EPTChina, US and the environment - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Silvanel
Poland4726 Posts
| ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5595 Posts
On November 23 2019 01:40 Erasme wrote: Rofl thinking you can hold merkel to any promises about energy xd Why are they still opening new plants then ? France has actually pledged to close every single coal plants by 2022. And its only realisable thanks to nuclear power. Germany has no way of being independant from coal because they have no reliable back up plans. Once again i'd like to remind everyone that Germany has been, for the last 30years, literally doubling the emission of co2 per capita than France. can europe stop following goddamn germany its not a model for anything except failure Would that make the Öko-Bewegung the worst climate criminals in the world? Thats pretty funny. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On December 20 2019 18:22 Elroi wrote: Would that make the Öko-Bewegung the worst climate criminals in the world? Thats pretty funny. Thats absolute nonsense. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6900 Posts
Fact is we need more energy every year and nothing is good enough: Wind? Looks stupid, not efficient, kills birds Nuclear? But what if it explodes? And where to put the waste? Coal? Go away with that dirty shit Tide? But what about all the fish and sealife? Solar? Not enough sun and space to put it in Germany | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5595 Posts
Of course it was a bit of an overstatement or a joke, but if the environmentalists pushed the government to close nuclear plants and that in turn caused the country to open coalplants that made it double the CO2 emissions - isn't it fair, then, to call the environmentalists climate criminals? The Swedish power company Vattenfall sold a coal plant in Germany in 2016, Jänschwalde. It alone emits almost as much co2 as Sweden. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5595 Posts
On December 20 2019 20:44 Artisreal wrote: I think you're heavily mistaken in your attribution of responsibility. It is not the fault of activists that not enough is done to successfully transition from fossil fuels to basically entirely renewables. Who's fault is it that we simply dont have that technology? That is, for the time being, a pie in sky solution. Its the activists fault that you abandoned an acceptable but far from perfect solution for a disastrous worst case scenario. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6900 Posts
On December 20 2019 21:52 Elroi wrote: Who's fault is it that we simply dont have that technology? That is, for the time being, a pie in sky solution. Its the activists fault that you abandoned an acceptable but far from perfect solution for a disastrous worst case scenario. It's always easy to blame others... If it were acceptable, they wouldn't have looked for other solutions. Also Datteln 4 was build in 2007 and planned long before that. It's not some recent idea As for the technology. Activists are pretty much the sole reason for technological advancements in this sector, just because available solutions weren't good enough and they push for better, cleaner ways and more than anything push governments to enforce cleaner solutions | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
On November 23 2019 01:40 Erasme wrote: Rofl thinking you can hold merkel to any promises about energy xd Why are they still opening new plants then ? France has actually pledged to close every single coal plants by 2022. And its only realisable thanks to nuclear power. Germany has no way of being independant from coal because they have no reliable back up plans. Once again i'd like to remind everyone that Germany has been, for the last 30years, literally doubling the emission of co2 per capita than France. can europe stop following goddamn germany its not a model for anything except failure First of all, I have to agree that just because Merkel says or promises something, it does not mean that it will actually happen. Apart from that, the rest is inaccurate or simply omits the actual state of affairs: - Building new coal power plants means very little if they never start working. a) There is a long list of newly built gas power plants that work way below capacity or not at all. The same fate may very well await the new coal power plants. + Show Spoiler + https://www.dw.com/de/warum-nutzt-deutschland-seine-gaskraftwerke-nicht-kohlekraft-strommarkt-klimaziele-co2-preis/a-41892504 b) I can only find information about 3 new possible coal power plants as of right now. 2 of them are merely planned and have no construction approval as of yet. Construction on the last one is on hold + Show Spoiler + https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_geplanter_Kohlekraftwerke_in_Deutschland c) For comparison, there is a long list of new natural gas power plants planned or in construction. This at the very least suggests the possibility of moving away from coal + Show Spoiler + https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_geplanter_und_im_Bau_befindlicher_Gaskraftwerke_in_Deutschland - As far as backups for coal power plants are concerned. I cannot be arsed to calculate the exact numbers (not like that's even possible with complete accuracy), but there are several things to keep in mind: a) see a) and c) above. Also remember that North Stream 2 is expected to enter operation very soon. b) there is always the (rather contraproductive) possibility of importing more energy from neighbouring countries. - France is a rather bad example since its CO2 emissions per capita are among the lowest in Europe and certainly way below average in the EU. + Show Spoiler + https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=EU-US-1W-SE - While Germany still ranks among the top of CO2 emission per capita in the EU, it has still reduced them from 11.62 tons/capita to 8.89 in the past 30 years. Not to mention that these numbers are simply incomparably lower than other 1st world countries like the US, Australia, Canada, and even Japan. On December 20 2019 19:45 Harris1st wrote: ... Solar? Not enough sun and space to put it in Germany "Not enough sun" is at least theoretically never an issue. Less sunshine simply means more space and storage required. Space certainly isn't an issue in Germany either. The only relevant factor is the cost. Going 100% solar would be prohibitively expensive in Germany. What the optimal percentage is, depends on way too many factors to condense in a few sentences. Anyway, solar is certainly not the one and only solution for German energy needs. However, space is not even close to being considered a limiting factor by any stretch of the imagination. + Show Spoiler + https://www.pv-magazine.de/2018/10/16/neue-studie-deutschland-hat-genug-flaeche-fuer-100-prozent-strom-aus-erneuerbaren-energien/ https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaik_in_Deutschland#Flächenabschätzungen On December 20 2019 20:15 Elroi wrote: Of course it was a bit of an overstatement or a joke, but if the environmentalists pushed the government to close nuclear plants and that in turn caused the country to open coalplants that made it double the CO2 emissions - isn't it fair, then, to call the environmentalists climate criminals? The Swedish power company Vattenfall sold a coal plant in Germany in 2016, Jänschwalde. It alone emits almost as much co2 as Sweden. Not really sure where that "open coal plants" comes from or rather how it is relevant at all. See further up in my post. I am even more confused about the "double CO2 emissions", considering that German CO2 emissions have been slowly but steadily going down for 30 years now. + Show Spoiler + https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/384/bilder/2_abb_thg-emissionen-seit-1990-nach-gasen_2019.png And while Jänschwalde certainly is a heavy polluter in any sense of the word it has to be noted that: - it has by far the highest CO2 emissions of any coal plant in Germany (24 mio tons/year; 2nd place - 16.8 mio tons/yea; 3rd place 10.2 mio tons/year) + Show Spoiler + https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk_Jänschwalde - in 2017 Jänschwalde contributed ~24 mio CO2 tons compared to Sweden's 52.7 => 45.5% of Sweden's output (hardly "almost as much" I'd say) + Show Spoiler + https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk_J%C3%A4nschwalde#Emission https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/klima/treibhausgas-emissionen-in-der-europaeischen-union#textpart-1 - by the end of 2018 1/3 of Jänschwalde's capacity has been allocated to reserves - effectively meaning that 1/3 has been turned off. By 2022 this third is supposed to be removed from reserves as well. Without having the actual numbers for 2019 yet, it can only be estimated how much the CO2 emissions have been reduced, but assuming that turning off 1/3 of the generators results in about 1/3 less emissions should be fair enough. This would result in Jänschwalde producing ~16 mio tons CO2/year compared to Swedens 50+ mio tons/year or about 30% of what Sweden produces. + Show Spoiler + https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk_J%C3%A4nschwalde#Stilllegung | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5595 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On December 21 2019 17:25 Elroi wrote: Environmentalists pushed for the closing of nuclear power plants. this has led to a very high dependens on coal plants which in turn makes germany a very bad polluter. If the optimistic perspective for the future that you present is that some planned coal plants arent going to open and some go on a reduced production (jänschwalde that I took as an example would still emit more than three times as much co2 as the entire Swedish electricity production while not creating a fraction of the electricity needed in the country if it only goes on 30% capacity). That to me looks lika a disaster however you present it. Even if somehow the depency on coal is reduced (i think that is a pie in the sky) the damage has already been done. Partly true. There was a time around the Fukushima catastrophe in 2012 when power generated by coal went up. Meaning an incident on the other side of the globe was responsible for the shutdown of nuclear power plants. Not activists. Coal power production also varies a bit from year to year but if you look at the numbers, the trend is a clearly downward one. So one could argue that your statement is objectively false. The gist of what you're saying though is true, that due to the Atomausstieg there is more coal in the grid mix than needed with nuclear. Power generation in Germany+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/384/bilder/3_abb_bruttostromerzeugung-et_2019-02-26.png) Source is the German Environmental Agency. Building new nuclear power plants is a false hope though, imo, because once they are built in 20 years, we're fucked anyhow. Comparing Sweden to Germany power gerneration wise is akin to liking the heat demand of a hot country to a cold one. Doesn't make much sense due to vastly different predispositions - doesn't excuse the pollution or diminish the need for improvement either. Also very interesting to discuss is heat generation, which in Germany is mainly focused on fossil fuels. Like, 90% and above. I've spoken to many home owners recently and many of them use a heat pump for household heat. But power it with conventional power, which doesn't make much sense. So still lots to do here. | ||
|
tankgirl
Canada407 Posts
![[image loading]](https://opentextbc.ca/geology/wp-content/uploads/sites/110/2015/07/Glacials-and-Interglacials-.png) ![[image loading]](https://opentextbc.ca/physicalgeologyearle/wp-content/uploads/sites/145/2016/03/cenozoic-t-2.png) | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6227 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/2opFvpH.jpg) | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On December 22 2019 11:36 tankgirl wrote: Based on DNA sequencing it is predicted that fewer than 12,000 of our species survived the previous glaciation. Thank goodness that China and other emitters have boosted the maximum CO2 levels for the brief interglacial period we are presently enjoying -- the next glaciation should be much less severe and more survivable. + Show Spoiler + Thank you based China/US/India, you are saving the world by destroying the climate as much as possible | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On January 25 2020 00:42 JimmiC wrote: While 8 states have banned single use plastic bags, many other states have made it impossible for municipalities to ban bags. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/plastic-bags-have-lobbyists-winning-100587?utm_source=pocket-newtab My country banned plastic bags and I can't say it's an improvement. People used their plastic shopping bags to wrap house trash and then drop it to the local container. Now people buy this "rehusable" plastic bags for shopping; they are a lot more resource intensive to produce, you need to use them close to 100 times to reach the same footprint as the old disposable bags and most bags never see that use. Paper bags suck and are not rehusable more than a few times before they get holes. Moreover, on poor areas mostly, now that plastic bags are not free and easily available, littering has increased a lot. | ||
| ||
