Wow. You do realize that solar and wind are intermittent? That means when the sun isn't shinning and the wind isn't blowing they don't work.

If solar and wind are so cheap and fast why did Germany fail after spending 500 billion euros and 15 years? Well they failed because solar and wind are intermittent.

What does Australia currently use to overcome solar and wind intermittency? Its coal and methane.

Also do you know the single largest cost of a nuclear power plant? It's interest. That is a solvable problem. Remove the interest and nuclear becomes competitive. Also grids with nuclear tend to pay less in energy costs.

Why does it have to be either or? We can build all three at the same time. You oppose nuclear for emotional reasons so you assume everyone who supports nuclear opposes solar and wind.

So build solar and wind. But also build nuclear. If you don't build nuclear, solar/wind intermittency will be overcome with coal and methane. And Australia will fail to decarbonize.

Not my guy. He wasn't serious about building nuclear power. So what? His opposition wasn't serious about decarbonize Australia either.

And opposing nuclear energy means you are prolonging the use of fossil fuels. Intermittency is a real issue that you ignore.

See Germany. They spent 500 billion euros and 15 years only to fail.

They are current at 395 g CO2 per kWh.

Meanwhile France is at 36 g CO2 per kWh.

36 is less than 395. Every rational minded person should look at those two metrics and conclude nuclear energy is going to be required.

Who the fuck cares about Peter Dutton? The goal is to minimize g CO2 per kWh which dumb Australians don't give a shit about. Australia will be burning coal and methane for the foreseeable future. This is about climate change, and you decided to burn coal and methane.

Again the goal is to minimize g CO2 per kWh which Australia decided not to do. It has nothing to do with propping up failed corporations.

The goal is minimize g CO2 per kWh. Germany spent 500 billion euros and 15 years on their energy transition only to fail. If they just kept their nuclear they would be below 100 g CO2 per kWh. If they built new nuclear they would have be near France which deep decarbonized their grid decades ago.

Australia please don't repeat Germany's mistake. Australia will not be able to achieve their decarbonization goals without a nuclear baseload.

And supporting nuclear doesn't mean opposing renewables. So build all you can.

Pretty sure I voted for the nice lady with a funny laugh, not the orange traitor.

And you can build new nuclear without laundering 1 trillion dollars across multinational companies. You have the most uranium reserves in the world.

Yes, Australians are dumb and never cared about reducing emissions.

Otherwise they would support new nuclear energy in addition to solar and wind deployments. Building only solar and wind guarantees fossil fuel usage for the foreseeable future.

Maybe you DF's should have let us build new nuclear. You should have supported it instead of religiously opposing it. Then we wouldn't be in this mess.

What isn't equivalent is what is used to overcome intermittency. In Germany it's coal. Here in California it's methane--yes we're failing too!

You're wrong about that. Significantly wrong. Crazy person wrong.

See Palo Verde in the middle of Arizona. If it can work there it can work anywhere. Also the electricity is sells is cheap.

Again the goal is to minimize g CO2 per kWh which nuclear is suitable for and solar/wind have yet to do anywhere in the world.

Cite that. Or better yet post that to electrictymaps forums so they can improve their numbers.

Yes. The last 12 months is a good estimate at where a country is currently at today. You can't use individual days or even months due to differences in the weather. You can also look at multyear trends to see where it is going.

They cite it literally on each page. They also have forums(on github I believe) where you can suggest improvements or point out mistakes.

It's a 7 g CO2 per kWh increase for France and a 32 g CO2 per kWh increase for Germany.

Best available data and electricity maps continually iterates and improves. The scale of the difference between France and Germany is presented in their numbers.

Yes, your inability to admit that 19 is less than 283 is moronic

Except the most important metric of g CO2 per kWh. You also don't find a lot of metrics suitable--capacity factor, land usage, material usage, etc.

Also because you oppose nuclear energy you assume being pro nuclear means I oppose renewables. I don't. We should build all of the above. The issue is building only renewables will result in failure.

Only 1.56 % of French electricty is from biofuels. That would include garbage.

I am citing the last 12 months of data from electricity maps for both France and Germany. Nov 1st was only a couple of days ago. Since Oct 2025 is now included(and it was much dirtier than Oct 2024) the average emissions of both countries increased. France went up to 26 g CO2 per kWh, and Germany went up to 315.

So for the next month I am going to say 26 is less than 315. Hopefully Germany gets more wind this month than last!

19 is less than 283. This debate doesn't need any more metrics. Germany failed. Therefore nuclear is going to be required. It's a rational argument. You are just a "fanatic" so your brain is incapable of processing any pronuclear facts. Your inability to look at the scale of the difference between 19 and 283 (after Germany spent 500 billion euros and 15 years too) says more about you.

50 g CO2 per kWh or less

Because it is evidence that Germany is lying about their non electricity emissions.

I told you at the start of this thread "I am not going to stop bringing up 19 vs 283."

Well Germany failed. That's a fact!

We can also talk about German automobile manufactures cheating on emissions test.

Blah, blah, blah. 19 is significantly less than 283. Consequently nuclear energy is going to be required in order to deep decarbonize the electrical grid, and then everything else possible through electrification. Just admit that you're wrong so we can all move on.

They have deep decarbonized their electrical grid. 19 g CO2 per kWh proves it. Consequently they have the tool(a deep decarbonized eletrical grid) to decarbonize other sectors through electrification.

They are much closer than Germany is.