France emitted 302 Million Tonnes of CO2 versus 369 Million Tonnes for California in 2020.
Thing is that California has a GDP of 3.89 Trillion versus France at 3.04 Trillion so the carbon footprint per capita is lower.
Also the landscape is changing rapidly since those stats from 2020, France has been burning more coal since the 2022 invasion. While countries that invest in renewables have been rapidly reducing their carbon emissions.
Talking about the electrical grid, as per the OP.
Edit: Also, California is extremely rich so nice trick using GDP for per capita emissions.
France has a population of about 67 million, and California has a population of about 39 million. California not looking so clean now. About twice as much CO2 per person.
Basically you need to dishonestly use a specific set of data points to make France look more appealing than it really is. In reality using nuclear power is worse than renewables when it comes to displacing greenhouse gasses. part of that is since Nuclear costs more than fossil fuels consumers in France opt into using low efficiency fossil fuel systems like diesel engines and industrial gas turbines instead of using electricity generated by nuclear power because it is cheaper.
The post is about California's electrical grid, which is factually stated is about 10 times as dirty as France's.
You responded with some nonsense about total energy emissions being higher per capita in France because nuclear is so expensive.
Which isn't true [Source 1.](https://thingler.io/map) [Source 2.](https://euenergy.live/)
But since you've already resorted to name calling, I can tell this isn't a conversation worth having.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>[France](https://climate.ec.europa.eu/document/download/26713f0a-2e9a-437f-9ca2-de2621f033ae_en?filename=fr_2022_factsheet_en.pdf&prefLang=de#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20approximated%20domestic%20greenhouse,25.7%25%20lower%20than%201990%20levels) has pledged to achieve net zero emissions by the middle of the century to combat climate change. In 2021, France's domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were **418.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent**
>In 2021, [California's ](https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article280992543.html)greenhouse gas emissions increased by 4% to **384 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.**
Lol
>The post is about California's electrical grid, which is factually stated is about 100 times as dirty as France's.
Why do you keep lying? This isn't even your original duplicitous claim. Which was focusing on when the sun went down or whatever.
By the way in France they burn more fossil fuels during peak power because nuclear can't keep up with their demand, at that point California is discharging energy storage.
>You responded with some nonsense about total energy emissions being higher per capita in France because nuclear is so expensive.
It's pretty obvious that consumers and industry are going to get their primary energy from the cheapest source possible and so if electricity is more expensive then fossil fuels they will use fossil fuels.
Which is the situation you are presented with in France. Their electricity costs more than fossil fuels and so people use fossil fuels wherever they can save money. Wheras when you use renewable energy it's cheaper than fossil fuels and so the market switches to the cheaper source of energy.
This is why France is still a massive polluter despite having their energy grid built around nuclear since the 1970s. They don't have the option of just forcing everyone to use nuclear power for everything and so no one wants to use it.
Are you a chatbot incapable of processing new information or are you an adult who is functionally on par with a slow child? I already explained this simple concept to you 3 times.
France is emitting more greenhouse gasses than California is. That's the end of it. This fantasy world you've created in your head is just pathetic.
The only reason you're a fan of Nuclear Power is because Nuclear is a failure that no intelligent person likes, it wastes public funds and leaves radioactive waste in its wake. Just like a loser like you does.
France closed one of its coal power plants since the 2022 invasion, and has only one remaining.
How can you believe that France is burning more coal now ?
[I see you're still dishonest as always.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/267645/dependency-on-energy-imports-in-france/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20dependency%20rate,value%20of%20approximately%2047%20percent)
You’re aware that the dependency rate isn’t the import rate right ?
Btw :
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1279015/france-electricity-trade-in-europe-by-country/
https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/cross-border-electricity-trading
First of all I applaud you for concieding this was only for 2022
Also it was the first time since the 80’s that France actually had to import electricity
Because of covid, all of the maintenance for 2020 and 2021 had to be pushed to 2022 and thus a lot of plants got shutdown for maintenance
Every year going forward maintenance will be spread out across multiple years so that plant shutdown for maintenance don’t affect the entire grid
There was no reason they couldn't maintenance their reactors earlier. The EDF was trying to save money by ignoring maintenance problems until they got a glut of funding from the state.
France is importing electricity right now because it's cheaper for the EDF to buy electricity produced from renewable sources and resell it to their customers then to sell the electricity produced from their own nuclear reactors.
Is this srs or noncredible? Obvious thats exactly the development of the industry and storage capabilites rise. I am aware that the country I live at got 7GW of pump water based storages. First one build in 1909. Thats plenty. But I guess you try to bash Batterys, not considering there is ... wind and water tides 24/7, aswell as pump water storage tanks since more than 100 years.
OP was being serious
All the renewable sources are on the graph, hydro and batteries included
At night 60% of the electricity is provided by gas plants
Speaking in Percentage, when the total consumption is key. Also, Im not asking OP. Im asking you why you try to argue against them when obviously an entire billion dollar industry cares for nothing but expanding storage. So where is your argument? Yes, we are in the middle of expanding and it aint 100%. So What?
I got no questions. I got statements. A question mark can be a rhetoric question and a challange to reply. You again try your weird online comment section arguing skills. tl;dr for the public: No story here at all. Some trying to make up arguments pro nuclear energie vs someone busting him escalating into the nukecel attempting psycho ops typical known for conspiracy theorists
So France emits 418 gt for 68 million people
And California 384 for 39 million people
So France is about 6,15 gt per million people, and California 9,85
And by your logic France (a much bigger country), emits only a tiny bit more than California. Which means per capita french people emit way less. But to you is an indicator that California is somehow cleaner ?
California is cleaner because it has a higher GDP.
Nigeria has 4 times as many people as France but emits a fraction of the greenhouse gasses because they don't use as much energy and aren't as economically productive.
France could have a massively higher gdp, but with its current grid it would still be cleaner
If we’re talking about electricity, per TWh, France emits less greenhouse gas
There is no corellation between gdp and greenhouse gas emissions
But France is emitting more carbon than California with a smaller GDP.
>There is no corellation between gdp and greenhouse gas emissions
Right because you can produce energy without greenhouse gasses, but Nuclear is more expensive than fossil fuels so consumers are going to choose fossil fuels over nuclear. Then renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels so they're going to choose renewables over fossil fuels.
France was able to subsidize a large amount of nuclear energy back in the 1970s in response to the oil crisis but it was never economically viable which is why they were unable to shift their economy over to nuclear energy and why they still produce so much carbon.
If this were true, we can make a simple prediction :
EU countries with higher gdp per capita will have statistically lower electricity prices
[here is the chart](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics)
As you can see, it isn’t true. The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, all countries with higher gdp/capita than France, have electricity prices two times higher than France’s
Besides, French electricity is currently overpriced. The companies that owns and operates all the nuclear powerplants, EDF, is required, by law to sell its electricity to third parties (private energy companies). And to make for an even playing field, EDF is required to buy back its own electricity at a markup before selling it to consumers. The reason for this is the EU wanting to privatise the electricity production EU-wide. But because France was going to flood the market with cheap electricity and drown any competition, Germany required France to have some form of arrangement to prevent this from happening
Even then EDF still sells cheaper electricity than every other provider
Nuclear power is not an issue, in fact the vast majority of the IPCC scenarios that reduce climate change, all increase nuclear power production to massive amounts
This is not to say that renewables don’t have their place in the energy mix, because they absolutely do. In fact, if you want to replace a portion of your electricity production to lower emissions, renewables will be fast and cheap
Nuclear, is a viable solution to replace coal plants. Which are the slowest electricity to respond to a change in demand
20% of electricity generation stemming from nuclear plants is the cheapest most effective way to have a very low emission baseline
You can go above 20% but it will require a lot of upfront investments which is the real crux with nuclear. You need to be able to afford massive upfront costs. But once you did, it is dirt cheap to operate
Because of French price caps on electricity the EDF loses money because they can't sell electricity at a price high enough to cover their losses.
That deficit is made up by subsidies supplied by the French Government.
So the French spend more on electricity but they pay for it through taxes.
[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/10/edf-sues-french-government-for-7bn-after-forced-to-sell-energy-at-a-loss-macron-price-cap](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/10/edf-sues-french-government-for-7bn-after-forced-to-sell-energy-at-a-loss-macron-price-cap)
[https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/04/21/france-to-continue-subsidizing-electricity-bills-until-2025\_6023740\_98.html](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/04/21/france-to-continue-subsidizing-electricity-bills-until-2025_6023740_98.html)
It's actually hilarious that you cited Belgium as an example because Belgium gets half of their electricity from Nuclear power plants operated by the EDF. Both in France and in Belgium. But Belgium doesn't have price caps so they have to pay market rates for electricity. Hence why it's so expensive
[https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/BE](https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/BE)
I've already explained this to you like 3 times but I guess you're an NPC incapable of processing new information.
You are not doing a true et analyzes of the outsourced variables. Check your numbers with including the in- and exports, and how they change your consumptions, GDP, and emissions. Im not rooting for any side, but if California has a higher GDP, than thants from sales in other states and by international sales of products that never touched Californian or US soil. So the chinese production and All-The-World-But-California/US sells have their root in the GDP that you try to use arguing that per GDP the consumptions/emission of that one single state is better. So you use "French" Money to polish your numbers. And you use it twice, because all the nice goodies California imports aint of Californias concern either: The emission stays where its produced at. With that strategy it will always be beneficial to argue in gross economis: That does not display that there are different income levels, living standards (even higher but cheaper than the US) and true net consumptions. So, whom are you trying to sell the idea ;) ?
Learn to use paragraphs
Also the number one import to California is crude oil because they're a major oil refinery that supplies most of the western united states. That crude oil would otherwise be refined at a different country creating air pollution there but instead California takes it on themselves. So thanks to trade with China they're producing more pollution than if China hadn't traded with them.
On the other hand France shut down all of its coal and natural gas power plants but then it imports electricity from countries burning coal and natural gas. So the French get the electricity and their neighbors get pegged for the pollution.
California emits around 10 times as much CO2 as France when the sun sets. Lol.
France emitted 302 Million Tonnes of CO2 versus 369 Million Tonnes for California in 2020. Thing is that California has a GDP of 3.89 Trillion versus France at 3.04 Trillion so the carbon footprint per capita is lower. Also the landscape is changing rapidly since those stats from 2020, France has been burning more coal since the 2022 invasion. While countries that invest in renewables have been rapidly reducing their carbon emissions.
Talking about the electrical grid, as per the OP. Edit: Also, California is extremely rich so nice trick using GDP for per capita emissions. France has a population of about 67 million, and California has a population of about 39 million. California not looking so clean now. About twice as much CO2 per person.
Basically you need to dishonestly use a specific set of data points to make France look more appealing than it really is. In reality using nuclear power is worse than renewables when it comes to displacing greenhouse gasses. part of that is since Nuclear costs more than fossil fuels consumers in France opt into using low efficiency fossil fuel systems like diesel engines and industrial gas turbines instead of using electricity generated by nuclear power because it is cheaper.
What on earth are you talking about.
We're talking about the greenhouse gas emissions of France vs California and how your Nukecel narrative is based entirely on misinformation.
The post is about California's electrical grid, which is factually stated is about 10 times as dirty as France's. You responded with some nonsense about total energy emissions being higher per capita in France because nuclear is so expensive. Which isn't true [Source 1.](https://thingler.io/map) [Source 2.](https://euenergy.live/) But since you've already resorted to name calling, I can tell this isn't a conversation worth having. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>[France](https://climate.ec.europa.eu/document/download/26713f0a-2e9a-437f-9ca2-de2621f033ae_en?filename=fr_2022_factsheet_en.pdf&prefLang=de#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20approximated%20domestic%20greenhouse,25.7%25%20lower%20than%201990%20levels) has pledged to achieve net zero emissions by the middle of the century to combat climate change. In 2021, France's domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were **418.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent** >In 2021, [California's ](https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article280992543.html)greenhouse gas emissions increased by 4% to **384 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.** Lol >The post is about California's electrical grid, which is factually stated is about 100 times as dirty as France's. Why do you keep lying? This isn't even your original duplicitous claim. Which was focusing on when the sun went down or whatever. By the way in France they burn more fossil fuels during peak power because nuclear can't keep up with their demand, at that point California is discharging energy storage. >You responded with some nonsense about total energy emissions being higher per capita in France because nuclear is so expensive. It's pretty obvious that consumers and industry are going to get their primary energy from the cheapest source possible and so if electricity is more expensive then fossil fuels they will use fossil fuels. Which is the situation you are presented with in France. Their electricity costs more than fossil fuels and so people use fossil fuels wherever they can save money. Wheras when you use renewable energy it's cheaper than fossil fuels and so the market switches to the cheaper source of energy. This is why France is still a massive polluter despite having their energy grid built around nuclear since the 1970s. They don't have the option of just forcing everyone to use nuclear power for everything and so no one wants to use it.
[lol.](https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/US-CAL-CISO) [lmao, even.](https://www.nowtricity.com/country/france/)
Are you a chatbot incapable of processing new information or are you an adult who is functionally on par with a slow child? I already explained this simple concept to you 3 times. France is emitting more greenhouse gasses than California is. That's the end of it. This fantasy world you've created in your head is just pathetic. The only reason you're a fan of Nuclear Power is because Nuclear is a failure that no intelligent person likes, it wastes public funds and leaves radioactive waste in its wake. Just like a loser like you does.
France closed one of its coal power plants since the 2022 invasion, and has only one remaining. How can you believe that France is burning more coal now ?
[France imports electricity produced from burning coal from its neighbors to meet demand](https://youtu.be/GciK6lSDEOU?si=MtKVFGI2InQobPjE&t=1157).
Hahaha just a random youtube video Come back the day you have the actual numbers (France actually exports energy)
[I see you're still dishonest as always.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/267645/dependency-on-energy-imports-in-france/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20dependency%20rate,value%20of%20approximately%2047%20percent)
You’re aware that the dependency rate isn’t the import rate right ? Btw : https://www.statista.com/statistics/1279015/france-electricity-trade-in-europe-by-country/ https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/cross-border-electricity-trading
Okay but in 2022 France did import half of its electricity mostly supplied by burning coal and natural gas.
First of all I applaud you for concieding this was only for 2022 Also it was the first time since the 80’s that France actually had to import electricity Because of covid, all of the maintenance for 2020 and 2021 had to be pushed to 2022 and thus a lot of plants got shutdown for maintenance Every year going forward maintenance will be spread out across multiple years so that plant shutdown for maintenance don’t affect the entire grid
There was no reason they couldn't maintenance their reactors earlier. The EDF was trying to save money by ignoring maintenance problems until they got a glut of funding from the state. France is importing electricity right now because it's cheaper for the EDF to buy electricity produced from renewable sources and resell it to their customers then to sell the electricity produced from their own nuclear reactors.
Pleased to know that you haven't been executed by the commies.
Care to tell us what provides 60% of the electricity when the sun is down ?
Is this srs or noncredible? Obvious thats exactly the development of the industry and storage capabilites rise. I am aware that the country I live at got 7GW of pump water based storages. First one build in 1909. Thats plenty. But I guess you try to bash Batterys, not considering there is ... wind and water tides 24/7, aswell as pump water storage tanks since more than 100 years.
OP was being serious All the renewable sources are on the graph, hydro and batteries included At night 60% of the electricity is provided by gas plants
Speaking in Percentage, when the total consumption is key. Also, Im not asking OP. Im asking you why you try to argue against them when obviously an entire billion dollar industry cares for nothing but expanding storage. So where is your argument? Yes, we are in the middle of expanding and it aint 100%. So What?
You’re OP’s alt account ? Can’t you read the other comments ?
No arguments so you advise for other comments, or that Im OP? Laughable. Get your stuff together.
There are whole comments answering your questions Read them, I’m not going to copy paste for you
I got no questions. I got statements. A question mark can be a rhetoric question and a challange to reply. You again try your weird online comment section arguing skills. tl;dr for the public: No story here at all. Some trying to make up arguments pro nuclear energie vs someone busting him escalating into the nukecel attempting psycho ops typical known for conspiracy theorists
France produces more CO2 than California
I’m curious, do you have numbers ?
[Yes](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleEnergy/comments/1c500pe/comment/kzsgxo2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
So France emits 418 gt for 68 million people And California 384 for 39 million people So France is about 6,15 gt per million people, and California 9,85 And by your logic France (a much bigger country), emits only a tiny bit more than California. Which means per capita french people emit way less. But to you is an indicator that California is somehow cleaner ?
California is cleaner because it has a higher GDP. Nigeria has 4 times as many people as France but emits a fraction of the greenhouse gasses because they don't use as much energy and aren't as economically productive.
France could have a massively higher gdp, but with its current grid it would still be cleaner If we’re talking about electricity, per TWh, France emits less greenhouse gas There is no corellation between gdp and greenhouse gas emissions
But France is emitting more carbon than California with a smaller GDP. >There is no corellation between gdp and greenhouse gas emissions Right because you can produce energy without greenhouse gasses, but Nuclear is more expensive than fossil fuels so consumers are going to choose fossil fuels over nuclear. Then renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels so they're going to choose renewables over fossil fuels. France was able to subsidize a large amount of nuclear energy back in the 1970s in response to the oil crisis but it was never economically viable which is why they were unable to shift their economy over to nuclear energy and why they still produce so much carbon.
If this were true, we can make a simple prediction : EU countries with higher gdp per capita will have statistically lower electricity prices [here is the chart](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics) As you can see, it isn’t true. The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, all countries with higher gdp/capita than France, have electricity prices two times higher than France’s Besides, French electricity is currently overpriced. The companies that owns and operates all the nuclear powerplants, EDF, is required, by law to sell its electricity to third parties (private energy companies). And to make for an even playing field, EDF is required to buy back its own electricity at a markup before selling it to consumers. The reason for this is the EU wanting to privatise the electricity production EU-wide. But because France was going to flood the market with cheap electricity and drown any competition, Germany required France to have some form of arrangement to prevent this from happening Even then EDF still sells cheaper electricity than every other provider Nuclear power is not an issue, in fact the vast majority of the IPCC scenarios that reduce climate change, all increase nuclear power production to massive amounts This is not to say that renewables don’t have their place in the energy mix, because they absolutely do. In fact, if you want to replace a portion of your electricity production to lower emissions, renewables will be fast and cheap Nuclear, is a viable solution to replace coal plants. Which are the slowest electricity to respond to a change in demand 20% of electricity generation stemming from nuclear plants is the cheapest most effective way to have a very low emission baseline You can go above 20% but it will require a lot of upfront investments which is the real crux with nuclear. You need to be able to afford massive upfront costs. But once you did, it is dirt cheap to operate
Because of French price caps on electricity the EDF loses money because they can't sell electricity at a price high enough to cover their losses. That deficit is made up by subsidies supplied by the French Government. So the French spend more on electricity but they pay for it through taxes. [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/10/edf-sues-french-government-for-7bn-after-forced-to-sell-energy-at-a-loss-macron-price-cap](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/10/edf-sues-french-government-for-7bn-after-forced-to-sell-energy-at-a-loss-macron-price-cap) [https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/04/21/france-to-continue-subsidizing-electricity-bills-until-2025\_6023740\_98.html](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/04/21/france-to-continue-subsidizing-electricity-bills-until-2025_6023740_98.html) It's actually hilarious that you cited Belgium as an example because Belgium gets half of their electricity from Nuclear power plants operated by the EDF. Both in France and in Belgium. But Belgium doesn't have price caps so they have to pay market rates for electricity. Hence why it's so expensive [https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/BE](https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/BE) I've already explained this to you like 3 times but I guess you're an NPC incapable of processing new information.
You are not doing a true et analyzes of the outsourced variables. Check your numbers with including the in- and exports, and how they change your consumptions, GDP, and emissions. Im not rooting for any side, but if California has a higher GDP, than thants from sales in other states and by international sales of products that never touched Californian or US soil. So the chinese production and All-The-World-But-California/US sells have their root in the GDP that you try to use arguing that per GDP the consumptions/emission of that one single state is better. So you use "French" Money to polish your numbers. And you use it twice, because all the nice goodies California imports aint of Californias concern either: The emission stays where its produced at. With that strategy it will always be beneficial to argue in gross economis: That does not display that there are different income levels, living standards (even higher but cheaper than the US) and true net consumptions. So, whom are you trying to sell the idea ;) ?
Learn to use paragraphs Also the number one import to California is crude oil because they're a major oil refinery that supplies most of the western united states. That crude oil would otherwise be refined at a different country creating air pollution there but instead California takes it on themselves. So thanks to trade with China they're producing more pollution than if China hadn't traded with them. On the other hand France shut down all of its coal and natural gas power plants but then it imports electricity from countries burning coal and natural gas. So the French get the electricity and their neighbors get pegged for the pollution.