Oh yes, the probability of a grid that spans from Germany to North Africa is totally not a pipe-dream. Even without talking about the actual technical challenges and feasbility of the thing, the geopolitical considerations just make me chuckle.

In the meantime, while Germany keeps dreaming and emitting so much CO2 for electricity generation (ie: 350g CO2eq/kWh), France has been (for the past 40 years) and is still emitting ~45g CO2eq/kWh. That's the difference between people doing, and people talking.

Glad we agree that end result is the same though: Germany still emits a shitload of CO2eq/kWh generated, showing the world that trying to rely on solar/wind alone is not working good/fast enough. Too bad we wasted so many years to see the result of that experiment. At least, smart countries are moving toward the right solution since a few years now: a mix of hydro/nuclear/solar/wind.

Pick more points, story is the same. Actually worse.

So your argument is: "but but... look at the neighbor, they are not doing better!". Do you have any experience debating an actual topic with grown-ups, or are you just full propaganda?

Also, you might want to look at actual facts: "Industrial production has fallen for five straight months and is more than 7% below its pre-pandemic levels. The International Monetary Fund expects Germany to be the weakest economy in the G7 group of leading rich nations this year, and the only one to see output fall."

This was in 2023. 2024 was far worse than anticipated for Germany.

This is the definition of "ideological reason".

Because you assume that the only two options are either full nuclear, or full renewables. Breaking news: both don't work. A mixed approach is the most sensible, both short and long-term.

Unfortunately, there is no proof that renewables (in the sense of solar/wind) are a viable strategy. Actually, all recent experience, including Germany which has been at it for the past 30 years, seem to indicate that trying to go only with solar/wind is doomed to failure. Which is why people call what Germany is doing a failed experiment.

If by renewables, you also include hydro, then of course it is a viable strategy, under very particular circumstances: you need the right geological features for hydro, and a relatively low population count. And actually, hydro doesn't even need solar/wind. Some countries like Norway are already at +85% hydro, because they have big mountains, and a small population compared to their country size.

Well, not according to physics laws. Germany is at 350g CO2eq/kWh after 30 years and half a billion spent. France is at 45g CO2eq/kWh since 40-50 years now, and they are one of the biggest exporter of low-carbon electricity in Europe (except for the year 2022, due to delayed maintenance after COVID; and even then, they only needed to import ~3% of their electricity usage that year, on 3 specific months).

The main mistake was prioritizing renewables deployment for ideological reasons, instead of prioritizing an actual low carbon electricity grid based on a mix of hydro, nuclear, renewables.

"Germany is proof that you can go from a very dirty grid to a largely renewable and very dirty one while tanking your economy"

  There, fixed it for you.

The solution is simple: just shut down gas, oil, coal, and nuclear. But don't be surprised when your elevator stops at night, or your fridge goes off, or a respirator keeping a loved one alive shuts down.

Not ready for that? You have a few alternatives:
- You could build enough batteries (as in, a LOT) or hydro storage (though that's a challenge, especially in the UK) and watch solar plus storage become far less affordable.
- You could rely on the one energy source that doesn't depend on the weather or time of day: nuclear.
- Or, you could take a balanced approach: combine solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear, and accept the costs of an energy mix.

Think of it like car insurance: you don't only pay when you expect an accident—you pay consistently to be covered whenever you need it.

As far as I know, Octopus Energy already provides this in the UK. They leverage the fact that to sell "green energy," they only need to generate the equivalent amount of energy their customers use over a 24-hour period. This means their customers still use electricity from nuclear or gas sources at night, but Octopus generates or purchases green certificates the following day to offset that usage with renewable energy.

That's basically close to a scam in terms of real impact on climate change. But hey, at least consumers can feel good while not doing much.

What is the size of your home, and how do you heat it in winter?

No, you can't. As shown by the exactly 0 countries having managed to do that, unless they have a) low population density and b) enough hydro-compatible geological features for the aforementioned low population density.

If that was the case, Germany wouldn't be 30 years and 500 billion euros into its energy "transition", and still emitting 8-9x times more CO2eq/kWh than its french neighbor. And given that they are still burning coal/lignite, and are actively building gas to "phase out" coal (which is stupid when you could have built nuclear plants instead), they are doomed to emit 3-4x more than France even 20-30 years from now.

Yes.

I guess you are talking about Germany? When a transition is already 30 years underway, with 500 billion spent, and no end in sight, maybe it is time to stop calling it a transition. Especially given the urgency of climate change.

In the meantime, China is doing the sensible thing and building solar/wind AND nuclear. Your choice if you want to focus solely on the solar/wind part.

The fantasy that solar/wind alone can decarbonize an electricity grid does have absurd externalities. One, no country has managed to do it, some of them like Germany having spent 500+ billion so far, and still being amongst the worst CO2 emitters in Europe. Two, its costs continue decades to centuries, seeing how CO2 that could have been avoided is stable once it is in the atmosphere, and continue to pile up.

Everythong has externalities. A solution that can't achieve the goal to decarbonize an electricity grid has infinite externalities. Which is why the working solution with sensible externalities is a mix of nuclear/hydro/solar/wind. Funny that it is what China is doing, ain't it?

China also added 37 nuclear reactors in the last decade. With 250 in operation planned for 2035.

The global picture here is that a huge share of renewables is good, but needs to be complemented with a stable supply of electricity: ideally hydro, then preferably nuclear, and in last resort gas/coal.

This is also exactly what we are seeing happening in Germany, with the share of coal/gas somewhat steady at 25-30%.

TL;DR: a working electricity mix is a diversified mix (with solar/wind/hydro/nuclear being the best one to decarbonize an electricity grid).