...it's more than 10 times that of France.
The figures can be found, using the 12 month data, at the Electricity Map
As of this writing, the 12 month carbon intensity of France is 23 grams CO2/kWh, whereas that of fossil fuel Germany is 320 grams CO2/kWh.
The fact that the German economy is collapsing because of high electricity prices will not stop fossil fuel promoting antinukes from chanting (gaslighting, literally) that nuclear energy is expensive and so called "renewable energy" is "cheap."
When full system costs - the need for redundancy, almost always using fossil fuel plants, although batteries - with their own terrible environmental impact - are sold by the "renewable energy will save us" morons as a solution. There isn't enough cobalt on the planet, nor dysprosium, nor indium, nor even copper, to make so called "renewable energy" ever get to the roughly 30 Exajoules of primary energy has been producing for decades in an atmosphere of catcalls by uneducated idiots.
This outcome is because antinukes have never, any more than the care about the environment or the state of the atmosphere, thought about future generations. They are unwilling to spend a dime on future generations, because they're selfish little bourgeois buggers. The chief expenditure of nuclear power is the cost of the infrastructure, and since the infrastructure will last for close to a century, with possible pauses for refurbishment (as we're seeing in Canada at the Bruce reactors), a nuclear plant is a gift to future generations.
The renewable junk will all be a liability when today's toddlers are in college, by contrast.
The German economy is in a tailspin because of the rhetoric of antinukes, and the high costs of so called "renewable energy" and the fossil fuels on which so called "renewable energy" is totally dependent.
The fact that this is well known will not stop the fossil fuel sales people who come here rebranding fossil fuels as "hydrogen" from gaslighting the claim that so called "renewable energy" is cheap.
As for growth, I can say this: The elimination of poverty reduces birth rates. This is observed world wide. Many people have a problem with reduced birth rates, but over the long term, they represent a way to reduce the need and value of growth. In theory they would allow for economic contraction in a way that prevents, rather than promotes, suffering. Unfortunately, the observed fall of birth rates in wealthy countries falls into, as the rising recognition of the environmental and economic value of nuclear energy is realized, the rubric of "too little, too late."
= new reply since forum marked as read