• Ooops@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    It remains unclear where the 77.6% figure cited in Wikipedia comes from, especially as it is in direct contradiction to the referenced sources.

    Oh, that’s easy. Because it’s one of the oldest propaganda narratives spread.

    You see… everytime we talk about renewables or those evil Germans trying to burn the world by getting people subscribed to the renewable scam, we reference total energy consumption (see: primary energy intake), which is not only electricity production but also heating (often partly by burning fossil fuels), transport (oil, oil, oil…) and even gas and oil used as raw material in chemical production because it could theoretically be burned. This way you can argue how useless renewales obviously are as there’s still fossil fuel consumption.

    On the other hand if you want to promote the totally not economical insanity of building more nuclear power or any other really “smart plan” to avoid those renewable trash, you ignore everything but electricity. So you can praise countries for their oh so low CO₂ output that actually burn massive amounts of fossil fuels like everyone else (see Europe’s low carbon poster child France for example burning 1.6 times the TWh in fossil fuels than what they produce in nuclear-powered electricity).