RE: 'Anti-nuclear' Germany is Europe's biggest GHG emitter

RE: 'Anti-nuclear' Germany is Europe's biggest GHG emitter (Full Version)

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

Message

blnymph -> RE: 'Anti-nuclear' Germany is Europe's biggest GHG emitter (11/15/2017 8:57:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany quote: Eight of the seventeen operating reactors in Germany were permanently shut down following Fukushima. Chancellor Angela Merkel said the nuclear power phase-out, previously scheduled to go offline as late as 2036, would give Germany a competitive advantage in the renewable energy era, ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Closures_and_phase-out quote: During the chancellorship of Gerhard Schröder, the social democratic-green government had decreed Germany's final retreat from using nuclear power by 2022, but the phase-out plan was initially delayed in late 2010, when during chancellorship of center-right Angela Merkel the coalition conservative-liberal government decreed a 12-year delay of the schedule. ... On 14 March 2011, in response to the renewed concern about the use of nuclear energy the Fukushima incident raised in the German public and in light of upcoming elections in three German states, Merkel declared a 3-month moratorium on the reactor lifespan extension passed in 2010.[21] On 15 March, the German government announced that it would temporarily shut down 8 of its 17 reactors, i.e. all reactors that went online before 1981.[22] ... So, Germany has shuttered 8 of 17 nuke plants. ... 8 were closed in 2011. In the meantime Grafenrheinfeld has been closed in 2015, Gundremmingen B and Philippsburg 2 were scheduled for 2017. One of the 17, Brunsbüttel, is indeed mothballed since 2007 already and unlikely to become reactivated. So it is 7, soon 5 still operative.

Edwird -> RE: 'Anti-nuclear' Germany is Europe's biggest GHG emitter (11/15/2017 9:50:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird What is your question? See above (Posts #10, 13, 17 so you don't get lost). Answered. Answered. Answered. "See responses to posts #10, 13, 17, even though you'll only get lost, like you did the first time."

DesideriScuri -> RE: 'Anti-nuclear' Germany is Europe's biggest GHG emitter (11/15/2017 11:04:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird What is your question? See above (Posts #10, 13, 17 so you don't get lost). Answered. Answered. Answered. "See responses to posts #10, 13, 17, even though you'll only get lost, like you did the first time." Actually, you "responded" to them without answering them. Big difference. Nice try.

heavyblinker -> RE: 'Anti-nuclear' Germany is Europe's biggest GHG emitter (11/15/2017 11:09:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's not relevant at all. The article was about European countries. It's been pointed out that it should be expected for Germany to have the highest GHG emissions, as it has the highest GDP among the countries covered in the article. If you look at these two graphs (just giving links because they are larger than I like seeing in threads and I couldn't find smaller graphs that included 2016), it should be illuminating as to how much this article is, essentially, meaningless. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox_image/public/images/factsheet/economic-growth-powerandenergy-consumption-ghg-emissions1.png https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox_image/public/images/factsheet/fig2-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2016-new.png As shown, energy production isn't dropping, though the share of energy produced via renewables is increasing fairly quickly. Lignite coal, coal and nuke power shares are dropping, but nat gas has increased. One graph also shows that the general shape of ups and downs in GHG emissions follows the Primary Energy usage line while still having an overall downward trend. And, yes, the source in the OP's link would use this as propaganda, unsurprisingly. It is relevant because of the point that the OP is making, which is the same point that the world-pronuclear-propaganda site is making-- that anti-nuclear activists are ruining the world and nuclear power is our only salvation. This one: quote: Sometimes, activism has consequences. Germany's "Green Party" has been howling down dissenting opinions for decades and there are consequences. The article IS meaningless, but the OP has apparently fallen for it because 'Europe's biggest GHG emitter' is meant to sound negative, despite the fact that Europe has still done far far more to curb emissions than any other continent... ESPECIALLY the US.

WhoreMods -> RE: 'Anti-nuclear' Germany is Europe's biggest GHG emitter (11/15/2017 11:12:31 AM)
I'd be interested to see some figures which demonstrate that Germany is emitting more carbon dioxide than the former soviet countries, come to that. Coal's the only export apart from hookers, spooks and bullshit that Russia has these days, after all. Is Europe just the EEC now?

DesideriScuri -> RE: 'Anti-nuclear' Germany is Europe's biggest GHG emitter (11/15/2017 12:09:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker It is relevant because of the point that the OP is making, which is the same point that the world-pronuclear-propaganda site is making-- that anti-nuclear activists are ruining the world and nuclear power is our only salvation. This one: quote: Sometimes, activism has consequences. Germany's "Green Party" has been howling down dissenting opinions for decades and there are consequences. The article IS meaningless, but the OP has apparently fallen for it because 'Europe's biggest GHG emitter' is meant to sound negative, despite the fact that Europe has still done far far more to curb emissions than any other continent... ESPECIALLY the US. With the vast increase in renewables as a source, wouldn't you expect GHG to drop rather than go up? Lignite coal (the dirtiest as another posted here) use and coal use are also dropping, as a % of total production. Wouldn't you expect a larger drop (or even a drop) in GHG?

MasterDrakk -> RE: 'Anti-nuclear' Germany is Europe's biggest GHG emitter (11/15/2017 1:22:48 PM)
GHG in Germany is, in general, on the decline. On the other hand, colder winters and more GDP as of late means they are using more energy ... https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth

DesideriScuri -> RE: 'Anti-nuclear' Germany is Europe's biggest GHG emitter (11/15/2017 2:24:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk GHG in Germany is, in general, on the decline. On the other hand, colder winters and more GDP as of late means they are using more energy ... https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth It seems it's staying, roughly, the same recently. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox_image/public/images/factsheet/20170320-uba-greenhousegasemissions1990-2016-first-estimate.png (again, the pic is larger than I like, so I'm just linking to it). Since the choice to move away from nuke plants in May of 2011, GHG emissions haven't dropped much at all. Here are the numbers (from the link) from 2010-2016 (in millions of tonnes), GDP (from the link below) in US$, and GHG per US$T GDP (from maths): 2010 - 942 - 3.417T - 275.67 MTonnes 2011 - 922 - 3.758T - 245.36 MTonnes 2012 - 927 - 3.544T - 261.57 MTonnes 2013 - 945 - 3.753T - 251.83 MTonnes 2014 - 904 - 3.879T - 233.03 MTonnes 2015 - 902 - 3.364T - 268.17 MTonnes 2016 - 906 - 3.467T - 261.34 MTonnes Overall, Germany's emissions of GHG's has dropped greatly (over 25% since 1990). That should not be missed. And, I still say the OP's story is a big fat nothingburger considering Germany has Europe's biggest GDP. Looking at GDP, Germany's has vacillated, and 2016 is third worst (2010, 2015) in the years shown. Considering the increasing sourcing from renewables, it's tough to say just how much of an impact shuttering nuke plants is having.

MercTech -> RE: 'Anti-nuclear' Germany is Europe's biggest GHG emitter (11/18/2017 10:04:52 AM)
Germany "closing" nuclear facilities was mentioned. Just a nitpicking point of definition here. It takes about a decade to "close" a nuclear facility. A "shut down to standby" can be done in 30 days. A shutdown to standby entails removing the fuel from the reactor but maintaining chemistry and system flow to prevent corrosion in the piping and cooling flow to the spent fuel storage. A "closure" is returning the facility to a condition where the nuclear license can be terminated and the site is returned to either "greenfields" standards or "brownfields" standards. Greenfields is the spec for usable for anything including housing. Brownfields is industrial grade standards and can be used for non nuclear industry but not for human habitation. To get a termination of a nuclear license you have to: Have all the fissile material removed from site. All radioactive material removed from site. Comprehensive survey to prove nothing is left. Chemical hazard evaluation to assure no hazards to the general population exists. In 2011, the clueless bureaucrats in Germany reported plants closed when in actuality they were placed in standby awaiting funding and planning for a premature closure. I guess it only makes a difference if you are in the business and understand the hazards and hot to control them. If you want all the nitpicking standards for closure in the U.S. and Canada; you want a look at the MARSSIM standards. I'm sure the IAEA has equivalent specifications for Europe. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/multi-agency-radiation-survey-and-site-investigation-manual-marssim

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875