I don't see any such restriction in that post, nor does there appear to be a way to infer that it's tied to those three countries specifically, especially because the immediately previous comment didn't even touch on France. Under these conditions I have no reason that the claims about France, mentioned out of the blue, were anything but universal.
Starting to see a trend here yet? The U.S. has more population, more area, and more economy than Germany.
Those figures (9.47 and 15.56) are already normalized by population.
With this factored in the U.S. has lower emissions per unit.
Per unit of what? Not per inhabitant, since 15.56 is clearly larger than 9.47. Not per unit of economic output either, since Germany generates about 1.5 times as much economic output per unit of CO2 emitted.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Wrong, they are more or less on the same level as Germany. Per capita they are worse due to lower car standards and insulation standards.
Uhhhh...in what respect? In electricity, the average figures are something like 50-100 g CO2/kWh for France and around 400-500 g CO2/kWh for Germany, depending on measurement. Regarding total per-capita CO2 emissions from the whole economy, it's around 5 tonnes per capita per year for France and 9 tonnes per capita per year for Germany.
Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case
The problem is that this would make things even worse for the US. If the trend isn't linear, it's going to get slowed down. All the following units of emission reduction are harder than the first one, that's what basic economic principles tell us. So the linear trend has been remarkable so far for having happened despite this problem.
That's certainly exaggerated, you can't really get that many households that old unless the population has been almost constant for centuries. Had half of your houses been two hundred years old, it would have meant that two hundred years ago, half of them would have been empty (and built for no good reason) because these was only a quarter of the population that you have today.
Those countries don't have the industrialization of France, they also import a lot of their power while France exports.
They're definitely industrialized, just like all of Europe's countries. And all of them, France included, both import AND export a lot of power. We have a lot of electricity trading going on. Even better, these countries have 27%-55% higher GDP generated per unit of CO2 emitted, so their efficiency does not come at the cost of impoverished economy. Clearly the story is more complicated than "more nukes = everything solved".
I never said France was the lowest of all countries.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Yeah, it's like words don't mean anything anymore these days, isn't it?
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Neither of those is really true. First, even just in Europe, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland fare comparably or better with respect to per KWh CO2 emissions. Second, even more importantly, there's no shortage of countries with lower per-capita CO2 emissions than France.
Its pretty simple, countries that have invested heavily in wind have high electric costs.
Yes, it's pretty simple, countries that have high electric costs invest heavily in wind, because it's cheap now. Hell, even the US invests in wind now.
Meanwhile, countries with higher percentage of nuclear have lower electric costs and prices, and lower CO2 emissions per kwh.
That sounds like a very wild statement given the very small sample size relative to the sheer number of compounding factors. A case in point, my country has three times the percentage of nuclear generation that Germans have, yet despite that, my country only has absolute per-capita emission levels *on par* with Germany, and even worse, my country emits more than twice the amount of CO2 per unit of economic output compared to Germany. Clearly the electricity sector is a drop in the sea here. Given the unique conditions for every country, merely pointing to France won't cut it as an argument for nuclear power being a GHG panacea.
You can cite all the estimates you want, which are often best case wind and solar costs versus FOAK nuclear
I tend to cite current average cases, actually. They are worse than the future average cases anyway.
Auctions don't reflect cost, and are skewed by subsidy.
...unless they aren't. Lots of auctions are for an unsubsidized feed-in tariff.
Nuclear can demand a higher price because of its relaibility.
No, nuclear *must* demand a higher price because of its high operating costs compounding its high capital costs. In our case, the reason for the high demanded price was the economic case. Since the alternative was that the same company would build a fossil fuel plant instead with the same stable output, the idea that they demanded it because they could for nuclear is preposterous.
Solar and wind only exist on the grid today due to the capability of conventional generation. They cannot stand alone.
That would be alarming if it weren't the case that nothing can stand alone today.
America will very likely be below 10 before 2025, if not sooner
How? Following this data, even a continued linear trend extrapolated from the most favourable scenario of -0.35 per year would put the US at around 12 in 2025, with only falling under 10 in the 2030s.
That's only a surprise to anyone that hasn't figured out that wind and solar power are just proxies for natural gas.
Not in Germany. Germany really doesn't have massive amounts of natural gas power. Gas is too expensive in Europe to be wasted on generating electricity whenever you want to. Germany only generates something like 13% of its electricity in gas plants. Considering that it generates 2.5 times as much from wind and solar, "proxy" clearly doesn't describe the relationship unless Germans can somehow conjure electricity from nothing.
Given the low capacity factor of wind power it's often been shown that just burning the natural gas in a combined cycle plant will nearly always have a lower CO2 output than if natural gas turbines were combined with wind.
This sentence is absolutely nonsensical. One can't make an inference like that from any level of wind capacity factor. Wind's capacity factor here is about as much a red herring as inferring economic viability of solar panels from quantum efficiency of photovoltaic cells (another popular mistake!). But to follow the viable part of your logic, since Germans generate several times more electricity from wind and solar than from gas, and since carbon intensity of wind generation is so much lower for wind and solar than it is even for CCGT plants, replacing the wind and solar power with stable CCGT-generated power can't possible reduce CO2 intensity even if the existing 13% of gas plants are *not* combined cycle plants already, since if if 13% of the generation goes, say, from 600 grams per kWh to 300 grams per kWh, but another 35% goes from let's say ~50 grams per kWh to the same 300 grams per kWh, clearly that's *not* a net improvement.
Solar output peaks at noon, right when people turn off stuff to break for lunch.
I don't know where you live, but where I live, at noon people generally start going for lunch in staggered groups while other workers keep working. Usually not a lot of stuff gets turned off. At homes, stuff is already turned off of course since people are already at work.
Nuclear power is reliable, low CO2, and cheaper than solar power.
Not anymore. At least in certain regions. Those will increase in size over time, though. Very recently, price even in German auctions was around 4-5 Euro cents per kWh, much less than what is requested by prospective nuclear power operators from states as a guaranteeed feed-in price (in my country neighboring to Germany, a guaranteed price of 10 Euro cents per kWh was requested by the nuclear plant operator as a condition for building two new reactors).
The US would have to reduce its emissions by forty percent to reach German per-capita CO2 emissions in the first place. The US would also have to reduce its emissions by about thirty-five percent to reach Germany's nominal GDP per kg of CO2 emissions. Perhaps the discussion of the problem of Germany's emissions should be postponed until the US at least catches up?
Made a point, and you fully missed it. Are you saying that German universities aren't a part of Europe?
I'm saying no such thing. You, on the other hand, seem to be somehow hell-bent on steering things towards absolute statements. When I voiced disagreement with your (absolute, and false) claim that "universities are pretty damned cancerous these days" by pointing out that world-wide this is far from a universal truth, you somehow went from my "large parts of Europe" (which I have no idea if it includes Germany or not) to your all-encompassing idea that if one European country does something wrong, the whole world of European and possibly also global education is fucked. That is far from being the case.
Uh-huh. And in Canada, universities are codified by educational charter to be places of higher learning. That of course doesn't make it true.
So nobody actually learns there any higher stuff? Is that what you're saying? And nobody noticed it, or at least isn't worried about it?
By all means, let me know when you find the repeated times that Germaine Greer was deplatformed multiple times, from multiple universities, in multiple european countries.
All of them? Interesting. Our media must have hushed it down in that case. Or maybe not, since her opinions don't seem to be distant from the majority sentiment of our rather conservative nation.
Well, actually, no, at least one of them can't. The three biggies all de-platformed him, working together.
If only there was a way of spreading information on the internet by setting up a computer to serve said information upon request... Then we might not need any number of "biggies".
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see any such restriction in that post, nor does there appear to be a way to infer that it's tied to those three countries specifically, especially because the immediately previous comment didn't even touch on France. Under these conditions I have no reason that the claims about France, mentioned out of the blue, were anything but universal.
Starting to see a trend here yet? The U.S. has more population, more area, and more economy than Germany.
Those figures (9.47 and 15.56) are already normalized by population.
With this factored in the U.S. has lower emissions per unit.
Per unit of what? Not per inhabitant, since 15.56 is clearly larger than 9.47. Not per unit of economic output either, since Germany generates about 1.5 times as much economic output per unit of CO2 emitted.
Learn english.
Here, here!
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Wrong, they are more or less on the same level as Germany. Per capita they are worse due to lower car standards and insulation standards.
Uhhhh...in what respect? In electricity, the average figures are something like 50-100 g CO2/kWh for France and around 400-500 g CO2/kWh for Germany, depending on measurement. Regarding total per-capita CO2 emissions from the whole economy, it's around 5 tonnes per capita per year for France and 9 tonnes per capita per year for Germany.
Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case
The problem is that this would make things even worse for the US. If the trend isn't linear, it's going to get slowed down. All the following units of emission reduction are harder than the first one, that's what basic economic principles tell us. So the linear trend has been remarkable so far for having happened despite this problem.
That's certainly exaggerated, you can't really get that many households that old unless the population has been almost constant for centuries. Had half of your houses been two hundred years old, it would have meant that two hundred years ago, half of them would have been empty (and built for no good reason) because these was only a quarter of the population that you have today.
Here's a nice live map. Of course the values may vary depending on time.
Those countries don't have the industrialization of France, they also import a lot of their power while France exports.
They're definitely industrialized, just like all of Europe's countries. And all of them, France included, both import AND export a lot of power. We have a lot of electricity trading going on. Even better, these countries have 27%-55% higher GDP generated per unit of CO2 emitted, so their efficiency does not come at the cost of impoverished economy. Clearly the story is more complicated than "more nukes = everything solved".
I never said France was the lowest of all countries.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Yeah, it's like words don't mean anything anymore these days, isn't it?
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Neither of those is really true. First, even just in Europe, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland fare comparably or better with respect to per KWh CO2 emissions. Second, even more importantly, there's no shortage of countries with lower per-capita CO2 emissions than France.
In other words, the US in 2016 is *almost* where Germany was in 1970, right? That doesn't bode well for the US.
You think our people live in tents or something? Homes are buildings.
Its pretty simple, countries that have invested heavily in wind have high electric costs.
Yes, it's pretty simple, countries that have high electric costs invest heavily in wind, because it's cheap now. Hell, even the US invests in wind now.
Meanwhile, countries with higher percentage of nuclear have lower electric costs and prices, and lower CO2 emissions per kwh.
That sounds like a very wild statement given the very small sample size relative to the sheer number of compounding factors. A case in point, my country has three times the percentage of nuclear generation that Germans have, yet despite that, my country only has absolute per-capita emission levels *on par* with Germany, and even worse, my country emits more than twice the amount of CO2 per unit of economic output compared to Germany. Clearly the electricity sector is a drop in the sea here. Given the unique conditions for every country, merely pointing to France won't cut it as an argument for nuclear power being a GHG panacea.
You can cite all the estimates you want, which are often best case wind and solar costs versus FOAK nuclear
I tend to cite current average cases, actually. They are worse than the future average cases anyway.
Auctions don't reflect cost, and are skewed by subsidy.
...unless they aren't. Lots of auctions are for an unsubsidized feed-in tariff.
Nuclear can demand a higher price because of its relaibility.
No, nuclear *must* demand a higher price because of its high operating costs compounding its high capital costs. In our case, the reason for the high demanded price was the economic case. Since the alternative was that the same company would build a fossil fuel plant instead with the same stable output, the idea that they demanded it because they could for nuclear is preposterous.
Solar and wind only exist on the grid today due to the capability of conventional generation. They cannot stand alone.
That would be alarming if it weren't the case that nothing can stand alone today.
America will very likely be below 10 before 2025, if not sooner
How? Following this data, even a continued linear trend extrapolated from the most favourable scenario of -0.35 per year would put the US at around 12 in 2025, with only falling under 10 in the 2030s.
That's only a surprise to anyone that hasn't figured out that wind and solar power are just proxies for natural gas.
Not in Germany. Germany really doesn't have massive amounts of natural gas power. Gas is too expensive in Europe to be wasted on generating electricity whenever you want to. Germany only generates something like 13% of its electricity in gas plants. Considering that it generates 2.5 times as much from wind and solar, "proxy" clearly doesn't describe the relationship unless Germans can somehow conjure electricity from nothing.
Given the low capacity factor of wind power it's often been shown that just burning the natural gas in a combined cycle plant will nearly always have a lower CO2 output than if natural gas turbines were combined with wind.
This sentence is absolutely nonsensical. One can't make an inference like that from any level of wind capacity factor. Wind's capacity factor here is about as much a red herring as inferring economic viability of solar panels from quantum efficiency of photovoltaic cells (another popular mistake!). But to follow the viable part of your logic, since Germans generate several times more electricity from wind and solar than from gas, and since carbon intensity of wind generation is so much lower for wind and solar than it is even for CCGT plants, replacing the wind and solar power with stable CCGT-generated power can't possible reduce CO2 intensity even if the existing 13% of gas plants are *not* combined cycle plants already, since if if 13% of the generation goes, say, from 600 grams per kWh to 300 grams per kWh, but another 35% goes from let's say ~50 grams per kWh to the same 300 grams per kWh, clearly that's *not* a net improvement.
Solar output peaks at noon, right when people turn off stuff to break for lunch.
I don't know where you live, but where I live, at noon people generally start going for lunch in staggered groups while other workers keep working. Usually not a lot of stuff gets turned off. At homes, stuff is already turned off of course since people are already at work.
Nuclear power is reliable, low CO2, and cheaper than solar power.
Not anymore. At least in certain regions. Those will increase in size over time, though. Very recently, price even in German auctions was around 4-5 Euro cents per kWh, much less than what is requested by prospective nuclear power operators from states as a guaranteeed feed-in price (in my country neighboring to Germany, a guaranteed price of 10 Euro cents per kWh was requested by the nuclear plant operator as a condition for building two new reactors).
Where America is missing is we still have LOADS of old homes from pre WWII, which Europe does not
Seriously?
Men just aren't interested in reading/writing.
I guess that all those famous books written over many centuries were just male pseudonyms of female writers.
Chernobyl reactor #4 demonstrated that water-cooled reactors lack this inherent safety.
You mean water-cooled, graphite-moderated, right? Without graphite moderator, surely the issues would have been much less severe.
The US would have to reduce its emissions by forty percent to reach German per-capita CO2 emissions in the first place. The US would also have to reduce its emissions by about thirty-five percent to reach Germany's nominal GDP per kg of CO2 emissions. Perhaps the discussion of the problem of Germany's emissions should be postponed until the US at least catches up?
Germany hasn't?
Made a point, and you fully missed it. Are you saying that German universities aren't a part of Europe?
I'm saying no such thing. You, on the other hand, seem to be somehow hell-bent on steering things towards absolute statements. When I voiced disagreement with your (absolute, and false) claim that "universities are pretty damned cancerous these days" by pointing out that world-wide this is far from a universal truth, you somehow went from my "large parts of Europe" (which I have no idea if it includes Germany or not) to your all-encompassing idea that if one European country does something wrong, the whole world of European and possibly also global education is fucked. That is far from being the case.
Uh-huh. And in Canada, universities are codified by educational charter to be places of higher learning. That of course doesn't make it true.
So nobody actually learns there any higher stuff? Is that what you're saying? And nobody noticed it, or at least isn't worried about it?
By all means, let me know when you find the repeated times that Germaine Greer was deplatformed multiple times, from multiple universities, in multiple european countries.
All of them? Interesting. Our media must have hushed it down in that case. Or maybe not, since her opinions don't seem to be distant from the majority sentiment of our rather conservative nation.
Fortunately my state-of-the-art 90's tech is a decade or two ahead of yours "today's tech", so I'm rather happy with it.
Well, actually, no, at least one of them can't. The three biggies all de-platformed him, working together.
If only there was a way of spreading information on the internet by setting up a computer to serve said information upon request... Then we might not need any number of "biggies".
its feels kinda strange having a US president saying what he thinks and lying all the time.
FTFY?
Superior performance of Intel?
Seven words: Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
(Scheme had promises around 1990, BTW. So JS is "only" a quarter century behind or so...)