So the renewable buildout massively decreasing these countries emissions are at the same time increasing it???
The lack of reliable winter-time generation is now slowing down the adoption of heat pumps. I'm most familiar with the German situation, and it simply can _not_ transition to heat pumps because there's not enough generating capacity. Even though heat pumps are more efficient than just directly burning gas for heating.
So Germany had to outright _subsidize_ new natural gas power plants. But it's all fine because they pinky-swore to make them "hydrogen ready".
A better market response is to add _capacity_ markets where operators can buy committed generating capacity. This will de-incentivize adding of cheap low-quality generation, and provide a market boost to energy storage and/or nuclear.
Go look at these countries grids carbon intensities and tell me they have been ”mostly flat”.
You do know that nuclear power takes about 15-20 years from political decisions create horrifically large to an operational plant.
What problem in the 2040s are you aiming to solve? Should we just not build heat pumps until then while waiting for this nuclear power to come online?
That would be pure insanity.
If you look at Germany since 2014, the end result is not great: https://www.nowtricity.com/country/germany/
Compare that to France: https://www.nowtricity.com/country/france/
The graph goes to 2024. In Germany since 2011 coal is massively down, nuclear is down to zero fossil gas is stable. It is all replaced by renewables.
Then you go and make the amazing comparison that we should care about one instant, rather than the cumulative emissions and progress towards a decarbonized grid.
Given a blank slate with money to spend what does Germany do today to combat their current 330 gCO2/kWh?
Do they continue to invest in renewables chipping away at the problem given todays renewable costs or lock in their current emissions, which you decry, for decades while waiting for horrifically expensive nuclear power to come online?
Just show me the pathway to at least 60g/kWh CO2 footprint for Germany. I'm not asking for too much.
Otherwise, it's the same old story: "Oh, we already invested $500B in Energiewende, and it didn't deliver. But it's too late now to switch to nuclear, so we need to raise the energy prices more for more Energiewende goodness!"
> The graph goes to 2024. In Germany since 2011 coal is massively down, nuclear is down to zero fossil gas is stable.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-energy-use-... - natural gas has been rising, even though the overall energy use is dropping. It's directly replacing coal.
But wait! There's more! German electricity imports rose by stunning 23% compared to 2023 with net 32TWh imported, total yearly generation is 585TWh.
> Do they continue to invest in renewables chipping away
If the renewables are chipping away at the problem, then why is Germany _directly_ _subsidizing_ natural gas power plants to the tune of $20B?
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-agrees-subsi...
I can actually tell why. The day-ahead electricity spot price markets are getting murderous. The last year, the maximum price rose to almost $1000 per MWh: https://www.smard.de/page/home/topic-article/444/215556
And even the pinky-swear promises to be "hydrogen ready" are not enough: https://www.energyconnects.com/news/renewables/2025/january/...
The proof is in the pudding. The German "green energy" transition has reached its practical limits. We can see some variations in the CO2 intensity due to weather and business cycle effects, but it won't go down much more than the current level.
The limiting factor right now is the fact that we have about 6GW of coal (and I think about 2GW of gas) production that's always on (those plants primarily provide heat, electricity is a by-product)
We decreased coal by 25% since pre-pandemic [0] and coal is responsible for 70-80% of the total emissions [1] (I'd rather use ourworldindata but they only have data up to 2023), which corresponds closely to the 25% reduction of CO2 intensity of electricity generation. So for the 60g/kWh we are 30% of the way there (starting at 400g/kWh). We are currently _not producing_ enough renewables to do significantly more than putting coal (and gas) temporarily to 0.
> German electricity imports rose by stunning 23% compared to 2023
That's correct but also irrelevant, as we always had the generation capacity to produce the shortfall ourselves. And yes, we absolutely will need to have some fossil backup capacity. As long as we don't need it often it produces not much CO2 (it's just expensive, hence the capacity market will be required). But that is fine, that is what regulators are there for.
> The last year, the maximum price rose to almost $1000 per MWh
It was for exactly one hour. And yes, that might still be a problem, if you are on a spot-market rate. But it's also only one of 8440 hours.
> The proof is in the pudding. The German "green energy" transition has reached its practical limits.
Again: We haven't even reached the point of renewable overproduction (which is the least one would need for any storage solution to even be an option!). This year might be the first one where we will have significant amounts of time where we will have "solar+wind > load" conditions. And this year is, coincidentally, also the one when we will have significant amounts of grid-level batteries installed. And even a one-hour capacity would move your 1000EUR/MWh to 700EUR/MWh. Beyond that it's much harder to estimate, but I would be shocked if 6 hours wouldn't be enough to push that whole day below 500. Still not sure how valuable that is, it's one of 365 days.
[0] https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&... [1] https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE/all/monthly
Just barely. Germany is now dependent on France and Denmark during Dunkelflaute. It doesn't have enough generating capacity to cover for itself. The last year it happened in November: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&... and Germany got bailed out by its neighbors: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&...
Germany probably could have managed the last year's Dunkelflaute with the existing coal generation, barely, but it _needs_ those natgas power plants because there's NOTHING renewable that can replace coal.
> It was for exactly one hour. And yes, that might still be a problem, if you are on a spot-market rate. But it's also only one of 8440 hours.
It was not for just one hour... And even outside of these spikes, the energy is just getting crazy: https://energy-charts.info/charts/price_spot_market/chart.ht... or https://energy-charts.info/charts/price_spot_market/chart.ht... . Compare it to 2019 to be amazed.
> Again: We haven't even reached the point of renewable overproduction (which is the least one would need for any storage solution to even be an option!).
My prediction for Germany:
1. It will phase out coal and replace it 1-for-1 with natgas.
2. The emission decreases will happen almost exclusively due to coal->natgas transition. My napkin math tells me that it can't go a lot lower than 230g.
3. Germany will not be able to perform the EV or heatpump transition. It'll be quietly sabotaged by the government, because there's no way to provide enough generation.
Here are a couple of studies from 2012 and 2013, charting a way to 100% renewable energy for Germany by 2050: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/veroeffentlichungen/studien...
This is a study from 2024, showing 4 different scenarios to reach 100% renewable energy by 2045 (!): https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/veroeffentlichungen/studien...
There are dozens of similar studies from academics and think tanks across the political spectrum. Everyone who actually does more than "napkin math" and doesn't have a vested interest in fossil fuels making money comes to the same conclusion: 100% renewable energy is inherently possible for a country like Germany, especially embedded into a European grid.
Is it expensive? Yes. More expensive than using increasingly expensive fossil fuels (the infrastructure for which also has to be renewed periodically) and the consequences of climate change? No, if you believe any serious study on the subject.
Yep. I know that one. It misses a crucial requirement: tons of coke and LSD needed to drug the lawmakers to let it pass.
The price tag for the _lowest_ estimate is around $1T. And it assumes that some miracles happen with power-to-gas and the transition to hydrogen.
For that price, Germany can just copy&paste enough AP1000 reactors and achieve CO2-neutrality with known technology.
> There are dozens of similar studies from academics and think tanks across the political spectrum.
And yet, Germany is planning to rely on fossil natgas until at least 2040-s.
You write this in the same week that German lawmakers actually passed almost $1 Trillion in new debt allowances for infrastructure and defense.
> Yep. I know that one.
And you conveniently ignore the dozens of other that have been published since and came to the same conclusion: a transition to renewable energy is possible and the cheaper option.
> And yet, Germany is planning to rely on fossil natgas until at least 2040-s.
Yes, to a constantly decreasing amount. That is the point of a "transition".
Well, yes. I'm honestly surprised it passed. I guess a shadow of a new war can make even the German bureaucracy move.
> And you conveniently ignore the dozens of other that have been published since and came to the same conclusion: a transition to renewable energy is possible and the cheaper option.
Your own links provide $1T as the _lowest_ option. More realistic options are more expensive. And ALL of them require the development of new technologies, which is inherently risky.
Nuclear is literally cheaper, even if we assume no savings from large-scale production. But it's not being considered, because Greenpeace wants Germany to use coal and gas.
> Yes, to a constantly decreasing amount. That is the point of a "transition".
And that's the point. The transition could have been already over, if Germany had chosen nuclear in 2000-s.
This is blatantly false. Even the cheapest conceivable nuclear (which is not realistic in Germany) is more expensive than any form of solar and wind: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/p...
> The transition could have been already over, if Germany had chosen nuclear in 2000-s.
The finish reactor OL3 came in at 11 billion Euros and produces up to 13 twh/year. Germany currently consumes 500 twh/year. So we'd have had to build close to 40 reactors at a cost of more than 400 Billion Euros to satisfy today's demand.
By 2050, Germany's electricity demand will be around 2,000 twh/year. For that we'd have to build more than 150 OL3s at a cost of 1.7 Trillion Euros. How's that cheaper than 1 Trillion Euro for renewables and batteries?
At the same time, renewables already provide more than 50% of electricity today and could have provided more, if the Merkel administration had not been actively hostile towards their buildout. And again: per kwh produced, any form of new solar and wind (yes, even including in combination with chemical batteries) is cheaper than new nuclear.
There are certainly some (very) niche use cases where you can make the case for nuclear. Grid-wide baseload at competitive prices in a country like Germany is not one of them.
Germany's emissions are largely flat, most of the little decrease has come from reduction in total electricity production. Emissions are around 10x that of France.
Can’t you even find it good that renewables are massively decreasing grid emissions around Europe?
Here’s the data:
This doesn’t even take into account energy efficiency measures lowering total grid demand.
After more than 20 years of renewables build out, Germany still has 10 times the CO₂ emissions of France. And France achieved that in 15 years, 40 years ago. Again, we've been at it well over 20 years and have barely moved the needle.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333217852/figure/fi...
And still the 2nd or 3rd dirtiest grid in Europe.
So no, what I wrote absolutely stands.
Let me cite you:
> Germany's emissions are largely flat, most of the little decrease has come from reduction in total electricity production.
Here's the data:
That is anything but flat.