entirely on renewables. Feels good man. People just like to bitch and whine about change.
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.
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.
Wtf is going on in Italy?
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 whores.
Least horny upset german.
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.While I agree with your point, the numbers seem wrong. The export values are in TWh. Germany produced 224 TWh in the first half of 2023. If we extrapolate to around 450 TWh for a full year and assume the 2022/2017 numbers stay the same, the values in TWh should be divided by 4.5 to get percentages. So about 3% export to france and 5% export overall.
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?
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.
Sssshhhh, don’t interrupt the nuclear circlejerk.
Don’t tell them that nuclear is by far the most expensive source of electricity in europe, no matter which costs you include
while still producing an order of magnitude more CO2 than renewables
or their heads will explode. And don’t ever ask them why no energy company in the world build a new nuclear reactor without subsidies, because the answer is: nuclear power is so ridiculously expensive that it isn’t financially profitable.
Well, that is unless you let the taxpayers cover all the costs, then it’s perfect to reap the highest profits.
Its interesting they use “most recent generation of turbines” but don’t do that on nuclear. Also WISE is not a credible source. It’s an anti-nuclear organisation with guys like Mycle Schneider on board.
Which source says 117g/kWh for nuclear? IPCC 2014 says 12g, UNECE 2020 about 5.1g (for EU28 nuclear).
“Consequential cost to health and environnement” of nuclear if higher that coal ? Wtf, in what world ?
Coal is more radioactive than nuclear plant, and that’s the lesser issue, between air polution, plant burning, and the effect of that much co2 being released, that can’t be true.
Either it’s bullshit or I missunderstood the graph.
They shutdown half of their reactors temporarily for maintenance in 2022. It was a one time thing. Your statement makes it seem like they do it every year.
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.
Checked for my countrt, Slovenia: ~25 percent of electricity generated is fossil fuel based, around 15% is imported.
