It's 510 g CO2/kwh in Germany, 100 g CO2/kwh in France. (5:15 PM, US EST 01/23/2022).
Electricity Map.
Wind energy is producing 4.98 real GW as opposed to a theoretical peak capacity of 56.8 GW, in practice never attained.
Solar is producing 0.00 energy as opposed to an (also) theoretical peak capacity 56.8 GW, in practice never attained.
45.07% of German electricity is provided from burning coal, (25.6 GW), and 18.31% of German electricity is being provided by burning natural gas (10.4 GW).
I love, as much as anyone, to play "cherry pick."
Great game, that:
Many people here loved to report, way back in the early years, "percent talk" wherein they gleefully reported some instance in some country where so called "renewable energy" was producing more energy than nuclear energy for some subset of the day.
The Germans have a word in their language to describe the situation now being observed in their country: Dunkelflaute. They need it.
If Dunkelflaute persists for a period of 24 hours, and the coal combustion continues at the same or nearly the same rate, Germany will have generated 0.6144 TWh of coal electricity. If they burned hard coal, the associated death toll, using the chart from the Lancet publication reproduced in Post #14, 24.5 deaths/TWh, 16 (15.6) Europeans will lose their lives as a result of the German Nuclear Phase Out, an annualized death rate of 5700 dead. If they burned lignite, the associated death toll, using the chart from the Lancet publication reproduced in Post #14, 32.6 deaths/TWh, 20 (15.6) Europeans will lose their lives as a result of the German Nuclear Phase Out, an annualized death rate of 7300 dead.
The Germans shut the majority of 56.8 GW of nuclear power available before the famous, or rather, infamous, nuclear phase out. If they'd kept it they wouldn't be burning coal and gas and dumping the waste directly into the planetary atmosphere. if they had kept their nuclear capacity on line, they could easily have produced the 36 GW of electrical power now being produced using dangerous fossil fuels.
If they had generated the electricity using nuclear power, the associated death toll, using the chart from the Lancet publication reproduced in Post #14, 0.019 deaths/TWh, it would take about 100 days for a single European will lose his or her life, to produce an annualized rate of 6 deaths.
As a result of the German Nuclear Phase Out, an annualized death suggest a loss of life somewhere between 5,000 to 7,000 deaths per year.
Wunderbar!
Wouldn't this be a great time to comment on the insurance policy of the people dismantling the Three Mile Island reactor? Would this be a great time to tell me what I've been hearing here for 19 years, that nuclear energy "takes too long to build," even though the wind and solar industry, defined as "fast," and "easy" and "cheap" to build have never, not once, after decades of cheering produced the 29 exajoules/year of energy that nuclear energy has been reliably been producing since the 1990's throughout the world, this in an atmosphere of continuous attack by ersatz "environmentalists."
Am I forgetting any anti-nuke shibboleths that get dragged out again and again, both by straight up anti-nukes and "I'm not an anti-nuke" anti-nukes while Dunkeflaute connected with the wonderful world of Energiewende kills people?
= new reply since forum marked as read