RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies

RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Tkman117 -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 8:04:24 AM)
quote: Subsidies for new producers of wind energy would be reduced while those for biogas would practically disappear. The use of the word "would" support that they are going to happen under the new proposal, not that they have. But either way, it's hardly relevant whether it has gone into effect or not, as I'm fairly certain that it will. The way I see it is, there are going to be speed bumps on the road to obtaining a more sustainable way of producing electricity for the world. But like the last article i posted, the UAE is moving boldly in the direction of solar because it would be a cheaper energy source for many of the countries involved. But to the OP, if you think this article is meant to deter people from investing in green energies, you've clearly been ignoring the direction humanity has started taking in the last decade or so.

mnottertail -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 8:07:51 AM)
Plus the fact that a law that giveth must now be made into a law that now taketh away, if one only scans the article. So, it ain't over till it is over, and it is not for reasons of 'unsustastainablily' of green, just unsustainability of massive subsidy of it while simultaneously massively subsidizing flushing nuke down the toilet.

Phydeaux -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 9:48:20 AM)
Anyone that thinks Germany will continue the ridiculous subsidies fundamentally doesn't understand the situation at all. Which as usual, includes the usual posters. Germany has name plate capacity of about 32 GW of wind and solar power. However, it generated only 11.9% of germany's electricty. Germanys solar power ran at 11% of capacity. Its "wind" ran at 17%. Germany will have to build 180 GW of solar and wind installations in order to replace its 20.3 GW of nuclear energy. Something that will take Germany 16 years to do, at current contruction rates (which are slated to be lessened, not increased). Germany simply can't sustain the costs. Believe what you like. Regarding nuclear energy: I'm not much a fan of Hansen. Correct that: I think he is an absolute loon. But since so many of you on the left admire him, I'll post a bit from a study he co-authored in Environmental Science & Technology. Nuclear power plants have saved a net of 1.8 million lives over the last few decades. Compare this to the WHO estimates of between 15 and 1100 deaths from Fukushima.

Tkman117 -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 10:01:16 AM)
Could you actually supply the references for once?

mnottertail -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 10:36:23 AM)
Ja, nukes are 11% or so of Germany's power sources. Not only is there gross subsidy on the Nukes, but subsidy thru externalities as well. Consider these nuke disasters. 4 May 1986 Hamm-Uentrop, Germany Operator actions to dislodge damaged fuel elements at the thorium high-temperature reactor release excessive radiation to 4 km2 surrounding the facility 267 million 17 Dec 1987 Hesse, Germany Stop valve fails at Biblis Nuclear Power Plant and contaminates local area 13 million 24 Nov 1989 Greifswald, East Germany A near core meltdown occurs at Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant. Three out of six cooling water pumps were switched off for a test. A fourth pump broke down and control of the reactor was lost; 10 fuel elements were damaged 443 million. So, moeglich nicht so billig, oder? The Nuke phaseout was actually done deal in the Shroeder administration, somewhere in 1998 to 2005 originally scheduled for 2024, but Merkels governemnt extended that 12 years to 2036. I think there is a great deal of pants shitting and nothing much that is not hallucinatory in the 'urgency' and the 'proof' of some nutsackeristic agenda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lur-SGl3uw8 Oder?

eulero83 -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 10:47:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The cost of the actual closing is the reason, not because they were unsustainable. weve had the same issue here with the cost of closing gas plants, first being given a price tag of 30 millionto shut it, is now going to cost 950 million. WHere does the money come from to cover it? borrow from peter to pay paul.... If the subsidies were sustainable, then they would have continued, Lucy. Apparently, the German government decided that, in light of higher energy costs due to the shuttering of the nuke plants, that they could no longer sustain the subsidies at the current level (iow, they were unsustainable). For some kooky reason, Germany seems to think that increased costs in one area means that costs in other areas need to be reduced to cover. Completely un-American, as US politicians prove time and time again. [:D] germany is not the usa, subsides are used to control the market, if they give less money it means renewable energy compared to other kind of energies is cheeper now. They also probably reached the share of renewable energies they needed to satisfy kyoto protocol.

mnottertail -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 10:49:15 AM)
Nicht kammer ouse zur die Deutschemann's haus, etwas?

Politesub53 -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 11:27:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The cost of the actual closing is the reason, not because they were unsustainable. weve had the same issue here with the cost of closing gas plants, first being given a price tag of 30 millionto shut it, is now going to cost 950 million. WHere does the money come from to cover it? borrow from peter to pay paul.... If the subsidies were sustainable, then they would have continued, Lucy. Apparently, the German government decided that, in light of higher energy costs due to the shuttering of the nuke plants, that they could no longer sustain the subsidies at the current level (iow, they were unsustainable). For some kooky reason, Germany seems to think that increased costs in one area means that costs in other areas need to be reduced to cover. Completely un-American, as US politicians prove time and time again. [:D] You use some perverse arguments DS........ Read things slow and it may sink in. Green subsides were cut because the money set aside for it was used for something else. In this case it was the safe dismantling of Nuclear Power so Germany can go green. The only thing unsustainable is your argument.

Lucylastic -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 11:50:13 AM)
Which is why I left it alone....altho truth be told, I gave up.

Phydeaux -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 1:08:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Could you actually supply the references for once? References for things I just know? No. But these statistics are well known. Since you guys don't like The Energy advisor - try http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/green-energy-bust-in-germany or http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/wind-energy-encounters-problems-and-resistance-in-germany-a-910816.html The net effect, by the way of all this green - is that CO2 emissions went up in Germany last year. Amusing, no? The utilites were required to install green energy. They are required to phase out nuclear - which generates at roughly 99% of name plate capacity. This left natural gas and coal. In Europe natural gas plants are more expensive. So since green is unreliable, it resulted in a net increase of burning from coal plants - and hence a net increase in emissions. Brilliant. Those damn unintended consequences... I'll also note that this doesn't even begin to factor in the huge construction costs for the transmission lines; which are stalled in court hearings because people don't want them in their back yards. Trillions of insects killed, hundreds of thousands of birds, visual and noise polution all over the country side. Oh yes - and the highest electricity costs in Europe. They are paying 27 c per kwh. I pay 3.5c. So I don't know what your power bill is for a family of 4 - mine is around $120. In Europe the same power bill would be almost $1100. Hence the term - energy poverty. Rather tough on pensioners living on fixed incomes... Oh and the german nuclear power is more than 11%. It is 20+gw of capacity.

Phydeaux -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 1:17:07 PM)
Ah, another opinion completely devoid of facts. The fact is that contrary to the European parliament, the EU will set aside mandatory goals per country, setting instead a goal for the entire EU zone. Which is just politician speak for saying we have just removed any mandatory requirements. Since there are no targets per country, there are no enforcement mechanisms. This means each country may (but way more likely will not) meet the required reductions. In point of fact, with spain reversing its subsidies, denmark doing the same - there is no chance in hell that the EU zone will meet its Kyoto requirements. Which, in the grand scope of things is a good thing. Because they are damn stupid. Now, for the record, I am perfectly ok with the Europeans requiring green power. It means more manufacturing jobs will come to the United States. Just for giggles - I don't suppose any lefties know what % of power France gets from nuclear energy. Do you really think they are going to follow the germans lead on this? But in once sense eulero - you are completely correct. If you are willing to charge people 10x the price for energy - when the cost of producing the energy is no longer a factor in the determination - then yes, "renewable energy" is competitive. Of course, be prepared for offshoring of jobs, energy poverty, etc. quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The cost of the actual closing is the reason, not because they were unsustainable. weve had the same issue here with the cost of closing gas plants, first being given a price tag of 30 millionto shut it, is now going to cost 950 million. WHere does the money come from to cover it? borrow from peter to pay paul.... If the subsidies were sustainable, then they would have continued, Lucy. Apparently, the German government decided that, in light of higher energy costs due to the shuttering of the nuke plants, that they could no longer sustain the subsidies at the current level (iow, they were unsustainable). For some kooky reason, Germany seems to think that increased costs in one area means that costs in other areas need to be reduced to cover. Completely un-American, as US politicians prove time and time again. [:D] germany is not the usa, subsides are used to control the market, if they give less money it means renewable energy compared to other kind of energies is cheeper now. They also probably reached the share of renewable energies they needed to satisfy kyoto protocol.

mnottertail -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 1:21:57 PM)
Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 17.7% of national electricity supply in 2011, compared to 22.4% in 2010. Germany is the world's largest operator of non-hydro renewables capacity in the world, including the world's second largest operator of wind generation. Their man source of electricity has always been coal, and will remain so for some time. Their main source of all energies is oil. They have no natural gas. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GermanyOSS.pdf You are making shit up for reasons here, and none of them are credible and citeable. They aint worried about smog so much, have you seen die Ruhr? Ich habe. Haben Sie gesehen any major city in Germany since say, the industrial revolution? (it occured about the time of our civil war) Ich habe. They are well aware and have been for some hundreds of years of these consequences. http://www.bzl.info/de/sites/default/files/lahl_transatl2007en-ppt.pdf Sie gesprechen scheiBe.

Tkman117 -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 1:24:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Could you actually supply the references for once? References for things I just know? No. Just because you say you know them doesn't make them true, actually reference something scientific instead of news outlets please. quote: But these statistics are well known. Since you guys don't like The Energy advisor - try http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/green-energy-bust-in-germany or http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/wind-energy-encounters-problems-and-resistance-in-germany-a-910816.html The net effect, by the way of all this green - is that CO2 emissions went up in Germany last year. Amusing, no? The utilites were required to install green energy. They are required to phase out nuclear - which generates at roughly 99% of name plate capacity. This left natural gas and coal. In Europe natural gas plants are more expensive. So since green is unreliable, it resulted in a net increase of burning from coal plants - and hence a net increase in emissions. Brilliant. Those damn unintended consequences... I'll also note that this doesn't even begin to factor in the huge construction costs for the transmission lines; which are stalled in court hearings because people don't want them in their back yards. Trillions of insects killed, hundreds of thousands of birds, visual and noise polution all over the country side. Oh yes - and the highest electricity costs in Europe. They are paying 27 c per kwh. I pay 3.5c. So I don't know what your power bill is for a family of 4 - mine is around $120. In Europe the same power bill would be almost $1100. Hence the term - energy poverty. Rather tough on pensioners living on fixed incomes... Oh and the german nuclear power is more than 11%. It is 20+gw of capacity. While interesting articles and points you have made, I would like to ask that you provide something more concrete, such as an official report from the german government or university. While I appreciate the sources and admit they may be reliable, reliable is very subjective, especially when it comes to news outlets on the internet where bias is always a danger. Considering the fact that you claimed all of the scientific peer reviewed articles that I provided in a previous thread were, as I remember you saying; "what absolute drivel" in regards to them. As such, I'm going to ask that you at least provide something remotely scientific in the form of a peer reviewed or government document before anyone can start taking you seriously. Because clearly you can tell the difference "drivel" and "quality". P.S. I wouldn't use wikipedia either if I were you, as you seem to have an issue as many of the pages on the site are "out dated and unreliable" as I seem to remember you saying.

Phydeaux -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 1:49:30 PM)
Yes, I've seen the Ruhr. I've biked around the country, and worked in Belgium. It is amusing that you say they are the worlds largest operator of non-hydro renewables. And try to give the impression that this is wind and solar. But in point of fact more than half of the "renewables" is trash burning and biogas. These contributed 9.9% of german generations. This burning is not solar, its not wind - and its not going to increase as of course it is more or less limited by the expense; by pollution control laws, and fuel. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 17.7% of national electricity supply in 2011, compared to 22.4% in 2010. Germany is the world's largest operator of non-hydro renewables capacity in the world, including the world's second largest operator of wind generation. Their man source of electricity has always been coal, and will remain so for some time. Their main source of all energies is oil. They have no natural gas. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GermanyOSS.pdf You are making shit up for reasons here, and none of them are credible and citeable. They aint worried about smog so much, have you seen die Ruhr? Ich habe. Haben Sie gesehen any major city in Germany since say, the industrial revolution? (it occured about the time of our civil war) Ich habe. They are well aware and have been for some hundreds of years of these consequences. http://www.bzl.info/de/sites/default/files/lahl_transatl2007en-ppt.pdf Sie gesprechen scheiBe.

mnottertail -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 1:58:02 PM)
I am giving you no such impression. Trash and biogas are renewable, and that aint what is their major cause of pollution there. Then you have seen the pollution and multitude of belching smokestacks in the Ruhr. No unintended consequence, Germany is and has been aware of the filth of coal and oil for many centuries. So, whether or not they diminish subsidies for green, they are dumping the nuke plants, they would rather die of lung cancer than radiation poisoning. Thats all there is to it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 2:00:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The cost of the actual closing is the reason, not because they were unsustainable. weve had the same issue here with the cost of closing gas plants, first being given a price tag of 30 millionto shut it, is now going to cost 950 million. WHere does the money come from to cover it? borrow from peter to pay paul.... If the subsidies were sustainable, then they would have continued, Lucy. Apparently, the German government decided that, in light of higher energy costs due to the shuttering of the nuke plants, that they could no longer sustain the subsidies at the current level (iow, they were unsustainable). For some kooky reason, Germany seems to think that increased costs in one area means that costs in other areas need to be reduced to cover. Completely un-American, as US politicians prove time and time again. [:D] You use some perverse arguments DS........ Read things slow and it may sink in. Green subsides were cut because the money set aside for it was used for something else. In this case it was the safe dismantling of Nuclear Power so Germany can go green. The only thing unsustainable is your argument. Perverse argument? You do recall this site itself could be referred to as "perverse" by others, right? lol [:D] I don't have to read slowly. Perhaps you do. Nowhere have I stated that green subsidies were cut for any other reason than what you wrote. That they were chosen to be cut shows that Germany's government decided that they could not be sustained in the current economic environment. If that is not true, why were the subsidies cut? And, my "completely un-American" assertion is, in fact, a compliment to Germany.

mnottertail -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 2:06:10 PM)
The subsidies are talked about being cut, legislation would have to be introduced, because the price of dismantling the nukes subsidies and the green subsidies (rather stringent subsidies btw) were causing prices of electricity to skyrocket. It was there in simple English in the article provided.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 2:08:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The cost of the actual closing is the reason, not because they were unsustainable. weve had the same issue here with the cost of closing gas plants, first being given a price tag of 30 millionto shut it, is now going to cost 950 million. WHere does the money come from to cover it? borrow from peter to pay paul.... If the subsidies were sustainable, then they would have continued, Lucy. Apparently, the German government decided that, in light of higher energy costs due to the shuttering of the nuke plants, that they could no longer sustain the subsidies at the current level (iow, they were unsustainable). For some kooky reason, Germany seems to think that increased costs in one area means that costs in other areas need to be reduced to cover. Completely un-American, as US politicians prove time and time again. [:D] germany is not the usa, Thanks for the update. [8\|] My "un-American" comment was a compliment to Germany. What I asserted as "un-American," was fiscal responsibility. US politicians prove over and over that fiscal responsibility is not an American thing. quote: subsides are used to control the market, if they give less money it means renewable energy compared to other kind of energies is cheeper now. They also probably reached the share of renewable energies they needed to satisfy kyoto protocol. Or, as the article mentions: quote: Generous state incentives for solar, wind and biogas that have driven up prices, now among Europe's highest, would be trimmed from this year under Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel's much-anticipated proposals. Gabriel, a Social Democrat who is Merkel's vice chancellor and also economy minister, is mulling a new law encapsulating the energy changes that would take effect from August 1. Speaking on ZDF public television, he sought to dampen any consumer hopes that the proposals would lead to a reduction in electricity prices, according to early excerpts of the interview to be broadcast Sunday. "Falling electricity prices there will not be, but we will finally put the brakes on the increase," Gabriel told the "Berlin Direkt" programme. This has nothing to do with Kyoto, either. Note another passage from the article (was it really too short to read?): quote: But Greens party leader Simone Peter told Spiegel Online the proposals "endanger" Germany's transition from nuclear power, while the far-left Linke party's deputy chief Caren Lay said they rolled back the strategy. And the association representing the solar energy sector expressed concern after being hit by an initial wave of subsidy cuts in 2012.

Phydeaux -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 2:09:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 P.S. I wouldn't use wikipedia either if I were you, as you seem to have an issue as many of the pages on the site are "out dated and unreliable" as I seem to remember you saying. When you are trying to quote ice levels in 2013 using scientific studies from 2006 isn't it self-evident that those studies are out of date? Oh and while on that subject for a minute: Some ahem posters here maintained that for the anarctic to have more snow- it must be getting warmer. My response to that was more or less: bullshit. Prove it. And of course I stumbled across research today that .. once again says.. what do you know. Anarctic Temperatures are not getting warmer. The original data was done by the Spencer et.al at university of Alabama. I've lost the link to the "south pole temperature" graph since 1975 - but the following link will direct you to similar pretty pictures. http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/temperatures/polar-temperatures.php. It points out two things: global warming isn't occuring at the south pole. So rumors of inundation due to the ice melting there are unfounded. As for the rest of it, science does not report on the amount of power generated. Those figures come from the government. But more to the point: I've already made my point. You can continue to believe the things you want to believe - which are popular and facile. They suffer only from the minor defect of not being true. I've pointed you in the direction of what the issues are, in this thread and others. Research "green power destabilizes German Grid" The biggest survey ever conducted (iirc) on green energy was over Spain's commitment to renewable. Go read the results of that.

mnottertail -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 2:19:08 PM)
take off the period at the end of your link. Uh, however, it still is better you leave it on, since it will take in the feebleminded. Because the charts show that temperatures are indeed rising. The only one that you could say is kinda not rising is the one with the 37 year moving average. However this bit of buffoonery has nothing to do with the already wildly delusional OP of Germany not being able to in and of themselves afford green subsidies.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625