If they had bet on nuclear, not on renewable energy, Germany and California would already have 100% clean energy

[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c16 = "" innerhtml = "

If California and Germany had invested $ 680 billion in new nuclear power plants instead of renewable energy such as solar and wind power plants, both will already generate 100% or more of electricity at from clean energy sources (low emissions). new analysis by environmental progress.

The analysis comes on the eve of California's hosting of a Global Climate Action Summit, which makes no mention United States, although it is the largest source of clean energy in the United States and Europe.

Here are the two main results of the EP's analysis:

• • Had Germany spent $ 580 billion on nuclear instead of renewables, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels and biomass in its electricity sector and replace all oil that he uses for cars and light trucks.

• • If California had spent about $ 100 billion in nuclear energy instead of wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its electricity mix.

The conclusion that Germany could have fully decarbonized its transport sector with nuclear power is important. This is because the decarbonisation of transport is considered a major challenge by most climate policy experts.

The electricity consumed by electric cars will be multiplied by 300 between 2016 and 2040, analysts predict. This electricity must come from clean energy sources, not fossil fuels, for the transition to electric cars to mitigate climate change.

Due to their renewable energy policy, California and Germany are climate-proof countries like France, whose energy consumes 12 times less carbon than Germany and four times less than California.

Through its deployment of nuclear energy, electricity from the Canadian province of Ontario is almost 90 percent cleaner California, according to a recent analysis by Scott Luft, an energy analyst who follows decarbonization and the energy sector.

The emissions of the Californian sector are more than twice as high today as they would have been if the state had opened and built planned nuclear power plants.

California Political Institution pushed hard shut down the San Onofre nuclear power plant in 2013 – triggering an ongoing federal criminal investigation – and later shut down the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, which generates 15% of all clean electricity in state by 2025.

The political leaders of California and Germany have encouraged other countries to follow their example, and the results achieved have always been in line with the new EP analysis, which runs counter to the ostensible goal of climate.

Over the last 20 years, the share of electricity generated from clean energy in the world has decreased because electricity was not enough to offset the decline of nuclear power.

Emission of carbon dioxide Pink 3.2% in California between 2011 and 2015, even though they decreased by 3.7% in the average of the remaining 49 states.

In 2016, California-generated electricity emissions decreased by 19%, but two-thirds of this decline due to the increased production of the state's hydroelectric dams, due to a rainy year, and thus had nothing to do with the state's energy policy, while only a third of the decline came from solar and wind energy.

In the 1960s and 1970s, California power companies planned to build a series of new reactors and plants that were eventually killed by leaders and anti-nuclear groups, including Governor Jerry Brown, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Fund (NRDC). .

Other nuclear power plants have been forced to close prematurely, including the Rancho Seco and San Onofre nuclear power plant, while Diablo Canyon is forced to close the California Renewable Portfolio Standard, which excludes nuclear power.

It remains to be seen if SB100 recently passed, which allows 40% of electricity to be produced from non-emitting energy sources alongside the remaining 60% exclusively from renewable energies, will encourage the state to save its last nuclear power plant.

If these plants had been built and remained open, 73% of the electricity generated in California would come from clean energy sources (very low carbon) compared to only 34%. Of this clean energy, 48% would have been of nuclear origin rather than 9%.

In 2016, renewable energies received 94 times more in US federal subsidies than nuclear and 46 times more than fossil fuels per unit of energy produced. Meanwhile, a increasing number analysts have admit that a power grid based on nuclear energy does not need solar and wind energy. More disturbing, the addition of solar and wind energy to a heavy nuclear grid would need to burn more fossil fuels, usually natural gas, as a source of backup energy

As it becomes increasingly clear that Germany will not meet its climate targets, it is criticized by leading advocates for renewable energy, who may be concerned that Germany's poor record in

"If I were a German citizen, I would fear that Germany would be left behind" m said Al Gore, who is a major investor in renewable energy in addition to being an advocate for climate policy, last June. "Leadership provided in the past has created a reality that no longer exists".

"If the world is serious about climate change, we should keep existing safe nuclear power plants open, do not close them prematurely" it is noted Michael Liebreich, Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

But the EP's new analysis stresses that the problem is not limited to closing factories but also choose to build solar and wind parks instead of new nuclear power plants.

">

If California and Germany had invested $ 680 billion in new nuclear power plants instead of renewable energy such as solar and wind power plants, both will already generate 100% or more of electricity at from clean energy sources (low emissions). new analysis by environmental progress.

The analysis comes on the eve of California's hosting of a Global Climate Action Summit, which makes no mention United States, although it is the largest source of clean energy in the United States and Europe.

Here are the two main results of the EP's analysis:

• • Had Germany spent $ 580 billion on nuclear instead of renewables, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels and biomass in its electricity sector and replace all oil that he uses for cars and light trucks.

• • If California had spent about $ 100 billion in nuclear energy instead of wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its electricity mix.

The conclusion that Germany could have fully decarbonized its transport sector with nuclear power is important. This is because the decarbonisation of transport is considered a major challenge by most climate policy experts.

The electricity consumed by electric cars will be multiplied by 300 between 2016 and 2040, analysts predict. This electricity must come from clean energy sources, not fossil fuels, for the transition to electric cars to mitigate climate change.

Due to their renewable energy policy, California and Germany are climate-proof countries like France, whose energy consumes 12 times less carbon than Germany and four times less than California.

Through its deployment of nuclear energy, electricity from the Canadian province of Ontario is almost 90 percent cleaner California, according to a recent analysis by Scott Luft, an energy analyst who follows decarbonization and the energy sector.

The emissions of the Californian sector are more than twice as high today as they would have been if the state had opened and built planned nuclear power plants.

California Political Institution pushed hard shut down the San Onofre nuclear power plant in 2013 – triggering an ongoing federal criminal investigation – and later shut down the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, which generates 15% of all clean electricity in state by 2025.

The political leaders of California and Germany have encouraged other countries to follow their example, and the results achieved have always been in line with the new EP analysis, which runs counter to the ostensible goal of climate.

Over the last 20 years, the share of electricity generated from clean energy in the world has decreased because electricity was not enough to offset the decline of nuclear power.

Emission of carbon dioxide Pink 3.2% in California between 2011 and 2015, even though they decreased by 3.7% in the average of the remaining 49 states.

In 2016, California-generated electricity emissions decreased by 19%, but two-thirds of this decline due to the increased production of the state's hydroelectric dams, due to a rainy year, and thus had nothing to do with the state's energy policy, while only a third of the decline came from solar and wind energy.

In the 1960s and 1970s, California power companies planned to build a series of new reactors and plants that were eventually killed by leaders and anti-nuclear groups, including Governor Jerry Brown, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Fund (NRDC). .

Other nuclear power plants have been forced to close prematurely, including the Rancho Seco nuclear plant and San Onofre, while Diablo Canyon is forced to close the California Renewable Portfolio Standard, which excludes nuclear power.

It remains to be seen if SB100 recently passed, which allows 40% of electricity to be produced from non-emitting energy sources alongside the remaining 60% exclusively from renewable energies, will encourage the state to save its last nuclear power plant.

If these plants had been built and remained open, 73% of the electricity generated in California would come from clean energy sources (very low carbon) compared to only 34%. Of this clean energy, 48% would have been of nuclear origin rather than 9%.

In 2016, renewable energies received 94 times more in US federal subsidies than nuclear and 46 times more than fossil fuels per unit of energy produced. Meanwhile, a increasing number analysts have admit that a power grid based on nuclear energy does not need solar and wind energy. More disturbing, the addition of solar and wind energy to a heavy nuclear grid would need to burn more fossil fuels, usually natural gas, as a source of backup energy

As it becomes increasingly clear that Germany will not meet its climate targets, it is criticized by leading advocates for renewable energy, who may be concerned that Germany's poor record in

"If I were a German citizen, I would fear that Germany would be left behind" m said Al Gore, who is a major investor in renewable energy in addition to being an advocate for climate policy, last June. "Leadership provided in the past has created a reality that no longer exists".

"If the world is serious about climate change, we should keep existing safe nuclear power plants open, do not close them prematurely" it is noted Michael Liebreich, Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

But the EP's new analysis stresses that the problem is not limited to closing factories but also choose to build solar and wind parks instead of new nuclear power plants.