More than 68% of New European Electricity Capacity Came From Wind and Solar in 2011

[Nihil]

69. No, you've just concentrated on dodging it (and did it again there)

This time, you repeated the same non-answer, making references to the Kyoto protocol
where you think it will reinforce your argument whilst ignoring it when referencing points
that it contradicts.


> The numbers for new coal capacity have been steadily declining both in the EU and the US.

Correct & agreed that it is a good thing.


> In fact, in the US coal's share of the electrical services market has declined 25% between
> 2005 and 2010.

Detail given without evidence but taken on trust yet ignored for now as it is irrelevent to the
ongoing thread (concerning the EU). Doubly irrelevent as the US remains the only signatory
not to have ratified the protocol and so hardly able to use "Kyoto" as a supporting argument.


> Sure, most of that is due to natural gas, ...

So yes, you've answered my question (i.e., you don't have any problem with the ramping
up of coal & gas) but let's continue ...

> ... but as has been repeatedly shown, that is in
> conjunction with a dramatic increase in the manufacturing and supply chain infrastructure
> for renewables and a steadily increasing rate of deployment for those technologies.

... with a hand-wave towards the fig-leaf trying to cover the enlarging phallus of fossil-fuel
usage by waffling about "a dramatic increase in the manufacturing and supply chain infrastructure
for renewables" (i.e., "dramatic" as it started from very near zero and has ended up many times
further away from zero) and "a steadily increasing rate of deployment for those technologies"
(again true in itself but as most of the manufacturing for said "increasing rate" requires
importing into the deployment region it doesn't justify either the enormous increase in natural gas
usage - ~134% in case you'd forgotten - or the merely 'large' increase in coal usage - ~44%).

I suppose I *should* be happy that you have come out and said that you don't have a problem
with the ramping up of gas (and coal though that was merely implied rather than stated) but the
way in which you present your defence for fossil fuel increases makes your accusations of
"arguments are not as honest as you claim" ring a trifle hollow.


Now - with a large sigh - to address (again) your recurrent red-herring about nuclear power.

> What economic carrots and sticks gets nuclear plants built in places that shut down coal plants?

I don't (repeat "don't&quot (double repeat with bolding "don't&quot want any (repeat "any", "any&quot
new nuclear plants built for any (repeat "any", etc.) reason. Clear yet?

More than that, I want the existing ones to be shut down. Also clear?

The only possible way you can interpret this as pro-nuclear is that I don't want the remaining
nuclear plants to be shitcanned nearly overnight in the way that both Japan (understandably)
and Germany (less so) have done in the last 12 months.

The primary reason why I maintain this single caveat was given way back in the OP article:

>> In 2000, nuclear+coal+gas = 66% of the mix.
>> In 2011, nuclear+coal+gas = 63% of the mix.

If you take the existing nuclear plants (note: NOT building new ones) out of the mix
before having sufficient surplus power from renewables (like Japan & Germany did)
you WILL have to increase the contribution of both coal and gas (like Japan & Germany did).

THAT (increase of the contribution of both coal and gas) is what I don't want.

It also appears to be where we part company and agree to disagree, preferably without
any more re-hashing of the "You're a nuclear shill!" bollocks.