Skip to main content

View Diary: New German Data Shows No End in Sight for Coal (230 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm really surprised by (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence, ybruti, BYw, Egalitare, translatorpro

    the amount of pro-nuke diaries I read on here, maybe its because americans have never had to deal with something like chernobyl.

    I have don't doubt the possibiliets of renewable energy, because right now, germany is being revolutionary, with a government who actually doesn't even really want to do this, so I can't shake the feeling that once we have a left leaning government again, that is prepared to really invest and fight for renewable energy, alot of people here will be very surprised just how viable it is, once the interests of big energy are ignored and the interests of the earth are actually put front and center.

    Thankfully i think that in the next election red/green will take power again (though i am hoping for red/red/green, but that is probably not that likely since the LEFT is still seen as too extreme by to many spd and green guys).

    "We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

    by Mudderway on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:32:40 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, it is kind of sad to see a semi-veiled (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mudderway, BYw, Egalitare, translatorpro

      hit piece on renewables in the community spotlight column.

      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

      by Lawrence on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:49:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah thats what I don't understand (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lawrence, translatorpro

        why its in the community spotlight. I mean lots of diaries are written here every day, but i tend to view those in the spotlight as being particularly valuable for leftwing causes, and i don't really see that in this diary. I guess even the best sometimes screw up.

        "We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

        by Mudderway on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:58:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The more I think about it, the more outrageous (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mudderway, translatorpro

          I think this diary is.

          There really isn't anything constructive about a hit piece on Germany's renewable energy revolution, especially when one considers that Germany, with its progressive energy policies, almost single-handedly drove down the price of renewables via tech advancements and economies of scale and made renewables affordable throughout the world, especially solar.

          In essence, they paid the bulk of the up-front costs so that all of us throughout the world would have affordable access to renewable energy.

          In light of that context, the diarist should be ashamed of what he has written in this hit piece, imo.

           

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:15:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hit piece? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gzodik

            Quit trying to divine motives.  Is it accurate? is the important question.

            Since you're obviously anti-nuclear does that mean anything you write about it should be considered a hit piece?

          •  I'm not pro nuke (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Capt Morgan

            and this diary wasn't a hit piece.   I'm searching for answers of how to replace 300,000 megawatts of dirty coal energy in the US, day in day out. And nukes deserve discussion if only because they're carbon free.

            The diary provided important facts about the German energy situation.  Hopefully we can draw from their lessons so our own transition goes smoother.

            •  nukes are not carbon-free (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BYw, Lawrence

              if you account for the entire process, from mining the uranium to disposing of the radwaste.

              Nukes are about the same carbon-footprint as solar.

            •  I didn't say you were pro-nuke. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              translatorpro, 6412093

              Germany's experience is useful, to us, to an extent.  One useful bit of information is that renewables can be integrated into the grid on a large scale and reduce other forms of electricity generation.

              It also shows us that even a country with limited renewables resources can ramp them up on a large scale.

              Not mentioned in this diary at all, however, is the fact that the renewables resources in the U.S. are far superior to those in Germany.

              For example, Germany is smaller than Texas, has 3 times the population of Texas, yet has poorer renewables resources than Texas.  So, if Germany can ramp up to 25% electricity production from renewables without major issues, it will be far easier technically for Texas to ramp up to higher levels of renewables.

              If you want to dig deep into the potential of renewables in the U.S., I wrote a diary about just that, based on a recent NREL study, which pretty clearly shows that renewables can fairly easily replace all other forms of electricity production in the U.S.:

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:09:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  In the Northwest (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lawrence, translatorpro

                US, we had a record recently, when wind pumped 4000 megawatts into the regional power grid.  
                A few hours later, however, there were only a few MW of wind available.

                I complained that showed  how capricious wind power is.  But other commentors pointed out it also showed how large swings in wind power can be easily integrated into energy supplies.  So I learned something too.

                However the NW USA power grid also has several massive base load energy sources; big hydroelectric dams, an 1100 mw nuke, and coal burning power plants in Wyoming.  I'd like to see that coal power replaced or cleaned up, but otherwise, this example also illustrates how less-environmentally beneficial power sources still play an important role in energy generation, along wind and solar.

                Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

                by 6412093 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:12:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The NW U.S. should be able to ramp up to high (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  translatorpro

                  levels of renewables pretty easily without facing intermittency issues.  There's tons of hydro, which provides base load and is flexible to an extent.

                  Furthermore, if ever there was prime pumped hydro storage country, it is in the NW U.S.

                  "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                  by Lawrence on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:16:56 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Why are you surprised (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy, SpeedyGonzales

      Either we switch a massive amount of electricity generation to nuclear or we face possible extinction due to global warming.

      Nuclear is the ONLY relatively clean power generation technology that can realistically replace what is currently generated by fossil fuels.

      That's just a simple fact.

      If you want to save the planet you start switching to nuclear today... to buy enough time to either make fusion work or fully develop renewables

      •  this is simply not true (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BYw, Egalitare, Lawrence, 6412093

        Nukes are not better, when it comes to carbon footprint, than solar.

        Meanwhile, the cost of solar keeps going down, and the cost of nukes keeps going up.

        •  The carbon footprint (0+ / 0-)

          of nukes is trivial compared to coal & gas.  Nukes emit zero carbon during energy production. Coal and gas plants emit millions of tons per year.

          Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

          by 6412093 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:40:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  all irrelevant to what I said (0+ / 0-)

            Nukes are no better in their carbon footprint than wind or solar are. Wind and solar emit zero emissions during energy manufacture too.  So what.

            •  nuclear, wind and solar (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              translatorpro

              (among others) all produce carbon-free energy, making them all relatively desirable and worth discussing.

              Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

              by 6412093 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:25:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  none of them are carbon-free (0+ / 0-)

                though they all have roughly the same low-carbon footprint.

                The price of solar and wind is falling steadily, though, while the price of nuclear keeps rising.  Simple economics killed nukes decades ago. Nukes were never "cheap cheap cheap !!!" as advertised. Quite aside from the big long string of problems (waste storage, safety issues, liability, proliferation) that nukes couldn't solve before and still can't solve now. And of course uranium is itself a non-renewable resource, and all the quality sources have already been mined, leaving only the low-grade deposits.

                And in any case any new nukes will be tied up in court until God dies of old age, and likely will never be built.

                They're a non-solution.

                •  I vehemently opposed nukes (0+ / 0-)

                  for 30 years for all the reasons you stated, until carbon emissions because an overriding issue.

                  Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

                  by 6412093 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 12:40:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I did too--I lived near Three Mile Island in 1979 (0+ / 0-)

                    And none of the reasons why nuclear failed back then, have been solved. None.

                    Nukes can't help with global warming.  Even if we committed to nukes today (and we never will--as I said they will be tied up in court until God dies of old age) it will be 30-40 years before any new nukes go online and begin generating any significant electricity. Far too late. Even the nukes already in the works, such as Progress energy's nukes in Levy County, are already three times overbudget and aren't expected to go online--if they are ever built at all--for at least 20 years.

                    It's a non-solution, whether one is anti-nuke or not.  (shrug)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site