Yes, your inability to admit that 19 is less than 283 is moronic

Except the most important metric of g CO2 per kWh. You also don't find a lot of metrics suitable--capacity factor, land usage, material usage, etc.

Also because you oppose nuclear energy you assume being pro nuclear means I oppose renewables. I don't. We should build all of the above. The issue is building only renewables will result in failure.

Only 1.56 % of French electricty is from biofuels. That would include garbage.

I am citing the last 12 months of data from electricity maps for both France and Germany. Nov 1st was only a couple of days ago. Since Oct 2025 is now included(and it was much dirtier than Oct 2024) the average emissions of both countries increased. France went up to 26 g CO2 per kWh, and Germany went up to 315.

So for the next month I am going to say 26 is less than 315. Hopefully Germany gets more wind this month than last!

19 is less than 283. This debate doesn't need any more metrics. Germany failed. Therefore nuclear is going to be required. It's a rational argument. You are just a "fanatic" so your brain is incapable of processing any pronuclear facts. Your inability to look at the scale of the difference between 19 and 283 (after Germany spent 500 billion euros and 15 years too) says more about you.

50 g CO2 per kWh or less

Because it is evidence that Germany is lying about their non electricity emissions.

I told you at the start of this thread "I am not going to stop bringing up 19 vs 283."

Well Germany failed. That's a fact!

We can also talk about German automobile manufactures cheating on emissions test.

Blah, blah, blah. 19 is significantly less than 283. Consequently nuclear energy is going to be required in order to deep decarbonize the electrical grid, and then everything else possible through electrification. Just admit that you're wrong so we can all move on.

They have deep decarbonized their electrical grid. 19 g CO2 per kWh proves it. Consequently they have the tool(a deep decarbonized eletrical grid) to decarbonize other sectors through electrification.

They are much closer than Germany is.

It's absolutely a rational argument. And if there was a single country/state that has deep decarbonized with solar/wind plus storage you would have mentioned it at this point. That would completely destroy my 19 vs 283 argument. Too bad you do not have a valid example.

A rational person looks at 19 and 283 and concludes nuclear energy is going to be required. Fanatics looks at the number and complain that I am not answering the questions, that I am bugging out, etc, etc.

I also consider that I am might be in the wrong. Self reflection is important. It is also something not possessed by antinuclear people. If Germany was successful in their transition I would have a different opinion. The problem is they weren't. Germany Failed! And no amount of twisting the truth can change that.

And since you have no viable plan to phase out natural gas(except maybe with biofuels) my correction is based on actual data.

I am doing the exact opposite of that. The only way we can decarbonize other sectors is through electrification. But electrification is useless if the electricty is produced from dirty methods. That's why I am harping so much on g CO2 per kWh.

More from you!? I am not going to stop bringing up 19 vs 283.

I've done some more research in the last few days. Apparently German builds were extremely economic along with being among the best plants in the world. Germans not only stopped doing that, but they destroyed the plants their already built. That's dumb.

And I insult Americans too! Don't act like Germans are special. But the nuclear phaseout was extraordinary stupid and will be looked at as shamefull in the coming decades.

And I already gave you my predictions for German CO2 per kWh.

Germans are idiots. You dumbfucks picked coal over nuclear. Germany would have phased out coal if they kept their nuclear power plants open.

Natrium is basing their work on tbe Experimental Breeder Reactor 2 instead of anything Russia is doing.

280±10

250±10

200±10

And that's assuming they actually replace their coal with methane.

Slow and steady is not going to get us there.

The Natrium is a sodium-cooled fast reactor. This is one of the few next gen nuclear projects that has the potential to scale. Check out this video on the integral fast reactor. The Natrium reactor was heavily influenced by the Experimental Breeder Reactor 2 shown in that video.

Yeah Texas sucks more than Germany! What's your point? Germany failed. Texas didn't even try. And no, Germany is not on a path to reach the same range as France. You can't escape 19 vs 283! The logical conclusion would be to support new nuclear energy. But you can't because you are a "fanatic!"

Calling me a liar is psychological projection which is a defense mechanism. You can't escape 19 vs 283 so your ego protects itself by calling me a liar.

Is that the only way your ego will allow you to process failure?

The cost per kWh is much lower for French electricity than German. So it must have brought costs downs somewhat.