Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

In reply to the discussion: Table - German power [View all]

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
17. Noticed you ran from this same discussion at your thread on the same topic
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 08:22 AM
Apr 2012

When you have to drag someone to do the right thing it doesn't wipe out the fact that their kicking and screaming is because the *want* to do the *wrong* thing for *selfish* reasons.
ETA: You ignore a lot of content, "An astonishing 51 percent of Germany's renewable energy is generated by private citizens and farms."- post 11. http://www.democraticunderground.com/112712753#post11

And we're still waiting for the explanation of how nuclear plants ultimately shut down coal plants. You and DP have been unable to detail how that happens. We do, however, know that nuclear plants BLOCK the expansion of the one path that DOES shut down coal plants - and that would be a switch to a distributed renewable grid.

From an analysis by a German energy analyst:
“...a lot of nuclear electricity and a lot of eco-electricity don't fit together as economic concepts"

When Germany decided to continue down the path of shutting down their nuclear fleet instead of extending its life as the right-leaning Merkel government had attempted to do, we heard much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the nuclear fan club. One of the most oft heard refrains was how it was counterproductive to global efforts against carbon emissions.

That I disagree is no secret as I've often referred to the interchangeable nature of nuclear and coal, and how a fundamental obstacle against shutting down coal is the perpetuation of the system of centralized thermal generation by false promises that nuclear will save us. These promises not only routinely misrepresent basic central facts like GHG abatement efficacy, but they ignore the heavy external baggage and myriad unsolved problems related to cost, waste, proliferation and safety that plague the industry; thereby only serving to aid in retaining the centralized coal/nuclear system, not actually solving the climate crisis.

This 2010 paper was written to examine the consequences of Merkel's stated intention to change long standing policy and extend the life of the nation's nuclear fleet well beyond the designated shut down date of 2022. The policy had not yet been finalized at the time of publication. It obviously predates the Fukushima meltdowns and the consequent reversal of Merkel's first reversal of nuclear policy. "Systems for Change: Nuclear Power vs. Energy Efficiency & Renewables?" is by Antony Froggatt with Mycle Schneider collaborating.

This paper makes the point that far from aiding our response to carbon emissions, an "all of the above" energy policy fails to provide a planning clarity that is essential to effecting a rapid build-out of a sustainable, renewable global energy infrastructure. The fundamental economic incompatibility of nuclear and renewable systems is (like so many other inconvenient truths) something the nuclear industry routinely tries to sweep under the rug.

...Many systemic issues have not been thoroughly investigated yet when it comes to compatibility or incompatibility of the centralized nuclear approach versus the decentralized efficiency+renewables strategy. What are the consequences for grid development or how do choices on grid characteristics influence power-generation investment strategies? To what extent is the unit size co-responsible for structural overcapacities and thus a lack of incentives for efficiency? How do government grants/ subsidies stimulate long-term decision-making? Will large renewable power plants reproduce the same system effects as large coal/nuclear plants?

The present report presents the basic situation and raises questions that urgently need to be addressed. Successful energy policy will have to address the energy service needs of people in a much more efficient way than has been done in the past, as increased competition for ultimately finite fossil fuel leads to higher energy prices for all. For too long, energy policies have aimed at “supply security” of oil, gas and kilowatt-hours, rather than general access to affordable, reliable and sustainable services like cooked food, heat and cold; light ; communication; mobility; and motor torque...



You can download it with this link: http://boell.eu/downloads/Froggatt_Schneider_Systems_for_Change.pdf

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Table - German power [View all] Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 OP
Boy, that's a shitload of coal spewing toxins and CO2 into the air. TheWraith Apr 2012 #1
And yet they continue to decrease overall emissions. kristopher Apr 2012 #2
Are you refering to the 25 million ton increase? Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #3
You are acting like a climate denier... kristopher Apr 2012 #4
If you are including all the data.. Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #5
No... they aren't. FBaggins Apr 2012 #7
Out of interest, kris... Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #8
The government and the utilities that push nuclear and coal kristopher Apr 2012 #10
Yes kris. That's why I asked. Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #11
They have split personalities of course. FBaggins Apr 2012 #13
Noticed you ran from this same discussion at your thread on the same topic kristopher Apr 2012 #17
How odd... you misspelled "imagined" as "noticed". FBaggins Apr 2012 #18
What's the specific *market* mechanism by which nuclear shuts down coal? kristopher Apr 2012 #19
In the real world, ALMOST ALL power is subsidized in some way or another. XemaSab Apr 2012 #20
Poor xemasab... kristopher Apr 2012 #21
What does your consulting company do then? XemaSab Apr 2012 #23
What consulting company? kristopher Apr 2012 #24
Wink wink nudge nudge say no more XemaSab Apr 2012 #27
What consulting company? kristopher Apr 2012 #28
This message was self-deleted by its author XemaSab Apr 2012 #29
Still waiting. Either provide specifics or retract your insinuation. kristopher Apr 2012 #30
Kris, you've said you're an independant analyst Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #31
Two things: XemaSab Apr 2012 #36
What consulting company? kristopher Apr 2012 #37
Here's the deal: XemaSab Apr 2012 #38
Bullpucky. You've been party to stalking me off of DU. kristopher Apr 2012 #39
You said you weren't paid. joshcryer Apr 2012 #40
How do you arrive at that logic? kristopher Apr 2012 #42
OK, I'm confused Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #48
Finally you are listening, but you still aren't quite getting it. kristopher Apr 2012 #50
This message was self-deleted by its author XemaSab Apr 2012 #52
That's a nice cushy role you've chosen for yourself there. GliderGuider Apr 2012 #53
Who said it is a luxury? kristopher Apr 2012 #54
Irony's not dead XemaSab Apr 2012 #55
Poor Xemasab... What's the specific *market* mechanism by which nuclear shuts down coal? kristopher Apr 2012 #56
You can frame it however you want for yourself GliderGuider Apr 2012 #57
That perception by you and yours developed in direct proportion kristopher Apr 2012 #58
Oh, my perception goes back a lot further than that. GliderGuider Apr 2012 #59
"imperiously ordering"? kristopher Apr 2012 #60
The issue isn't whether we were right or wrong GliderGuider Apr 2012 #61
Turnabout is fair play XemaSab Apr 2012 #41
Again... kristopher Apr 2012 #43
So you think I am influenced by dark motives? XemaSab Apr 2012 #44
An business license that hasn't been used in 6 years doesn't turn up on a routine google search. kristopher Apr 2012 #45
It shows up on the special google XemaSab Apr 2012 #46
Oh, wait, sorry XemaSab Apr 2012 #47
It's so cute that you think EITHER has anything to do with market forces. FBaggins Apr 2012 #49
You really haven't got a clue and are not interested in learning. kristopher Apr 2012 #51
At least there is an increase in storage Yo_Mama Apr 2012 #6
Pity they didn't give capacity figures, though... nt Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #9
Umm ... did you mean a different type of "capacity"? Nihil Apr 2012 #12
Sorry, I meant as in MWh Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #14
OK - that makes sense. Nihil Apr 2012 #15
The fucking coal will be economically unextractable by 2035. joshcryer Apr 2012 #25
Economies of scale Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #26
No, I mean, I guess I should say it will be declining at that point. joshcryer Apr 2012 #32
Not sure that applies to German lignite... Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #33
Oops, see post #34, I replied to myself! joshcryer Apr 2012 #35
See these comments: joshcryer Apr 2012 #34
Still doesn't make it right to use nuclear power madokie Apr 2012 #16
Fair enough... Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #22
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Table - German power»Reply #17