Renewables are not working right now (see Germany) and they aren't necessarily cleaner, considering that all this infrastructure needs to be produced with ordinary industrial processes.
Of course it's not an either-or, renewables can make more sense in some places and not so much in others.
The peer reviewed study I posted right here said the risks are underestimated.
I like nuclear but c'mon. Its clear that its not at an acceptable level of safety. Large scale disasters like Fukushima can't be hand waived away.
>Renewables are not working right now (see Germany)
What am I supposed to see from Germany? They're the largest electricity exporter in Europe.
> considering that all this infrastructure needs to be produced with ordinary industrial processes.
Is this not true of nuclear power?
Should Japan be building nuclear power plants in areas which are at risk of both? Probably not. Should that be stopping countries like Germany fro building them? Also not. The same standard doesn't have to apply everywhere.
I am no nuclear safety inspector, but I would argue that there's large variance in terms of safety in different nuclear installations. Not putting a nuclear plant next to a Tsunami-coast would be a major factor here.
> Large scale disasters like Fukushima can't be hand waived away.
Neither can the Bhopal disaster, yet we continue to engage in large-scale chemical production. It needs to be put into perspective.
> What am I supposed to see from Germany? They're the largest electricity exporter in Europe.
In terms of kilowatts, perhaps, but not economically. Energy prices in Germany are almost double those in France. Germany exports a lot of surplus wind energy, sometimes for negative prices just to keep the powerlines from overloading. Lack of wind needs to be compensated by dirty coal (50% of their energy mix) or import of (likely nuclear) energy from neighboring countries.
Without coal (or nuclear from the neighbors) the system would collapse. There are no means of storing the wind energy in a remotely economical fashion on the horizon and there are no obvious alternatives to wind (at least for Germany).
> Is this not true of nuclear power?
Yes, but nuclear power isn't considered "clean".
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
Cattenom is especially great for Luxembourg as it's the only country on this planet which is threatened in it's entirety by a nuclear disaster from a single nuclear reactor.
You should have seen through you charts that the small difference can't be related to the actual amount required in Germany. Germany sells more energy elsewhere...Much more: https://www.agora-energiewende.de/service/agorameter/chart/p... The main problem right now in Germany is that you don't have the transfer infrastructure to deliver the amounts of energy generated by renewables everywhere. https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2019&month=... You also HAVE to let coal in even if you don't need it and turn renewables off because of standing contracts with the providers. Germany is still paying for coal plants that have been turned off because of this. This is the main reason why energy is so expensive in Germany. There are newly build coal power plants which will never run because nobody needs them. And the amount of renewables is rising: https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&...
PS. there is also Gas but you don't seem to care about all that I guess because I can't imagine how one could overlook that.
There is not a single reason for Germany to turn to nuclear again. Its time has passed and no, Germany doesn't need Frances nuclear power...
Wait, your country is building coal plants in 2019? At least reconvert them to gas or oil.
Otherwise I agree that the difference is small. Your country is probably exporting for cents at a dollar during wind peaks and importing at night when France sells surplus nuclear energy at a discount. The issue with many variable renewables in the mix is that you have to build excess transport capacity which only gets used during peaks. Not to mention that solar has 0.2 max capacity factor and wind around 0.45 - the difference between that and 1 is idling.
I don't get what you want to say with all that. Of course Norway is not expanding capacity. Why should they? Renewables are coming. Here and there. And if the US wants to deliver cheaper LPG, why shouldn't we buy it?
> Wait, your country is building coal plants in 2019? At least reconvert them to gas or oil.
You don't start building something like that the year before it's finished and no. There are no new coal plants planned. The exit from coal is planned and no the ones that have been finished last year or the year before and never been turned on will not be converted to gas or oil because nobody needs that too. How is it you don't get that? I gave you an overview over a whole years energy production in Germany. We're selling the stuff for cheap in masses.
Because it requires building a terminal in Hamburg or another Baltic port and a distribution pipeline. It's easier to keep buying from Russia.
What you do not understand is how energy is being produced/sold. Supply has to meet demand at all times, otherwise energy is sold at a discount or lost. Pure end of the year statistics don't mean much.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...
Your figure of 19,5% only accounts for lignite, not hard coal.