> Then there's room for at least another 30% with no added storage.
It was midday, the added capacity you proposed doesn't cover half of what coal provide in the middle of the day, you wouldn't have spare energy to store. And the carbon footprint is still higher.
> A fifth of that coal and gas is being exported to france.
A tenth, see you speak about good faith and double numbers in your favor.
> And you carefully avoided mentioning their gas
You mentioned coal usage that was a lie, so I replied the real coal usage in France, which didn't have even the installed capacity to use the coal as you said.
About 10GW was used when I wrote my comment, which make the carbon intensity at 165 egCO2 per kWh.
It's 696 egCO2 per kWh for Germany.
You seems to endorse using fossil as a backup source for renewable.
> Very nice good faith discussion. You're definitely living in reality.
> Using gas for 500 hours a year while storage matures is definitely worse than using coal and sitting on your thumbs for 20 years while an EPR is built.
I don't know if you can make such statement when the reality you spew out is so far from what you even admit in your later comments.
You keep saying I don't live in reality, have bad faith, or lie, but you are the one who double numbers, or even invent them in this conversation.
You also are the one who have brough exactly 0 external sources through this conversation to backup your claims, well I understand it's complicated to do when you invent numbers as you go, but at least, show where your "reality" come from if it's not only in your head.
Faced by your own lies you keep attacking me personally, curious how you don't even try to deny you lied on purpose.
No I'm not getting paid. I'm just a software engineer working in logistics unrelated to the energy sector.
I just showed that renewable is more important to you than reducing carbon emissions which shows who cares more about the future here in the conversation.
Being able to find a handful of hours in an exceptional month where adding the amount I said would merely bring the two countries' net fossil fuel consumption roughly equal (using the motivated assumption it would all be much lower height than new projects) rather than bringing Germany's below doesn't prove you right, it proves you're using anything you can find to attack renewables and aren't remotely interested in truth.
It was the time I wrote the comment, but it looks like it was "an exceptional month", and "cherrypicked".
Of course, today is also cherry picked.
You could take today, load factors of renewables are about 8%. Ah sorry, it's an exceptional month ?
What about last year ?
Well, solar load factor had even lower load factor than this month, with a load factor of 1.5% over the month of december.
Wind energy was, opposingly, great and worked with a 50% load factor.
The solution you proposed, 400GW of solar, would not have helped.
> it proves you're using anything you can find to attack renewables and aren't remotely interested in truth.
Arent you bored to take my argument, ignoring it, and repeating it back to me ?
At least you could have proposed less stupid solution than 400GW of solar, like 400GW of wind energy, which at least produce useful output in winter.
But that would mean you would be informed and we wouldn't had this sad looking discussion.
Wind has it's own problem, the wind doesn't always blow as this month show.
But claiming 400GW of solar is a solution, is ridiculous.
You keep changing your arguments and now you fully switched to Ad hominem attacks.
I will stop to respond to this fruitless exchange since you ran out of breadth.
Cya in another thread where you will spew your poison there once again.
It was midday, the added capacity you proposed doesn't cover half of what coal provide in the middle of the day, you wouldn't have spare energy to store. And the carbon footprint is still higher.
> A fifth of that coal and gas is being exported to france.
A tenth, see you speak about good faith and double numbers in your favor.
> And you carefully avoided mentioning their gas
You mentioned coal usage that was a lie, so I replied the real coal usage in France, which didn't have even the installed capacity to use the coal as you said. About 10GW was used when I wrote my comment, which make the carbon intensity at 165 egCO2 per kWh. It's 696 egCO2 per kWh for Germany.
You seems to endorse using fossil as a backup source for renewable.
Congratulations, that's exactly what want fossil fuel firms ! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-f...
> Very nice good faith discussion. You're definitely living in reality.
> Using gas for 500 hours a year while storage matures is definitely worse than using coal and sitting on your thumbs for 20 years while an EPR is built.
I don't know if you can make such statement when the reality you spew out is so far from what you even admit in your later comments. You keep saying I don't live in reality, have bad faith, or lie, but you are the one who double numbers, or even invent them in this conversation. You also are the one who have brough exactly 0 external sources through this conversation to backup your claims, well I understand it's complicated to do when you invent numbers as you go, but at least, show where your "reality" come from if it's not only in your head.