[halicarnassus]

Most CO2 footprints are not meaningful, because they are measuring the total and not per capita, and the CO2 footprint is counted against the producers and not the consumers.

Steel- or car-producing countries, like Germany, will always have higher CO2 footprints than the countries, which consume the steel and cars.

Of course, those producing countries shouldn't burn anything to reap the energy from it.

[Phil_Latio]

It's about Co2 emitted per energy produced. Germany emits on average 5 times more Co2 than France.

[fundatus]

Might be true (didn't check the numbers) but German coal/lignite plants (which are the biggest contributors to the German CO2 footprint) will be phased off gradually over the next 7 years. So that will change drastically.

It would probably have been wiser to keep the nuclear shut-off at 2030, but Fukushima changed that and when the energy crisis hit it was already too late to change course.

[looping__lui]

According to the Fraunhofer, German’s carbon footprint will be approx. 140 g CO2/kWh by 2030 (twice of France TODAY) if we manage to double renewables AND gas. The German electric grid cannot rely on renewables alone and we will have installed about 5-6x the peak capacity in renewables and the peak capacity in gas by 2030 in the best case. Germans CO2 emissions in the electricity sector are crazy.

[fundatus]

Would I prefer if we would have kept the nuclear plants running for longer? Yes! Is that the reality? No.

So instead of crying after an energy source of the last century (nuclear) I'm all for now building a 100% emission-free, decentralized and flexible grid. I am convinced this is the future and the journey to get there has already begun.

[looping__lui]

You have three choices: 1) Deindustrialisation 2) Renewables with gas & coal and a high carbon footprint 3) Renewables and nuclear

Decentralization, flexible grid, local storage are as viable and realistic as “cold fusion” for Germany as of today. You underestimate the tremendous need for electricity the industry has.

So, realistically: either you chose global warming or nuclear power.

[throwbadubadu]

As the foreposter said, stop crying for what is in the past now. Even if we wanted to restart old, or even crazier, build new plants: that window has passed and it wouldn't help much for a long time.. despite all the issues, the whole world could.not even sustain 50% nuclear.. so some countries just need to do it. You overprovision renewables and storage, and fossil backups usage needs will not completely go away, but diminish much quicker than thought.. it is just a scaling issue right now and a goal, at least.

[Phil_Latio]

You can't phase them all out, you can only decrease their usage. You need coal and natural gas to cover base load. Germany will never reach or come near the Co2 emissions of France. In theory it can work without nuclear by installing MASSIVE storage for solar/wind energy, but this is still all theory and has enormous costs attached.

[fundatus]

The decision to phase all of them out has already been made, the next plant will be turned off in a couple of weeks.

Also, massive storage capacity is being installed already: 1 GWh of small-scale home storage was added in the first quarter of this year alone. When it comes to larger-scale batteries Germany is currently a bit behind, but that is just a matter of time since the business opportunity is just too great. So this is already happening right now in front of our eyes.

Base load is a concept of the past, flexible grids is the future, and that is exactly where the journey is already going.

[looping__lui]

Wishful thinking that is not backed up by any modeling or research.

Our industry would probably disagree that “base load is a concept of the past”.

[fundatus]

Any inflexible source of electricity will be a huge burden in the future (and already is today to some extent). Mark my words.

[lispm]

It's a long game: world wide

In 2021, electricity production from renewable grew by 9%

Nuclear production grew by 2%. The capacity declined. World wide.

It's much better to invest into renewable.

[looping__lui]

Renewables are not an option to rely on entirely with an industrialized nation consuming a lot of electricity 24/7. They look financially attractive if storage and grid flexibility aren’t factored in.

Full disclosure: I deliver more electricity to the grid with my PV than I consume.

[lispm]

I would think that the region where I live (north Germany) could be driven two-three times with renewable energy. Added storage is a matter of time and money. Given that nuclear energy will be slow and extremely expensive to build, we'll better look for alternatives sooner than later. Plus: spent fuel storage / reprocessing costs how much for what option? We have nuclear power since the 50s, but dealing with nuclear waste is still largely unsolved.

> I deliver more electricity to the grid with my PV than I consume.

That's fine. We'll see more people doing it and we'll see many GWh distributed storage capacity added over the next years.

[uoaei]

If we acknowledge the inevitability of distributed energy storage (stationary and mobile batteries), as nuke advocates are so keen to insist on the inevitability of distributed microreactors, we might actually get somewhere in our conversations.

[looping__lui]

Only they don’t exist and it ain’t viable… You want to run a steel mill or a chemical plant on batteries? Lol. How much battery would you need to sustain Germany 3-4 days?

[uoaei]

> they don't exist

That's true -- neither do the "necessary" reactors however.

> it ain't viable

Citation needed.

> You want to run a steel mill or a chemical plant on batteries?

No, obviously certain industries with different power requirements will be treated differently in the grid... just like they are now. Doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that. Furthermore, there are some interesting and not-too-exotic designs (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32006791) that seem better suited to industrial high-energy applications than your typical lithium-ion. In fact, lithium only makes sense in mobile applications: you can use heavier (and higher capacity) materials for storage which doesn't need to move at all.

> How much battery would you need to sustain Germany 3-4 days?

Bad faith argument that misinterprets the point of energy storage to the point that it's arguing against something that is not relevant here.