26gr of Carbon intensity vs 260gr. Check it out live here:
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
Germany has failed, and keeps pushing for its failure so that it can turn into a miracle, and it won't.
Yes, coming from the oil crisis in the 70s France chose energy independence through nuclear while Germany at the same time chose coal. Today nuclear is a black hole of cost while Germany is building the future.
So what are you even arguing about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
Germany keeps polluting. Nature cares about co2, nature doesn't care about your economical strategy. Co2 is what matters the most, and your renewable, while being 75% of your electricity, doesn't help at all.
Also, you forget to mention why Germany really gave up on nuclear. Enjoy Russian's blood money, Schröder, people are willing to defend your treason act, even in 2023.
It wasn't entirely fossil - they used to have fossil free nuclear power.
That 78% is an extreme case during a warm, sunny and windy week. Almost half of the electricity generation on an annual basis still comes from fossil fuels. This is after two decades of effort to turn that around:
https://energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?...
The graph is a bit misleading since it shows the renewable share, not the fossil-free share. Had it shown that the progress would looked even slower.
fossil-free, but not emission-free and also not independent from other countries. I am not against nuclear at all, but I am convinced that the future belongs to renewables for a multitude of reasons. Germany should have kept their reactors running longer (where reasonable and possible) but here we are.
The fourth largest economy in the world transitioning from 8% renewables 20 years ago to more than 50% now while maintaining it's position as having one of the most stable grids in the world is IMHO a pretty decent achievement.
https://energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?...