EU's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Continue To Fall As Coal Ditched (theguardian.com) 152
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Greenhouse gas emissions in the EU continued their fall in 2018, the latest year for which comprehensive data is available, according to a new report from Europe's environment watchdog. Emissions fell by 2.1% compared with 2017, to a level 23% lower than in 1990, the baseline for the bloc's emission cuts under the UN's climate agreements. If the UK is excluded, the decline since 1990 was smaller, standing at 20.7%.
The continuing fall, revealed in a report by the European Environment Agency, came as the result of EU-wide and country-specific policies, with energy generation showing the biggest decline in emissions as coal was phased out further and renewable power increased. Carbon dioxide emissions from transport flattened off in 2018, after rising for the previous four years, giving hope that this major source of emissions may be brought under control. However, emissions must be brought down much further and faster to satisfy the EU's obligations under the Paris agreement, campaigners said. Annual falls of about 7% are estimated to be needed to keep global heating within the Paris upper limit of 2C above pre-industrial levels.
The continuing fall, revealed in a report by the European Environment Agency, came as the result of EU-wide and country-specific policies, with energy generation showing the biggest decline in emissions as coal was phased out further and renewable power increased. Carbon dioxide emissions from transport flattened off in 2018, after rising for the previous four years, giving hope that this major source of emissions may be brought under control. However, emissions must be brought down much further and faster to satisfy the EU's obligations under the Paris agreement, campaigners said. Annual falls of about 7% are estimated to be needed to keep global heating within the Paris upper limit of 2C above pre-industrial levels.
RIP Coal (Score:2)
Whatever you think of Gerbil Worming, it's good to see coal use decline. It's dangerous to mine, nasty to burn, and has killed far more people than nuclear power. Even for industrial use where primary thermal power is needed (e.g. blast furnaces), there are better options than coal these days.
Re:RIP Coal (Score:5, Informative)
where primary thermal power is needed (e.g. blast furnaces)
The coke (made from metallurgical anthracite coal) in blast furnaces does not just provide heat. It is also a reactant in the production of steel. It will not be so easy to replace.
Re:RIP Coal (Score:4, Interesting)
where primary thermal power is needed (e.g. blast furnaces)
The coke (made from metallurgical anthracite coal) in blast furnaces does not just provide heat. It is also a reactant in the production of steel. It will not be so easy to replace.
According to the World Coal Association the average blast furnace uses about 600kg of coking coal to produce a metric ton of steel. Meanwhile the more advanced electric arc furnace needs just 16kg. Furthermore, used car tyres can apparently be used as a coke substitute. Electric arc furnaces are also cheaper, easier to build and with carbon neutral energy sources the carbon footprint of arc furnaces falls of a cliff.
Re: (Score:3)
Arc furnaces aren't used for normal steel production at scale, though. They're used for specialty foundries, where higher alloy content is the goal, and generally use scrap steel as input. I'm guessing they're more expensive, or otherwise inappropriate, for mundane steel.
Re: (Score:3)
Electric arc furnaces don't make steel from ore. They reprocess scrap iron.
Electric arc furnaces and blast furnaces have different purposes. One does not replace the other.
Here is the formula from making iron from ore+coke:
2Fe2O3 + 3C =>. 4Fe + 3CO2
You aren't going to do that without carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but you can do it with Natural Gas rather than Coal. The gas is cheaper, more efficient (to get the Carbon Monoxide which is the primary reaction used when reducing iron oxide) and also provides carbon. It has the added benefit that it doesn’t contain any sulfur, or other contaminants that are normally found in coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Natural gas is only cheaper in few selected countries like the USA and Russia. Everywhere else coal is cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Will coal remain cheaper than natural gas with the USA and Russia exporting so much natural gas?
Re: (Score:2)
Will coal remain cheaper than natural gas with the USA and Russia exporting so much natural gas?
Russian gas exports are mostly compressed and transported via pipelines.
American gas exports are mostly liquefied and transported by tanker.
Either way, there is a significant transport cost, which makes gas more expensive in importing countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever you think of Gerbil Worming, it's good to see coal use decline. It's dangerous to mine, nasty to burn, and has killed far more people than nuclear power.
Every energy source used today has killed more people than nuclear power when compared to total energy output.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever you think of Gerbil Worming, , it's good to see coal use decline. It's dangerous to mine[...]
I mean I guess, but people who can't accept global warming is a thing by this point are clearly impervious to facts, reason and reality in general so why would they believe any of those particular things bout coal?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I guess, but people who can't accept Jesus into their lives by this point are clearly impervious to facts, reason and reality in general so why would they believe any of those particular things bout coal?
Yup, just as convincing. You want to persuade people, you need to make an argument.
That's OK - China will help! (Score:2)
Re:That's OK - China will help! (Score:4, Informative)
China's per capita emissions are small..
This is a really good graph that tells the story well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
China's per capita emissions are small..
But they're still mostly rural, for all that the bigger Chinese cities dwarf anything in the US. Industrialization is an ongoing process there. Their emissions will continue to rise as their progress continues.
Re:That's OK - China will help! (Score:5, Interesting)
China's emissions will still grow before they begin to decline. But China is making progress. They are the number one installer of wind and solar. They are building nukes. They are starting the conversion to electric vehicles.
The bigger future sources of emissions growth are in India, Africa, and Indonesia. India is starting a crazy number of massive new coal power plants. It would be WAY more cost-effective for the 1st world to help India build wind/solar/nukes instead of making marginal progress at home.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:That's OK - China will help! (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate is neither happy or unhappy.
CO2 doesn't get there by itself. People put it there.
How about we focus on the people who cause the most. Not some place with more people.
America produces more CO2 than Europe because individual Americans produce more than individual Europeans. Unless your plan is to kill people. The only other option is to have the people pollute less.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate is neither happy or unhappy.
CO2 doesn't get there by itself. People put it there.
How about we focus on the people who cause the most. Not some place with more people. America produces more CO2 than Europe because individual Americans produce more than individual Europeans. Unless your plan is to kill people. The only other option is to have the people pollute less.
And thus we should consider China even stronger, because it produces more CO2 than America and the EU - combined.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Canadian. Perhaps the US and China should reduce their CO2 outputs to Canada's level.
That seems fair, yeah?
That's the sound of inevitability.... (Score:2)
I'm Canadian. Perhaps the US and China should reduce their CO2 outputs to Canada's level.
That seems fair, yeah?
Not every country is so blessed with hydroelectric power as Canada. The USA was at one time but the population grew beyond our ability to dam rivers. It also helps that Canada has lots of nuclear power reactors, it's in the top 20 nations in percentage of electricity produced by nuclear. Canada also gets a fair bit of energy from wind.
So, sure, let's follow Canada's example. In fact I've been asking for it for a long time. I realized I don't have to ask any more, it's quite apparent that this is inevit
Re: That's the sound of inevitability.... (Score:2)
Canada's per capita CO2 usage is pretty high.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's been uncomfortably warm the past few days. July looks like it's going to be killer.
Nice dodge though. I guess you don't want to discuss how the US's CO2 emissions are 10 times Canada's? Of course, both look absolutely insane compared to a country like Liechtenstein.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You guys are at more than 10x what we are, so you'll need to do more than a percent or so a year. Get moving.
Once you get down to our level, we can both work on matching the Faroe Islands eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone finally took the bait. Yeah, per capita emissions matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I'd rather live on permafrost than in the swamp that'll replace it. Especially if my house is already there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're just looking ahead because they don't want the US to become their Mexico, flooding them with refugees who can't survive in their own country.
Re:That's OK - China will help! (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider the lifestyles of Americans Chinese and Indians. Which is worse for the planet.
China 7 America 15 India 2 [worldometers.info]
Currently 3 billion people, 18 billion tons of CO2
What if everyone behaves and pollutes like an Indian?
3 x 2 = 6 billion tons of CO2 crisis over.
What if everyone behaves like a Chinese person?
3 x 7 = 21 billion tons of CO2 things are getting a bit worse.
What if everyone behaves like an American?
3 x 15 = 45 billion tons of CO2 we are all completely fucked.
It's clear behaving like an American is terrible.
Now you explain why it's ok for Americans to behave and pollute like Americans. But it's bad if Chinese or Indian people do it.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, but so is the other side.
For the climate, total emissions matter.
But for the politics required to get those emissions down, it's a hard sell to tell country X that they need to cut their emissions if they are putting out 3 units of the bad stuff per citizen, while you who is telling them to cut it are putting out 30 units. Even if their total is higher because they have so many more people.
Re: (Score:2)
You could tell them that they need to do something about their population size, but China has been there and done that in a massive way with the one child program.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. And also, they simply might be a larger country. Russia, for example, has a higher population than any European country - but it's also several times bigger and its population density is much lower than any European country.
Re: (Score:2)
China's emissions are like the US's infection rates: Still rising rapidly. Comparing either at their current levels and saying that it ain't as bad as in the other country so there's no need to worry is dangerously misleading.
Re:That's OK - China will help! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just lines on a map.
If China was 4 countries with the same exact people doing the same exact thing. All four 'countries' would have more people than America, and would all be producing less CO2 than America.
America would become the new bogeyman.
America would be the largest polluter both in per capita and absolute numbers.
Does it help at all? No of course not.
Would you start calling for America to reduce its CO2 though?
Probably not. Americans are somehow entitled to do it.
Lines on a map mean nothing for global CO2. Only each person adding to the total does. And an American person adds more than a Chinese person, a lot more than a European and a fuckton more than an Indian.
It's easy to tell who is responsible..
Re: (Score:2)
Their emissions more than offset this cut [theguardian.com], so we're guaranteed to have more CO2 and any resulting warming. Do what you want, EU - China's gonna keep pushing those emissions higher!
China's emissions per energy demand are rising far slower than any other nations ever did. But I guess your answer to Global warming is to ensure some poor people stay poor while making those poor people manufacture your stuff for you so the numbers look even worse for them right?
I get it too, I am also a white privileged rich fuck. The only difference is I can get cigars shipped here from Cuba legally so I can look like a proper arsehole. But I get you man. I totally get you.
20% is pathetic (Score:2)
We need to stop emitting all CO2 ASAP. 20% over 30 years does not cut it.
That said they started from a relatively low base line. Here in Australia we are almost beating the USA in per capita emissions, and it does snow here (much).
Re:20% is pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
We need to stop emitting all CO2 ASAP.
You first. Maybe you want to walk that statement back, at least a little? Not holding my breath for that, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, holding your breath would cut back CO2 production. Not by a lot, but hey, we appreciate the effort.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We need to stop emitting all CO2 ASAP.
Yep. Can we use nuclear power to speed this along? No? Then I question just how much of a need there is to lower our CO2. I'll take this CO2 emission problem seriously when there's an agreement on the need for more nuclear power.
20% over 30 years does not cut it.
I believe it does. This is not a problem that is measured in years. Or even decades. We have at least a century before our CO2 output is a problem. If you disagree then I'll ask again, can we use nuclear power to lower our CO2 emissions? No? Then if you fear nuclear power
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree, I don't think that's currently possible. The name I have for what we need to do is "nearly closed ecosystem". Currently we can't do it. We should be researching ways to do it cheaply.
FWIW, my original reason for desiring this was to enable stable space habitats, but a habitable planet is just a space habitat writ large. When I realized that my desire for a "nearly closed ecosystem" didn't become any smaller.
I strongly suspect that Earth is beyond it's carrying capacity in humans with A
coal (Score:3)
Everybody knows that coal is shitty in regards to pollution.
And yes, Germany recently opened a huge new coal power plant. That's the same government that is celebrated outside of Germany as being so green (pre-corona) or so well-prepared (err... no? the government completely fucked this one up, but the health care system hasn't yet been completely demolished because it has fought back against the government for a decade).
When you read the next time about how cool Merkel is, keep that in mind. Her government has not a single minister who knows anything about the field he or she is assigned to, has made coal a priority, and got through Corona despite, not because of itself.
Fortunately, recently the local government is acting against the federal government and has plans to shut the plant down - you can read about the plant and its history here: https://www.zeit.de/hamburg/20... [www.zeit.de]
Pictures are here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] - and yes, that's a major city in the background, they put that right there, who cares about air quality.
That's what's going on with coal. Everyone with three brain cells wants to get rid of it, but governments under the influence of lobbyists and afraid to cut a few thousand coal miners' jobs are actually building new coal power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
While agree that the new plant (Datteln 4) does not make sense, this is also fair to point
out that coal use is declining in Germany:
lignite and coal electricity production in Germany from 1990 - 2019 in TWh
lignite: 170,9 142,6 148,3 154,1 145,9 150,1 160,7 160,9 155,8 154,5 149,5 148,4 145,6 113,9
coal: 140,8 147,1 143,1 134,1 117,0 112,4 116,4 127,3 118,6 117,7 112,2 92,9 82,6 57,3
Re: (Score:2)
Also I would say that the English press is far more negative about the energy transition in Germany than the German press or the German population, and that this negativity is usually backed up by something I can only call lies: E.g. it is often claimed that Germany expands coal use (you also imply this in your post), which is not true as the numbers clearly show. It is claimed that Germany relies in electricity imports, which is also not true, etc.
The demand for wind turbines and PV was initially created m
Re: (Score:2)
I had a look at Tom's Whackypedia link and - according to that - the local CDU pushed the owners to build it twice as large as they had originally planned, this was in 2005. I think the mayor was from the CDU then, the current mayor is from the SPD. Let's say the CDU's "green credentials" were a lot weaker back then, the party has changed a lot in the intervening 15 years.
(Searching on "hamburger senat", the first result was "Hamburger Senat on Ebay" which is rather worrying if true).
The links in the arti
Re: (Score:2)
Germany has closed far more coal plants than it opened. The new ones are replacing multiple old one and are designed to better support renewables, i.e. able to ramp up and down faster, as well as producing less pollution.
They will still have to go in the long run but even Germany isn't willing to transition faster than that.
Having said that you are right about the Moorburg plant, it's been a disaster from start to finish and is currently crippled because they didn't bother doing a proper environmental impac
Re: (Score:2)
Germany has closed far more coal plants than it opened.
I fail to see how opening any new coal fired power plant is helping. As I recall the goal was to be free of coal as soon as possible. A coal plant of any size is built on the plan to operate it for decades. Opening a new coal plant now means Germany will fail to reach their CO2 reduction goals.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You recall wrong, the initial goal was to shut down all Germany's nuclear plants by around 2023 and transition to renewable energy as fast as practically possible.
This new plant was a commercial decision, it wasn't an order that came from the government. The power company decided that it would be profitable, but it seems they were probably wrong about that and it's going to be a white elephant. It's output has been limited and in the time it took to build renewable energy has moved ahead so fast that it's b
Re: (Score:2)
You recall wrong, the initial goal was to shut down all Germany's nuclear plants by around 2023 and transition to renewable energy as fast as practically possible.
That's a distinction without a difference, and far from correcting my recollection. If the goal is to transition to renewable energy as fast as possible then they are going backwards in opening a new coal power plant. Maybe they would not need these coal power plants if they weren't so determined to close their nuclear power plants. Since nuclear power is the lowest CO2 emitter per energy produced then anything other than nuclear power is at best a second place option.
Re: (Score:2)
How is reducing the number of coal plants, closing older dirtier ones and having the newer ones designed to support renewable energy "going backwards"?
They are reducing coal consumption and on track to eliminate it in time, they just don't want to go too fast for economic reasons. It's far more than most countries are doing too.
Nuclear wouldn't stop them needing these new plants because nuclear can't vary output fast enough to be useful in a heavily renewable grid.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear wouldn't stop them needing these new plants because nuclear can't vary output fast enough to be useful in a heavily renewable grid.
Old nuclear can't, new nuclear can. There's also the option of using batteries to make up for this inability to vary output quickly. Or, some of those natural gas turbines. Or, whatever it is that they plan to use to backup intermittent solar and wind.
How is reducing the number of coal plants, closing older dirtier ones and having the newer ones designed to support renewable energy "going backwards"?
The answer should be obvious. Your failure to understand is merely your unwillingness to understand. I'm not going to explain this to a wall.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, in theory you could combine backup + nuclear as you can do for intermittent power. But nobody will do this. Nuclear is already too expensive and the cost primarily driven by initial investment. For this investment to make sense, you need guaranteed steady income for the plant's life time. If you vary output, you have less income and this is less secure. This will not help.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, no one is going to gamble billions of Euros on some new nuclear design, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
It was not possible to do it different ... if you don't grasp that stay out of power discussions.
Re: (Score:2)
They will still have to go in the long run but even Germany isn't willing to transition faster than that. ... power.
The population is ready, but the politics are to slow because the power companies have to much, uhm
Re: (Score:2)
That's good to know, thanks. Debunks the idea that people hate Germany's supposedly expensive power.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern coal plants basically have no exhaust except CO2 (and this is true since decades).
It is pretty normal that big coal plants are close to cities, e.g. Mannheim, Karlsruhe.
The plant in question is not new, it was finished 5 years ago and was under construction for roughly 10 years before that. It replaced several older "worse" coal plants.
Re: coal (Score:2)
Merkel's allowed 1 million migrants into Germany in the last few years against the wish of most of the population which gave the biggest boost to the far right since then 1930s. As a policy fuckup and a fine example of the law of unintended consequences that takes a lot of beating. Merkel was a good leader back in the day, but it's long past the time the old dear should have been pensioned off and someone living in the 21st century was put in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany has an ageing population, without immigration the system is in deep trouble. If Germany manages to keep the far right under control, history will look at this as a very good thing.
Re: coal (Score:2)
Ah liberal excuse #2 for mass immigration. Plenty of countries have an aging population (japan being the best example) but they dont solve it by importing a significant percentage of the middle easts unskilled young men. They allow the required number of people with the proper qualifications to enter via legal channels.
Re: (Score:2)
My comment was not an excuse, but a prediction. But I am also not sure why you think I would need too apologize for something somebody else did, or why you think anybody would need to apologize for doing the ethically right thing (helping war refugees).
Re: coal (Score:2)
You think they're all war refugees? Christ you're so naive I feel sorry for you.
Re: (Score:2)
This is correct.
If you need immigration to correct your demographics, you do it in a controlled way, selecting the specific qualifications and age groups and cultural backgrounds you desire. You don't just open your borders and announce a free-for-all.
I'm pro-immigration. Actually, I'm an immigrant myself these days as I've moved to another country. But anyone who thinks uncontrolled, unlimited immigration can be a good thing desperately needs to go back to history class.
Re: (Score:2)
Merkel's allowed 1 million migrants into Germany in the last few years against the wish of most of the population
No she did not.
And the migrants that came, are mostly welcome by the population.
Re: (Score:2)
And the migrants that came, are mostly welcome by the population.
They were welcome when they first arrived. Then, with more and more of them, with a couple of stabbings and rapes, with the realization that few of the claimed skilled workers and a lot of young men with little education came, and that a lot of the refugees aren't from Syria at all, public opinion started to turn. Then, as always, the media jumped on it and wrote what people wanted to hear and increased that shift. These days, I'd say it's a toss-up. Most people are in general for refugee protection, but no
Re: (Score:2)
Those 1 million migrants will become full Germans in very few years!
If you have a free evening, I'd like to introduce you to a good friend. His name is "reality". I think you've never met.
Almost 1.5 mio. people from Turkey live in Germany. In most large cities, there are districts that are basically China Town, except turkish. Many of the women don't speak German despite living in Germany for decades. The cultural prison is fully intact.
There are a lot of immigrants in Germany whom you barely notice as not German by birth. Quite a few of my friends were not born in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
and haters like you just can't stand it.
That is true, I can't stand it.
Merkel is a brilliant Machiavelli-style politician. She has an undeniable talent for getting rid of competitors, crippling anyone who could threaten her and projecting a positive image of herself. She's the undisputed master of waiting on any subject until the public has a clear preference, then making everyone believe that that's the thing she's always been standing for. One journalist put it well: She waits until the crowd is in motion, then runs in front of it and shouts "f
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't name any actual thing. You basically said "she'll be remembered for being there".
Kohl will be remembered as the Chancellor of the re-unification and the party donations scandal. SchrÃder will be remembered as the Hartz IV introducer. Brandt will be remembered for his reconciliation with Russia and Eastern countries. Schmidt is remembered in Hamburg for his taking charge during the flood and his decisive actions saved many lives (on the national scale I'm not sure for what, that was well befo
mmmaybe (Score:2)
I'm not optimistic though. Much more likely we're going to blow so far past the 2C limit that historians will literally ridicule our unwillingness to LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS WHEN IS COMES TO SCIE
Re: (Score:2)
many disaster movies start with scientists being ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but other than that they're usually rather improbable.
Switch from coal to gas. (Score:2, Troll)
They made their drop in CO2 by switching from coal to gas. That will only get them so much in CO2 reductions.
What I've seen from a number of places is that solar and wind are simply proxies for gas. Natural gas, which is really just methane, is a potent greenhouse gas all it's own. Remember the big deal made about methane release from the meat and dairy industry? That's the same stuff they are using to replace coal. And methane will leak. Once the methane that leaks eventually "decays" in the atmosphe
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be only capable of saying negative things about PV, and batteries, and ignore the positives. There are negative things about nuclear fission, too. That doesn't make it unviable, but just like all other energy sources, you need to manage pros and cons.
You can preach nuclear fission all you like, but it's not inevitable, as you like to claim.
Look at it this way - if it's inevitable, why isn't it prevalent now? Sure, lots of people armed with blind ignorance and prejudice have managed to stall or k
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You seem to be only capable of saying negative things about PV, and batteries, and ignore the positives.
I'm not ignoring the positives. I'm acknowledging that solar power does not live in a vacuum and when the pros and cons are compared solar PV plus batteries is shit for on grid power.
There are negative things about nuclear fission, too.
Yes. You appear to be ignoring the positives.
That doesn't make it unviable, but just like all other energy sources, you need to manage pros and cons.
Yes, let's manage those pros and cons. Give me the metrics on which we should be comparing solar PV to nuclear and I'll show how nuclear power will win out on the balance, if not on every single metric you give.
You can preach nuclear fission all you like, but it's not inevitable, as you like to claim.
We shall see.
Look at it this way - if it's inevitable, why isn't it prevalent now?
What makes you believe it isn't prevalent now? Nuclear p
Re: (Score:2)
You're doing what's called a "leap of logic", and it damages your argument. You've taken my points about nuke not being prevalent and applied them to PV, which is a false equivalence. The obstacles to nuke are not the same as the obstacles to PV.
I've never claimed PV can or should dominate the grid. You claim nuke is inevitable - but you've never been able to credibly substantiate that claim, because the evidence just isn't there. It doesn't matter what the obstacles are - you can't wave them away by sayin
Re:Switch from coal to gas. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not embrace helpful technologies now, instead of railing against them?
I could ask you the same question about nuclear.
I "rail against" solar because it is not a "helpful technology". Solar is expensive, intermittent, and very resource intensive. Resources like glass, steel, copper, aluminum, cement, time, labor, land, and I probably missed something. Resources that if applied to anything else would give us a higher energy return.
The obstacles to nuke are not the same as the obstacles to PV.
That's right. The obstacles to nuclear power are primarily political. The obstacles to solar PV are matters of technology, infrastructure, and physics. We can fix our politics in the next election. The obstacles to solar PV can not be rectified so quickly. Once the politics are rectified we can get new nuclear online quite quickly because people are standing in line waiting to build new nuclear, with sites picked out and designs that have been approved. Sure, people can put up new solar right now with little more than a permit from the city or county but PV cannot add capacity at the rate we could with nuclear. We know this because we simply lack the factories and such to build solar PV at such a rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar is expensive, intermittent, and very resource intensive. Resources like glass, steel, copper, aluminum, cement, time, labor, land, and I probably missed something. Resources that if applied to anything else would give us a higher energy return.
Unfortunately all your claims are wrong. No idea why yo repeat that nonsense in every energy discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately all your claims are wrong.
Prove it. Post a link to a source for once.
Re: (Score:2)
"They made their drop in CO2 by switching from coal to gas."
No. It came primarily from use of renewables (I know you don't care
about facts and numbers, but maybe others will):
1990 electricity production in Germany in TWh per year:
170,9 lignite, 140,8 coal, 152,5 nuclear, 35,9 gas, 19,7 renewables
2019 electricity production in Germany:
113,9 lignite, 57,3 coal, 75,1 nuclear, 91,1 gas, 244,3 renewables
(source: https://www.ag-energiebilanzen... [ag-energiebilanzen.de])
Re: (Score:3)
Germany is not the entirety of the EU. I actually read the fine articles and they mention that the bulk of this reduction was from the switch from coal to natural gas across the EU. Other contributing factors listed were milder winters, improved energy efficiency, offshoring many industries, and economic recession.
I expect EU CO2 emissions to rise if they continue on the path of abandoning nuclear power. This switch from coal to natural gas can get them only so far. The same goes for intermittent solar
Re: (Score:2)
You should try to stop reading articles from your filter bubble and look at numbers. While gas use for electricity production in the EU increased in the last years and replaced some coal it is still much than ten years ago (764 TWh in 2010 to 699 TWh in 2019). Over that time span, coal and lignite was substantially reduced (493 TWh to 218 TWh and 325 TWh to 252 TWh, nuclear declined from (917 TWh to 821 TWh), while renewables increased from (705 TWh to 1115 TWh).
(source: https://www.agora-energiewende... [agora-energiewende.de])
An
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop the "lights will go out" bullshit. Nobody is falling for this crap anymore.
They will not allow the lights to go out. (Score:3)
Please stop the "lights will go out" bullshit. Nobody is falling for this crap anymore.
I didn't say that the lights will go out, I'm merely giving all options they have. Those are, increased CO2 output, more nuclear power, or the lights go out. I believe they will choose nuclear power. Saying no new nuclear power plants are planned now is meaningless, that can change at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the time frame from planning and building nuclear power, a policy change now would have effect in 10-15 years (average build time alone for a plant is about 7 years). And there are large scale simulation studies by Fraunhofer which show that (and how) Germany can transition to a CO2 emission free power system without nuclear. So only in your extremely limited understanding are nuclear, increased CO2 output, or lights out the only options.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the time frame from planning and building nuclear power, a policy change now would have effect in 10-15 years (average build time alone for a plant is about 7 years).
Then the transition to nuclear power will start in 10 to 15 years.
And there are large scale simulation studies by Fraunhofer which show that (and how) Germany can transition to a CO2 emission free power system without nuclear.
And I can cite a number of papers showing any lowering of CO2 emissions without nuclear power is an opium dream. Your point? Here's my point, I've seen the numbers on plans to replace coal and nuclear with wind and solar, any future energy plan that leaves out nuclear power is a road to higher CO2 emissions or energy prices so high that few will be able to afford it. You've seen those nighttime photos of the world from orbit, have you? Th
Re: (Score:2)
There is a point where adding more renewable power with natural gas backup only adds to the CO2 output.
No it does not. (*facepalm*) how damn stupid are you?
First of all it is not, backup as I pointed out often enough. It is either balancing power or reserve power.
Secondly, there won't be significant more gas plants, the ones we have are by far enough to handle fluctuations.
Thirdly, you have the braindead idea that 90% of the time there is not enough wind, and your postulated "more gas plants" would run ful
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh, to those that think solar and batteries will save us, think again. Will anyone bother with intermittent solar and batteries when there's reliable nuclear power? When nuclear power is lower in CO2?" - lower than what?: Coal and Gas? true
" Nuclear power being safer than anything else out there? Batteries won't save solar power, it will end it." How
Re: (Score:3)
When nuclear power is lower in CO2?" - lower than what?: Coal and Gas?
Lower than everything else.
Look up "agrovoltaics"
I did, and they look very expensive.
saying time after time will not make it true
Yep. Now, tell me again how solar and batteries will win in the end. You know that repeating it won't make it true. What will decide the winner here is economics, and solar power has been shown again and again to be expensive and damaging to the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
When you count the real cost of nuclear...the environmental devastation caused by mining and mining waste, incredibly high construction and maintenance costs, then the cost of storing spent fuel and such, nuclear isn't really much of a bargain.
Then there's the fact every nuclear plant ever built failed to meet its construction or operating budget, failed to meet maintenance projections or failed to deliver electricity at the promised cost, or some combination of those.
Then there's the nuclear elephant in th
Re: (Score:3)
Repeating bullshit anti-nuclear power talking points from the 1980s does not make them true.
With nuclear it could have been -100% (Score:3, Insightful)
Just think about it. We could have done much better than this.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Just no. That's a false claim. Nothing that requires concrete can be negative in CO2 emissions, it can only, at best, be lower than alternative choices.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you seriously arguing that erecting a single concrete building that is then used for decades is more than a mere blip, compared to the continuous emissions by the coal plants it would replace? You really need to get your priorities straight.
"Whaaa, but it's not precisely 100%, it is 99.99995%! You FILTHY LIAR!"
Whatever, dude.
Careful (Score:3)
My usual warning, which sometimes gets modded down: be careful doing this!
If you overdo it, you can induce an ice age accidentally, which is known to be able to start in as little as a year or two -- you just need an unusually cool summer where the winter snow doesn't fully melt and then the subsequent winter is way too deep, and you're off to the races.
Global warming is moving back from the seas over a century or three, which is merely inconvenient (and barely noticible as an ongoing process.) An ice age kills billions in one year.
Re: (Score:3)
An ice age kills billions in one year.
No it does not. An ice age needs ten thousands of years to manifest itself.
And with current CO2 levels there most likely never will be one again anyway.
Numbers (Score:2)
"To reduce emissions to the point where Humans are not having an effect on the environment, you as consumers of our electricity could stop using so much. You could turn on only what is necessary to survive and nothing else. Then, we can shut down *stops and listens to someone whispering in their ear*..... Then we can continue to have an excellent society that BUYS a lot of electricity from us and keeps our profits rising month by month, while at the same time not talking about this because it hurts our bo
BTW (Score:2)
"according to a new report from Europe's environment watchdog."
BTW it's a magic dog, a labracadabrador.
Re: (Score:2)
The per-capita emissions will only get worse that way. Think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
With fewer people, we should be putting out less emissions though.