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).

Are you for real? Australia makes so much use of coal that their carbon intensity is higher than that of Germany: 500-700g CO2eq/kWh.

When the OP said nuclear and solar/wind nicely complement each other, it was in the context of low carbon energy sources... Solar/wind need a non-intermittent baseload energy source. Are you suggesting it should be coal? I wasn't aware there were still climate change deniers around here.

If you are German, you should really pay attention to what your country is actually doing.

No need to suppose anything. You can check the actual data. There is a calendar on the top left if you want to check the past days/months.

Yet, you care when France imported electricity from Germany in 2022 (the time when there were the so-called cooling issues in France's nuclear plants). I simply explained what really happened back then, and what is happening now due to the failed Germany Energiewende.

Oh, really? Please share your insights with some data.

No. They import some electricity from Germany because Germany is offloading it at negative prices during the day. Why not take advantage of that? It would be economically foolish not to.

In Europe, where air conditioning is not as prevalent as in the US, electricity demand is at its lowest during the summer—about half of what it is in winter. This means that, if necessary, France has enough nuclear power plants to meet its needs.

Moreover, the cooling argument you mentioned is incorrect. There are two methods to cool a nuclear plant: open-loop and closed-loop. Open-loop cooling involves drawing water from a river, using it for cooling, and then returning it to the river. To protect biodiversity, nuclear plants using this method are the first to shut down (especially if neighboring countries are supplying cheap solar electricity in the summer). If needed, temperature restrictions on the discharged water can be lifted, allowing these nuclear plants to continue operating. Closed-loop cooling plants, which have large towers, evaporate the water and do not have issues with warm water.

In summer too. Just have a look at the past days of the current summer month. Germany is importing the equivalent of two nuclear plants output from France, every day, from 4pm to 6am. And the last few days are even worse: they are importing 3/4GW of capacity all day long (low wind, cloudy days, who would have thought it could happen).

I appreciate your focus on coal, but let's not overlook natural gas. Germany is currently building more gas plants (5GW) and has plans to expand even further by 2035 (5GW more). Replacing coal with natural gas isn't a great solution, especially considering they had the option to replace it with nuclear power.

This is why Germany is failing and will continue to fail in reducing CO2 emissions to the levels achieved by France.

Turns out having electricity when you actually need it is priceless.
Which is why Germany is importing the equivalent of two nuclear plants output from France, every day, from 4pm to 6am. While also burning coal/lignite and gas, which makes them emit 8-9 times more CO2eq/kWh than France. For the last 50 years.

And you don't mind nuclear power either when it keeps you warm at night.because as we already established in so many previous discussions, your "green" electricity provider only compensates for the electricity you use. Which means the electricity you use does come from nuclear in part.