Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(38,316 posts)
Mon Apr 20, 2026, 08:53 PM Monday

IEA Electricity Price Comparison 2026 Year to Date France and Germany with carbon intensity reports.

The data comes from the International Energy Agency Website's Real-Time Electricity Tracker

The settings used to produce this data are "YTD" which records the average, minimum and maximum prices in the period between April 19, 2025 and April 19, 2026.

The data below is all accessed on April 20, 2026 at approximately 8:30 Eastern Standard Time.

The fossil fuel industry, not so cleverly rebranded as "hydrogen from 'renewable energy'," likes to come around to claim that so called "renewable energy" is cheaper than nuclear energy. It's one of the many dishonest slogans - one could refer to them as outright lies if one is ungenerous, which I may be - they chant, and are often uncritically accepted.

Sometimes, the salespeople seeking to greenwash fossil fuels as "hydrogen" come here to report on "studies" "proving" this assertion, however this post will consist of something called "data," as opposed to a "study."

Germany, which funded the Russian war on Ukraine by buying dangerous fossil fuels from their one time pal Putin, who employs the former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, openly, is considered the "poster boy" for antinukism.

France, on the other hand, is primarily powered by nuclear energy.

Here is the data, downloaded and accessed 4/20/2026:

Germany:





There are, um, no "studies" that show that 55.44 Euros is more than 87.5 Euros.

The 12 month YTD carbon intensity for antinuke Germany and nuclear powered France are also available at this website.

Germany:



France:



I kind of wonder if the antinuke fossil fuel greenwashing industry will come around here to declare that "studies" show that 44 is bigger than 299.

Frankly, in these days of the celebration of lies, I would probably not be surprised if that happened.

Antinukes are not environmentalists, nor do they give a rat's ass about the collapse of the planetary atmosphere.

It's certainly true they don't care about poverty either.

Nor do they care about future generations. Every solar and wind plant now on the face of this planet will either have passed, or be approaching, landfill status before today's toddlers finish college. All these plants will be liabilities.

Nuclear plants constructed today, by contrast, will still be serving humanity when today's toddlers are reaching retirement age. By this line of reasoning, every nuclear plant constructed is a gift to future generations.



4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
IEA Electricity Price Comparison 2026 Year to Date France and Germany with carbon intensity reports. (Original Post) NNadir Monday OP
The fossil fuel industry is NOT rebranded as hydrogen from renewable energy. thought crime Tuesday #1
I could and have demonstrate(d) as much repeatedly on this website by appeal to... NNadir Tuesday #2
You attempt to conflate fossil fuel industry and "hydrogen from 'renewable energy' " thought crime Tuesday #3
Chants, especially when they demonstrate unfamiliarity... NNadir Tuesday #4

thought crime

(1,700 posts)
1. The fossil fuel industry is NOT rebranded as hydrogen from renewable energy.
Tue Apr 21, 2026, 12:50 PM
Tuesday

That is false misinformation. Repeating this falsehood again and again is just propaganda.

The fossil fuel industry is greenwashing "Blue Hydrogen" (hydrogen produced using fossil fuel). The fossil fuel industry certainly does not promote "Green Hydrogen" (hydrogen produced by clean/renewable energy). Conflating the two very different things is a distortion.

More important is that both Germany and France are making big commitments to renewable energy to reduce fossil fuel use.

NNadir

(38,316 posts)
2. I could and have demonstrate(d) as much repeatedly on this website by appeal to...
Tue Apr 21, 2026, 01:31 PM
Tuesday

...to the primary scientific literature.

Hydrogen production on this planet is a filthy enterprise responsible for between 2% and 3% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. This amounts to in the high hundreds of millions of tons, close to a billion tons a year. It is an essential enterprise on which the world food supply depends, as almost all of the hydrogen produced is used to make ammonia, but nonetheless dirty.

Blank assertions with no reference to support them is just chanting.

To my mind it's equivalent to the Orange Pedophile's daily declarations that he won the war he started.

I'm responding to this chant on my cellphone, and will not be able to show my well referenced posts on the topic, but since the post I'm addressing is just that, a chant, easily dismissed with a modicum of real information, I'll leave it there.

thought crime

(1,700 posts)
3. You attempt to conflate fossil fuel industry and "hydrogen from 'renewable energy' "
Tue Apr 21, 2026, 01:58 PM
Tuesday
When you do this, you should not complain much of those who view the whole Nuclear Industry as a part of the Military Industrial Complex that is tight with D. Trump.

If hydrogen production is a filthy enterprise, but "an essential enterprise on which the world food supply depends", then you should support any effort to lower carbon output as a side-effect of hydrogen production. You should support production of hydrogen from clean/renewable energy sources. If you prefer nuclear energy then you could propose that it be used to produce hydrogen; that's fine.

Spare us the propaganda. The Nuclear Industry lobbyists have that covered.

NNadir

(38,316 posts)
4. Chants, especially when they demonstrate unfamiliarity...
Tue Apr 21, 2026, 02:12 PM
Tuesday

...with the contents of science books are tiresome.

The antinuke fear mongering has had it's day, resulting ultimately in the destruction of the planetary atmosphere, and though it's too late to undo what damage has been done, antinukism is finding its way to the antiscience waste bin where it should have been put years ago.

Robert F Kennedy ain't got nothing on antinukes.

Since the rise of the antinuke cults to prominence, in about 1990, about 200 million people have died from air pollution, which is not to include the number of people killed by climate events, fossil fuel weapons of mass destruction and fossil fuel wars.

Antinukes couldn't possibly care less about this enormous death toll owing exclusively from their rhetoric.

Have a nice afternoon.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»IEA Electricity Price Com...