Thread by @HannoKlausmeier

Electricity maps: I took a deeper look at electricity maps.
What highlighted my attention?
It is a Danish company but with French decision makers coming from ecole centrale Paris. Those people are typically very nuclear minded.

I also took a look at their data. Interesting is that the carbon intensity for the same "ingredient" varies from country to country. You may compare gCO2/kwh gas in Germany, Spain and the UK.
The numbers are different. Why? I can hardly see any scientific reason.

It seems rather pretty obvious that the authors are trying to push one electricity source over an other. Another point.
Nuclear is set with the absolut minimum 5 gCO2/kwh.
I am not saying it is wrong however the literature goes even up to 116 gCO2/kwh.

On the other hand Germany and Poland is always "punished" with the worst data electricity maps could get hold on. For Germany electricity maps takes the worst data abd even use lignite.
Why not differenciate lignite from hard coal and take an average value?

My conclusion is tough and hard:
Electricity maps is not a reliable source of information and is even manipulative in its representation.
I used to take a look at their data in the past but I will stop doing so.
It is obvious to my that they are just pushing the nuclear agenda.

I am not saying that those numbers are THE RIGHT ones but is shows that electricity maps is always taking THE BEST numbers for nuclear and always the worst for Germany and their Energiewende.

Those are the numbers from UBA. I am not saying they are the correct ones but it shows that electricity maps is always using the best numbesr for nuclear and always the worst for Germany and its Energiewende.

Here are the data from Volker Quaschning (certainly not a fossil fuel supporter!):

Last not least here the numbers from RTE the French grid operator. Also they have similar values for coal & gas like UBA and Quaschning.