| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Plantagenet
Expert
Joined: Apr 09, 2007
Posts: 5207
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables |
  |
|
| wrote: |
change in CO2 emission from 1990 to 2004:
Germany: -17,2%
USA: +15,8%
I doubt that the US is in a position to teach us about our CO2 reduction plans. |
Please consider the implications of recent German history for the CO2 numbers you posted.
As Starvid pointed out above, the change in CO2 emissions you are boasting about is entirely due to the collapse of the east German economy after reunification in 1990.
I was in Berlin shortly after the wall came down. It was fascinating to walk through east Berlin and travel in the DDR and see the primitive state of the economy there. Reunification caused a lot of changes in Germany, particularly in the former east Germany. The socialist economy of east Germany was a heavy polluter. When the east Germany factories shut down after reunification, Germany's emissions drastically decreased by about---say approximately--- 17.2% or so.
The Kyoto Protocol calls for industrialized nations to reduce their CO2 emissions to levels that are 5.2% lower than those recorded for 1990. The selection of 1990 as the base line and the strong support of this objective, as negotiated by Germany and other Eastern European countries, is no accident. When the two Germanys were merged in 1991, the newly reunited country inherited Soviet era manufacturing facilities that generated levels of pollution extraordinary by Western standards.
Of course, that means that the rich, industrialized parts of Germany did not reduce their CO2 emissions by the 17.2% that you claim.
Do you understand now how Germany was so successful at reducing its CO2 after 1990? The reductions are an artifact of setting the beginning date at 1990, and have little or nothing to do with German government policies ( although I hasten to add those policies are without doubt the most absolutely wonderful policies possible!). Verstehen sie das, meinen freund? Auf wiedersehen!
cheers! 
Last edited by Plantagenet on Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kublikhan
Intermediate Crude
Joined: Nov 06, 2007
Posts: 616
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:13 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables |
|
|
| yesplease wrote: | | kublikhan wrote: | | The proof was listed in the Nuclear Industry Indemnity Act I posted earlier. It mentions investors were unwilling to invest in nuclear power without an indemnity from the government. If everything you say is true, if nuclear has very little risk of an accident and insurance can cover that risk, then why is this act still being renewed? Why are public tax payer dollars still on the hook in the event of a nuclear accident at a private nuclear plant? Why are there negligence waivers as well? |
The rational behind the waivers/insurance are in the first link you posted earlier. Tax payer dollars and waivers are used because w/o them investors wouldn't deal w/ nuclear power, likely regardless of if the core damage frequencies were 1,000s of times what they are in the current gen plants because they don't have an accurate gauge of the risks compared to those of alternatives. While investors may not have an accurate assessment of the externalized costs of nuclear power compared to alternatives like coal, the NRC and probably others do, which is likely why they feel that offering liability waivers/insurance is worthwhile compared to the externalized costs of coal. |
After 50+ years you would think investors would have an accurate assessment of the risks. I don't like anyone getting a blank check to commit "gross negligence or willful misconduct" either.
_________________
The oil barrel is half-full. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Starvid
Fission
Joined: Feb 20, 2005
Posts: 2643
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables |
|
|
| kublikhan wrote: | | Starvid wrote: | The fact is that nuclear power plants pay more insurance than other industries.
Where is the insurance hydro power pays for massive flooding disaster? Who pays if an airliner crashes into a city killing thousands? If a chemical factory blows up and spews posing all over the place? Who pays if a coal power plants spews dangerous toxins into the air, creating huge amounts of respiratory disease (oops, they do that all the time)?
The answer to all these questions is the State. The nuclear industry is the exception that pays insurance at all. |
No. When a chemical plant explodes, they go after the chemical company and sue them. When a power plant explodes, they sue the power company. But not nuclear. They get a liability waiver. |
So what happens when the company can't cover the damages and goes bust?
_________________
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yesplease
Fission
Joined: Oct 03, 2006
Posts: 2044
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:06 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables |
|
|
| kublikhan wrote: | | After 50+ years you would think investors would have an accurate assessment of the risks. I don't like anyone getting a blank check to commit "gross negligence or willful misconduct" either. |
The only way to find out would be to survey investors, and if they're anything like the general public, then 50 years with a lot of negative advertising has probably done nothing for the situation. Ideally we wouldn't write blank liability checks to operators, especially given the safety record of some of them IIRC, but it seems that the government believes it's better than using more coal power, and given the track record of nuclear power compared to the track record of coal, I'm inclined to agree.
_________________
| Professor Membrane wrote: | | Not now son! I'm making...TOAST! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kublikhan
Intermediate Crude
Joined: Nov 06, 2007
Posts: 616
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:59 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables |
|
|
| Starvid wrote: | | So what happens when the company can't cover the damages and goes bust? |
They get bought by Dow Chemical who declares it case closed.
_________________
The oil barrel is half-full. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cephalotus
Tar Sands
Joined: Sep 18, 2007
Posts: 98
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:42 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables |
|
|
| Plantagenet wrote: |
Do you understand now how Germany was so successful at reducing its CO2 after 1990?
|
I'm perfectly aware of that.
But didn't you argue that Germany is not able to meet the Kyoto target?
I didn't find any rules, how the reductions should be made. The kyoto target is within reach.
And let's argue for a while that all of that reduction comes from reunification (reunification also meant building new infrastructure which uses energy, it also meant people moving to the wesetern park to work there btw...), that still would make +/- 0% compared to +15% in the US during the ame time frame.
Maybe you can also explain that difference, if it isn't for politics?
(I didn't want to make a Germany vx US "war". I have to use Germany as an example about the possibilities for renewable energies - see topic- because I know the statistics of that (my) country best and it is a country with the target of a strong growth in renewable energies)
Last edited by cephalotus on Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cephalotus
Tar Sands
Joined: Sep 18, 2007
Posts: 98
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:12 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables |
|
|
| Starvid wrote: |
Why don't you compare CO2 emissions of West Germany 1990-2004 with the US instead? :wink: |
ok:
http://www.volker-quaschning.de
Do you have a chart for the US? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Homesteader
Light Sweet Crude
Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Posts: 1162
Location: Central NC
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables |
|
|
Great information cephalotus. I appreciate your knowledge and apparent lack of bias.
_________________
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…"
Sir Winston Churchill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Starvid
Fission
Joined: Feb 20, 2005
Posts: 2643
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables |
|
|
But a much better comparison than reductions in per cent from some arbitrarily chosen level is to look at emissions per capita in countries which are about as rich. That should finally and quite clearly show us who has the best CO2-policies.
From left to right: Sweden (and France and Switzerland at the same level), Norway, Iceland, Germany, Finland, Canada, Australia and the USA.
_________________
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Starvid
Fission
Joined: Feb 20, 2005
Posts: 2643
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:01 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables |
|
|
| kublikhan wrote: | | Starvid wrote: | | So what happens when the company can't cover the damages and goes bust? |
They get bought by Dow Chemical who declares it case closed. |
But who pays the damages?
Dow Chemical?
What if it is Dow Chemical that creates the disaster and goes bust?
_________________
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MyOldTDiIsStillGoing
Tar Sands
Joined: Jun 11, 2008
Posts: 90
Location: CMH, I-71 Exit 112
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:08 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables |
|
|
| Starvid wrote: | | kublikhan wrote: | | Starvid wrote: | | So what happens when the company can't cover the damages and goes bust? |
They get bought by Dow Chemical who declares it case closed. |
But who pays the damages?
Dow Chemical?
What if it is Dow Chemical that creates the disaster and goes bust? |
Dow just jacked their prices for material up 25% earlier this month and will be charging 20% more on July 1st. Or is it the other way around. Ok, it still added to almost 50% in less than one month...and we are stuck with these increases in my business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kublikhan
Intermediate Crude
Joined: Nov 06, 2007
Posts: 616
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:06 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables |
|
|
| Starvid wrote: | | kublikhan wrote: | | Starvid wrote: | | So what happens when the company can't cover the damages and goes bust? |
They get bought by Dow Chemical who declares it case closed. |
But who pays the damages?
Dow Chemical?
What if it is Dow Chemical that creates the disaster and goes bust? |
I think you missed the funny I made 
_________________
The oil barrel is half-full. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tyler_JC
Moderator
Joined: Sep 25, 2004
Posts: 4388
Location: Boston, MA
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables |
|
|
If the choice is between the end of modern civilization and the remote possibility of a nuclear disaster, I'll take my chances with the nuclear plant.
If peak oil and the resultant decline in world energy production is a serious issue, we need a serious solution.
Renewables are great but they can't bridge the gap fast enough to compensate for a major decline in oil. Nuclear isn't the end solution, it's a bridge to a completely renewable grid.
_________________
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kublikhan
Intermediate Crude
Joined: Nov 06, 2007
Posts: 616
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables |
|
|
| Tyler_JC wrote: | If the choice is between the end of modern civilization and the remote possibility of a nuclear disaster, I'll take my chances with the nuclear plant.
If peak oil and the resultant decline in world energy production is a serious issue, we need a serious solution.
Renewables are great but they can't bridge the gap fast enough to compensate for a major decline in oil. Nuclear isn't the end solution, it's a bridge to a completely renewable grid. |
I agree. Renewables can't be scaled fast enough to meet demand. I just like to know as many facts as possible for what I am promoting, including negative ones.
_________________
The oil barrel is half-full. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
