[ZeroGravitas]

Including Germany, who peaked around 50% (they use a lot of oil which is bad for climate, but good for fuel diversity).

https://energypost.eu/no-energiewende-without-warmewende-mak...

> For almost a decade, emission reductions have stagnated.

Weird that this phrase comes up so much in relation to German progress on renewables and climate change.

> Opportunities missed since 2008

> Indeed, the German government has stumbled in several attempts to put efficient heating on the agenda. In 2019, the interior ministry led by Horst Seehofer cancelled the buildings commission intended to identify ways to reduce the sector’s carbon footprint, while in 2017, the German government coalition failed in a first attempt to agree on a building energy law, which would have set new standards for efficiency in buildings. The NGO Environmental Action Germany has compiled a “chronology of failures” in the sector, starting from 2008.

> Past success, but still 28m tonnes off target

> After years of standstill, the energy used in Germany’s buildings has not fallen nearly as much as targeted. Instead of dropping by 20 percent between 2008 and 2020, final energy consumption had only gone down by 6.9 percent in 2017. Although greenhouse gas emissions in the building sector have fallen by about 44 percent since 1990, progress has largely stagnated since 2011 and studies show the need to significantly ramp up action.

[AnonCoward42]

The thing is that we build on wind energy that is not only unreliable as an energy source, but also adds CO₂ for producing/maintaining/rebuilding and usually also producing SF₆ while running (one if not the most efficient greenhouse gas).

I am actually under the impression we actually change just for the sake of change.

[pfdietz]

The production of CO2 from making a wind turbine depends mostly on how much fossil fuel is used in the rest of the economy. This is not a constant but varies as the rest of the economy is decarbonized. The current numbers are from when we're still using a lot of fossil fuels there. In that situation, displacing fossil fuel usage as quickly as possible is more important than eliminating residual inherent CO2 emission (in wind's case, the CO2 from calcination of limestone in cement manufacture.) Wind turbines can be installed more quickly than nuclear plants, so they win this racing game.

(Solar doesn't really require any cement at all, so in the ultimate non-fossil economy it will beat even nuclear on inherent CO2 production.)

[lbriner]

We have enough misinformation as it is that we can do without comments like yours without some kind of citation. No-one thinks that any electricity generation is zero-carbon, the question is only about the relative advantages/disadvantages across many metrics like cost, complexity, security, consistency, scalability, land-use and many others.

FOr example, a wind turbine is an awful lot easier to remove and make good than an entire power station if we eventually build something much better.

[AnonCoward42]

> FOr example, a wind turbine is an awful lot easier to remove and make good than an entire power station if we eventually build something much better.

A wind turbine is not replacing a "power station". Do I really need a citation for this?