
Live display of CO2 emitted to produce electricity in European countries - caio1982
http://electricitymap.tmrow.co/
======
andreasley
I've noticed that Switzerland, using a lot of hydropower, has a worse
intensity than I expected.

The CO2 numbers for the different types of power generation seem to come from
Wikipedia [1], where Hydropower has a median gCO2eq/kWh of 24 and a maximum of
2200 – much worse than coal. This seems to be based on the fact that large
areas may be flooded when filling the dam initially, and CO2 from rotting
plants is released [2]. The numbers vary depending on the amount of
vegetation.

According to a study [3] from 2012, "electricity generated in storage
hydropower stations in Switzerland causes emissions of 10.8 g CO2-eq/kWh", so
it's less than shown in the emissions chart and comparable to nuclear.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-
gas_emis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-
gas_emissions_of_energy_sources)

[2] [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-
po...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-
secret-revealed/)

[3] [http://esu-
services.ch/fileadmin/download/publicLCI/flury-20...](http://esu-
services.ch/fileadmin/download/publicLCI/flury-2012-hydroelectric-power-
generation.pdf) [PDF]

~~~
noselasd
> I've noticed that Switzerland, using a lot of hydropower, has a worse
> intensity than I expected.

The carbon intensity on the map seems to be for consumed kWh, not produced
kWh. The map indicates Switzerland imports a lot of electricity from Austria
and Germany which have a much higher carbon intensity.

~~~
sschueller
Also CERN is currently offline for the winter which gets most of its power
from France imports.

~~~
jsingleton
I was talking to a CERN physicist once who joked that the reason for the LHC
winter shutdown was because France needed heating. It's probably more to do
with economics but it's almost true. France has a lot of cheap nuclear power
in the summer, and only limited pumped storage capacity to cache it with.

------
blondie9x
This is one of the great things we can do as developers. We can help society
learn about the problems humanity faces. Creating amazing visualizations and
experiences to educate the world and potentially encourage action to solve
some of our biggest problems.

Hopefully we can drive awareness and change together.

~~~
trzeci
With the great power is connected a great responsibility to create a
visualizations that don't manipulate data and show a meaningful information.

------
mixedbit
Polish right-wing government is blocking any development that could hurt coal
industry.

They passed the law that significantly constrains where windmills can be
located. They also hindered development of solar by reverting the law that
allowed individual owners of solar panels to be paid for the overproduced
electricity.

~~~
hnusername
Polish government is not right-wing. There may be right wing of it, but it is
not right wing per se. Right wing of what? See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanation)
for a better clue about what current polish government may aspire to be like.
It may have some right wing parts of what is above all big centrist coalition.

Another issue is. How is _this_ government blocking development that could
hurt coal industry any different from what _all former_ polish governments
were doing ? But i agree that all those governments are mostly known for their
"block everything" attitude.

The website makes my Firefox browser slurp 3GB of memory, renders it
unresponsive and it crashes. And please do not color Poland black, if as
Wikipedia says (Yes I know. I know). _Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is
a colorless and odorless gas that is vital to life on Earth._ Paint Poland and
Estonia green. Green as in Greenhouse. Painting it black may suggest some form
of blame for some imaginary "pollution" which i hope was not the point of the
authors of the site. Or was it ? Come on. Don't make us look like Mordor.

~~~
lobster_johnson
The gradient goes from green to black. Black represents a carbon intensity of
700 gCO2/kWH. If you want Poland to be green, Poland has to consume less
carbon.

As Polish government being right-wing: Since it's a coalition of two parties,
it would be wrong to call the _entire_ government right-wing. But the Law and
Justice party certainly is.

~~~
hnusername
> Poland has to consume less carbon.

I thought it was about emitting CO2. If it is about consuming carbon (coal),
then we would take black badge for being leader in coal consumption in Europe.
Black is ok then. But we are not even a leader in coal consumption.

Colors are just colors, but it seems as if black here suggests pollution
(opposite to green on the scale). CO2 does not qualify as a pollutant that
easily as NO2, S02 or NH3 for that matter. If anything it should be more on
the green end of the scale. But it would make the scale seem nonsensical in
that context. Wouldn't it ?

Anyway. I don't buy it.

~~~
lobster_johnson
The colours do represent CO2 emissions. But Poland wouldn't emit so much if it
weren't also _consuming_ that much.

(To be fair, it looks like it's exporting a little bit. That doesn't help,
since it's nearly all fossil.)

------
avar
Does anyone know of interesting tours you can take of electricity production
in Europe or energy infrastructure in general? I'm in The Netherlands, but
would be willing to travel for it.

A real tour of a nuclear plant would be awesome (i.e. getting to hear / see
the reactor), but tours of wind farms / turbines / dams etc. would also be
great. Preferably in English.

~~~
dantheman
It would be next to impossible to get access to a commissioned nuclear
powerplant and enter containment as a visitor. However, there is a nuclear
power plant in vienna that was never used and can be visited:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Plan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Plant)

Additionally, many universities have research reactors - they often have tours
or a tour can be easily arranged.

~~~
masklinn
> It would be next to impossible to get access to a commissioned nuclear
> powerplant and enter containment as a visitor.

Pish posh, it's absolutely possible to visit active nuclear plants, usually
for free, though you _may_ need a small group (half a dozen or more) depending
on the operator.

~~~
witty_username
But can you enter containment?

~~~
sgift
Yes, you can. The only area we didn't visit when I toured Isar 2 was the
control room (we looked through the window and got a description of the
various parts and their function).

~~~
avar
How did you arrange this? Is this something you just sign up, or do you call
them and assure them you're enthusiastic about nuclear energy and eventually
they relent?

------
hellofunk
I had no idea there was such a widespread difference in the source of
electricity a among citizens of countries in Europe, even neighbouring
countries. Look at how most of France is nuclear powered (!) compared to coal
for Germany and gas for Netherlands. Such differences in a very small space!

I'm kinda amazed by this!

~~~
kilotaras
Germany decided to close all of its 17 nuclear reactors by 2022 in wake of
Fukushima. Nuclear is getting replaced mostly with renewables but coal remains
unchallenged[1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_Production_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_Production_in_Germany.svg)

------
Sami_Lehtinen
Russia -> Finland imports are missing: [http://www.fingrid.fi/en/electricity-
market/power-system/Pag...](http://www.fingrid.fi/en/electricity-market/power-
system/Pages/default.aspx)

Nordic power map: [http://www.fingrid.fi/en/electricity-market/power-
system/Pag...](http://www.fingrid.fi/en/electricity-market/power-
system/Pages/State-of-the-Nordic-Power-System.aspx)

Finland is currently building two nuclear power plants to provide more green
energy. Wind & Solar, aren't that great options at all. Btw. I love the
visualizations.

~~~
hokkos
You can help them, it's on github :
[https://github.com/corradio/electricitymap#contribute](https://github.com/corradio/electricitymap#contribute)

------
rb808
I think the visualization is misleading, it seems to highlight energy mix
rather than absolute numbers. eg Poland looks bad but Germany burns twice the
amount of coal that Poland does. (Per head of population its probably about
the same) Germany looks better because it has some other sources mixed in
there.

~~~
masklinn
> it seems to highlight energy mix

It's literally a visualisation of how green the country's energy policy is
(electricity production sources), the color coding is gCO2/kWh.

> rather than absolute numbers

Absolute numbers would mostly just track population, that's way more
misleading as a small country with sparse population but 100% hydrocarbon
energy production would appear greener than a large country with dense
population on 10% hydrocarbon energy sources.

An other interesting visualisation would be per-capita as it would include
_consumption_ patterns rather than just _production_ ones

> Poland looks bad but Germany burns twice the amount of coal that Poland
> does. (Per head of population its probably about the same)

Poland would still look bad, it has 40% of Germany's population, and according
to the site's sources currently produces 15.5GWh from coal while Germany is at
23.4GWh from Coal, that's 65% more coal-sourced electricity per capita than
Germany.

And the map is live and it's winter hence the low levels of e.g. solar in
countries with large solar capacity (like Belgium, or Austria,… or Germany)

~~~
machiaweliczny
Your calculations are wrong:

Population: 38.53 / 80.63 ~= 47,7% More coal sourced: 15.5 / 0.477 / 23.4 ~=
38.8%

38.8% vs 65% makes a difference

~~~
masklinn
> Your calculations are wrong:

> 38.8% vs 65% makes a difference

No, it does not according to your number Poland still uses almost 40% more
coal per capita than Germany, meaning _it still looks bad if you switch to
that metric_.

------
antr
Germany... your anti-nuclear stance is detrimental to the environment...

~~~
allendoerfer
At least Germany is not putting its neighbours at risk with rotten nuclear
plants. Looking at you, Belgium [0].

Also, Germany does not export its nuclear waste, dear France [1].

The current situation with coal is bad and we have to solve it. And I know HN
is pro nuclear and downvotes opposing opinions, but history has proven several
times, that nuclear energy is not a very good option, either.

[0] [http://www.dw.com/en/new-incident-at-belgiums-
tihange-2-nucl...](http://www.dw.com/en/new-incident-at-belgiums-
tihange-2-nuclear-plant/a-19323647)

[1]
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8117882/Protests-
as-a-train-carrying-nuclear-waste-travels-from-France-to-Germany.html)

~~~
ptaipale
These incidents are an exception to the rule where coal is worse _every other
day of the year_ , as well as when looking at the total.

Chernobyl was the decisive moment for me: you have the Soviets screwing it up
in the worst way possible, my home place in southern Finland being one of the
most affected places on Earth due to winds in April 1986, and the results are
not worse than this? Bring it on, it's surely better than coal.

~~~
ollifi
Not sure how good option nuclear is with the recent experience with Olkiluoto
3. Probably safe yes, but maybe too expensive?

~~~
ptaipale
Possibly, though that seems to be a problem of the vendor, not the power
company.

------
zhte415
Fascinating to see the potential use, vs. the actual 'right now' capacity
viewing this at 3pm GMT.

And also interesting to see the import/export power figures: How one region
supports, though nothing like the capacity needed to substitute renewables'
variance.

France is really leading consistency of capacity vs. generation with Nuclear.

France also seems to have 4 times hydro capacity of Portugal, which is
interesting given Portugal's recent 100% renewables day but inability to use
it today.

Why is Norway consuming 22GW but UK only about 40-45GW, and Germand 60-65GW,
given the great disparity in population of Norway?

~~~
masklinn
> Why is Norway consuming 22GW but UK only about 40-45GW, and Germand 60-65GW,
> given the great disparity in population of Norway?

Electric heating? Lower temperatures? Oslo is currently freezing (below 0C),
neither London nor Berlin are.

~~~
skoob
Norway uses a lot of electricity for energy intensive industries like
aluminium production.

~~~
zhte415
Thanks

------
Al-Khwarizmi
Spain right now: solar plants off (OK, that's normal, it's night time here),
wind plants off, hydro and gas plants mostly off, but burning coal at near
maximum capacity while we import energy from Portugal who are also burning
coal like madmen.

I already knew that we had serious problems in our grid, caused by politics
(overdimensioned gas, insistence on using coal due to pressure by miners,
etc.). That's more or less widely known, but I had no idea it was SO messed
up. And why the imports when we have most of the renewable sources sitting
idle? Wow.

------
danmaz74
Is Poland using almost only coal?

~~~
ralfd
Yes. Poland was affected by Chernobyls fallout and public opinion led to the
dismantling of the building of nuclear power plants.

------
acd
How much co2 is coming from electric energy, food and transportation?

One should in general switch over to clean power sources.

One way to cut down on ones own carbon emissions is to stop eating beef as
cows release a lot of methane. km
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-u...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-
up-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars)
[http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/fo...](http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/foodkCal1.gif)
[https://priceofmeat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/b8850198-f13...](https://priceofmeat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/b8850198-f130-62ec-f2a7324de64fecca_21.jpg?w=500)
[http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/fo...](http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/foodprint5.gif)

In Sweden one uses 8000kwh of electricity per year. 58g/kwh = 464000grams,
464kg co2.

Average car co2 emissions around 120g/km. Average distance driven here around
15000km. 120 _15000=1800000grams 1800kg.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_cons...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption)

Co2 emissions of meat 13300g/kg, average meat consumtion 80kg.
80_13300=1064000grams 1060kg of co2 from meat.

adding the above. 464kg+1800kg+1060=3324kg, still missing some to add up to
per capita consumption. What co2 source is missing?

Co2 emission per capita of Sweden 4.6 ton, 4600kg.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)

Sustainable co2 per capita 1.7tones. I am over consuming 2900kg of co2. Stop
driving car and stop eating meat reduces emissions about 2800kg.

~~~
tehwalrus
Not eating beef will not reduce your "carbon emmisions" (except for transport
etc, which would presumably be substituted). They will reduce your "greenhouse
gas emissions" though.

~~~
davedx
Methane is a carbon molecule

~~~
tehwalrus
But a combustible, rather than an oxidised, one.

Incidentally, while searching for a reference to the assertion that CO2 is and
methane is not included in a carbon footprint, I found the opposite:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint)

(Methane emmisions are expressed in terms of the equivalent CO2 effect and
added with actual CO2, the unit is then written as CO2e.)

My original quibble is therefore much less important.

------
jonenst
It's a nice visualization, but cpu usage shoots through the roof ! Deleting
the animated arrows between the countries helps a bit, but then it still uses
around 50% cpu (and that's on a _fast_ desktop computer. Can't imagine my
laptop trying to display this page). Using Ubuntu + firefox (it's a little
better with chromium).

Is it a problem with this page ? With my setup ? Or is it just impossible to
do something of this quality on the web without monster cpus ?

~~~
corradio
Hi there,

I'm the author of the map. For sure it can be optimised. If you can help, feel
free to do so on github - or reach out so we can chat. Thanks :)

------
ptaipale
Also interesting to look at the solar power potential map.

Of course, I knew it already: I offered a birthday lunch to wife's relatives
today. A nice inn on a hilltop. We went there just after sunrise (11:00 AM)
and left just before sunset (1:30 PM). The map kind of showed that.

(Latitude 63°40.8′N)

------
nkkollaw
Wow, what's wrong with Poland?

I guess they use a lot of coal to produce electricity..?

~~~
machiaweliczny
Nothing is wrong with Poland. If something is wrong then your ability to read
presented data.

It doesn't mean we are emitting more CO2 - for all colored map lovers see[1]
CO2 emission per capita for Germany or other European countries before jumping
to conclusions.

[1][https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_per_capita_per_c...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_per_capita_per_country.png)

~~~
renaudg
> Nothing is wrong with Poland. If something is wrong then your ability to
> read presented data.

This is, unfortunately, what nationalistic pride clouding otherwise smart
people's judgment looks like.

~~~
nkkollaw
Big time. And for no reason.

------
agentgt
Timing of this post is good as I just read an interesting paper on various
current vehicles impact on climate change based on electricity + carbon
output. I posted it here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13270712](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13270712)

The real meaty quote from the automobile paper is:

 _> By 2050, only electric vehicles supplied with almost completely carbon-
free electric power are expected to meet climate-policy targets._

It would be neat to overlay the two: vehicles and electricity.

------
melling
Nuclear FTW.

Of course, it always loses in any HN conversation:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13234463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13234463)

~~~
_ph_
Well, if you read those conversations, you might notice that people think that

\- nuclear is very expensive

\- nuclear has a waste and risk problem

\- wind and solar are price competitive and very environment friendly

~~~
notsoeasy
> nuclear is very expensive

If you disagree, and have an argument, why are you not providing it?

> nuclear has a waste and risk problem

Yes, and?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
level_radioactive_waste_m...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
level_radioactive_waste_management)

> Thus, Alfvén identified two fundamental prerequisites for effective
> management of high-level radioactive waste: (1) stable geological
> formations, and (2) stable human institutions over hundreds of thousands of
> years. As Alfvén suggests, no known human civilization has ever endured for
> so long, and no geologic formation of adequate size for a permanent
> radioactive waste repository has yet been discovered that has been stable
> for so long a period.

In other words, we have no, zero, ZILCH real solutions, and just hand-wave it
away. Future generations _might_ come up with something. They may not. But
hey, let's not be a "scaremonger", let's not be like great minds of the 20th
century who paid attention. Let's be shitty consumers with the attention span
of a goldfish. Fuck that so much.

> wind and solar are price competitive and very environment friendly

And don't forget they're not using up resources we have a a.) limited supply
of and b.) could use for more interesting things than burning them, but
instead using energy that the sun pelts us with anyway. That's kind of a
fundamental difference. It's the elephant on the couch, I'd say.

~~~
logicallee
it's _so_ bizarre that you think _ph_ disagrees with these arguments. their
parent comment likes nuclear but says it unfortunately always loses in HN
discussions, and_ph_ summarizes _why_ it loses.

I clicked your HN profile which says " Defend yourself. Your mindless,
entitled pouting makes me aggressive. As it should."

HN is a place to be civil. it's in the rules. That's why it's better than
other places. Please, improve your attitude here and don't have that profile
text. If you do, you'll (rightly) be shadow banned for those toxic
"contributions" and then you won't derail threads with gratuitous negativity.

Rather than lash out against someone who you completely agree with, you could
have just written your comment to read "To elaborate on these points..." and
then given your helpful information.

then you would have been upvoted. In the future please be more constructive
:). and welcome to HN.

------
jsingleton
This is a very pretty map! It shows that location is important but time is
also an interesting domain. You can do your bit by running appliances at the
best time. This is a post I made on
[https://energyuse.eu](https://energyuse.eu) (part of an EU trial I'm involved
with - [https://www.decarbonet.eu](https://www.decarbonet.eu)).

Saving energy in general is a positive step. For example, we've just bought a
new freezer and dishwasher with better energy ratings and these will save
money over their lifetimes. However, when is the best time to run a wash to
save the most CO2e?

Unless you are on an Economy 7 style tariff or have solar panels then when you
use power has no effect on how much it costs you. If you are, then at night or
in the middle of the day is better, respectively. Dynamic demand to grid
signals isn't ready for consumer adoption yet but you can look at the
information manually if you want to use power at less demanding times.

The grid frequency[0] is a reasonable indicator but is pretty technical. There
are other, easier to understand, data sources available:

\- Earth Notes: GB Grid Intensity[1] gives a simple traffic light indication

\- GridCarbon[2] is a real-time carbon intensity app (CO2 Modeller[3] is from
the same guys)

\- MyGridGB[4] shows similar data on the web (and includes Solar data[5])

By avoiding peak time you may not save money but you can save carbon.

[0]: [http://www2.nationalgrid.com/uk/Industry-
information/electri...](http://www2.nationalgrid.com/uk/Industry-
information/electricity-transmission-operational-data/)

[1]:
[http://www.earth.org.uk/_gridCarbonIntensityGB.html](http://www.earth.org.uk/_gridCarbonIntensityGB.html)

[2]: [http://gridcarbon.uk](http://gridcarbon.uk)

[3]: [http://www.co2modeller.info](http://www.co2modeller.info)

[4]: [http://www.mygridgb.co.uk](http://www.mygridgb.co.uk)

[5]:
[https://www.solar.sheffield.ac.uk/pvlive](https://www.solar.sheffield.ac.uk/pvlive)

------
kevinsimper
Very nice visualization and that it is realtime, the color scheme could be
nicer

------
the8472
There seems to be lots of wind potential around the scottish isles and
iceland. I wonder how feasible it would be to plaster turbines over iceland
and then sell that energy to europe.

~~~
bckygldstn
Iceland already produces much more energy than it needs through geothermal and
hydro. Connecting the Icelandic power grid to the rest of the world seems to
be currently infeasible [1], so instead they "export" the surplus energy
through their aluminium industry: raw ore is shipped in from around the world,
and high-energy refined aluminium is shipped out.

Similarly-isolated New Zealand does a similar thing, refining aluminium ore
from Australia using abundant hydro power [2].

[1]
[http://www.landsvirkjun.com/researchdevelopment/research/sub...](http://www.landsvirkjun.com/researchdevelopment/research/submarinecabletoeurope)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiwai_Point_Aluminium_Smelter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiwai_Point_Aluminium_Smelter)

------
quonn
I have read just a day ago that Germany produced 85% of the electricity needed
during the holidays using renewables.

The problem is the huge surplus generated by cheap coal that is being
exported.

------
riprowan
Italy cleaner than Germany

------
paol
Very cool. And also very depressing.

------
Havoc
That's really cool. :)

------
finchisko
Poland what the uck are you doing? Literally black spot on EU map. Stop
burning that much coal. Fix it ASAP.

~~~
timmietwo
Been there many times. Old condos, homes have coal burning furnaces. People
have no money to replace them despite aid from EU to convert to gas. Some
people throw everything into the furnace to burn for heat. It's not pleasant
to walk outside and breath air fowled by burning plastic bottles.

~~~
cesis
This is for electricity generation, so residential coal is excluded.

------
vndjvjbnvs
Would be nice to see this displayed relative to population/demand.

France looking good but they're paying for that green color.

~~~
masklinn
> France looking good but they're paying for that green color.

French electricity prices to households are below european average and half
the German or Danish prices. They're not the lowest in the EU but they're the
lowest in Western Europe — unless you include scandinavia and even then
they're competitive: [http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/...](http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/File:Electricity_and_gas_prices,_second_half_of_year,_2013–15_\(EUR_per_kWh\)_YB16.png)

French prices are lower than Belgium's, Denmark's, Germany's, Ireland's,
Italy's, Spain's, Luxemburg's (by a hair), the Netherlands's, Austria's,
Portugal's and the UK's.

Higher than Finland's or Norway's but lower than Sweden's.

And of course the french nuclear program was never about prices, exportable
industry or ecology (though these are nice side-effects, sadly european greens
never understood the last one, even now they're pushing the french towards
phasing out nuclear), it was about energy independence following the 1973 Oil
Crisis, I believe France is one of the few countries (if not the only one)
which ignored the 80s oil glut (possibly due to the investment it had made in
the 70s) and stayed the course.

~~~
wiuhilfhuegihuf
they mean the cost of the nuclear plants (construction, decommissioning,
waste-storage and security) not the price of the electricity

~~~
masklinn
That's nonsensical, the cost of the nuclear plant is capital investment which
is included in the price of the electricity.

If the country needed it due to "the cost of the nuclear plant" it would raise
its prices (again electricity prices in France are _lower than in every single
one of its neighbours_ , to which the country generally exports electricity
incidentally).

~~~
dbdr
It's not easy to estimate the cost of decommissioning and waste storage over
very long periods, so it is very possible that those cost are far from
reflected in the current prices, by mistake or for political reasons.

