Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Climate Change and Environmental Issues Germany funds new coal burners

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110713-36277.html

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2396828,00.htm

Greens. Sheesh. At least the Germans are being pragmatic about the repercussions from the predicament they've put themselves in.
It's "Change your way of life and all the expectations", or "Go with carbon".

It didn't take long for the Germans to find reality sinking in, did it ?

'
No, just two World Wars, and their society and country in ruins for them to get rid of their delusions and face reality.

I would like to hope that Americans could learn from Germany's mistakes, but my sense of reality tells me that Americans will find it even harder to kick their delusion addictions.

'
Oh, joy ! A new German news source !!

http://www.thelocal.de/

Thanks for the link.

Germany’s humble strength

The United States should try it---it would make a refreshing change.

I do like the Germans---they are so [unconsciously] funny !

Based on your comments, I am not convinced that you read the articles that you linked to here.

The stories are about serious controversy in Germany over building more coal fired power plants. I do not think the take-away message from the articles is that the Germans have fallen into line behind the "pragmatism" of committing to 40 years of coal fired plants and their associated CO2 emissions.

Perhaps a few words jumped out at you that resulted in premature and erroneous conclusions as to the full content of the documents?

Here are five pragmatic economic reasons to get over our coal dependency:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...ve-beyond-coal-five-economic-indicators/

1. While coal prices become more volatile, natural gas prices appear more stable (and the cost of renewable energy is dropping fast).

2. The delivered price of coal increased three times faster than inflation over the past five years.

3. States dependent on coal had the highest electricity price increase in the past five years.

4. U.S. Coal mining productivity has declined 20% since 2000.

5. Rising international demand and recognition of environmental costs will continue to drive coal prices upward.

I predict it won't be very long before the Germans start building Gen IV nukes !

Hey, LT are you going to reveal the "why" behind some of your stistics regarding coal ?

1. Hold on to your rocker. NG prices are going to dip, (or will if government doesn't screw with market forces) as a function of improving fracking technology and development of vast new and old fields.

2. None of which "cost increases" were due to ordinary market forces. Changing Federal regulatory climate and restrictions are driving demand down. Our coal resources are vast and our mining efficiency is measured in tons/sec.

3. You obviously think those "increases" have no connection with government-mandated rate freezes and fat subsidies for "green energy" paid through the utility system. It all came at the cost of a neglected infrastructure now threatening collapse. States hardest hit were those most dependent upon coal-fired generation. (see no. 1 above)

4. (see no. 2 above)

But perhaps you can answer this question: Why do so many think/refer to electricity in terms of a commodity, like coal, wheat or oil ? It isn't. Its potential work transmittable over distance. Just like a lake of water behind a hydro-power dam. Until/unless someone does something,( aka work) with it, the electric potential disappears over time. So why would we ever use anything but our cheapest and most restrictive fuel source to generate it ? IPOF why use any carbon fuel at all ? Cheap, clean, efficient nuclear power is readily available and could be "on line" in a decade or less with the same amount of "stimulus" as was wasted on the dying dinosaur auto industry.

Just my ordinary, basic American opinion, but why would we waste nice clean abundant natural gas to put electrical potential in the air when it has so many other more valuable applications ? OTOH, the technology for "clean" coal power generation has existed for over five decades. (Channel LBJ and a few other quiet Democrats for the "reasons why" we're not using today.) Ask the luddites why don't our urban areas don't have multiple small-footprint "cache" Gen IV plants ? Why are residents of those areas dependant upon vulnerable long distance transmission lines/grid systems when a series of local plants could supply power over super-conducting lines to substations for distribution ?

The bottom line is government, (or rather politics) has, and remains, the biggest obstacle to progress and economic prosperity in America. >Mech

Mech,

Those weren't "my" points, they were extracted from the link provided.

You had a nice run of unsubstantiated associative thinking going on there, how about some supporting information?

For the record, I am a proponent of:
-Conservation and efficiency (my geekster friend likes to say, "It's five times cheaper to save a watt than make a watt");
-Free cold fusion energy;
-Comprehensive full lifecycle evaluations of any and all energy scenarios before making humongous and irreversible decisions about our collective future.

Not necessarily in any order.

Si? Bueno?

Too bad, LT, I ain't gonna do your research for you. If you don't follow what your state's PUC is doing, too bad. Examples are to be found in the news almost daily. Look at CA's "Power Board" history of mismanagement of resources.

What the feds are doing is readily available at EPRI and in any of the coal and power industry pubs/sites. Likewise the history of coal MHD and MSR technology. Both have had successful pilot plants run in the Sixties ! The MSR technology has over 20,000 hrs run time.

Every technology I mentioned is extant, scalable and more efficient/cleaner than what we now have. Better its available "short-term" far cheaper and more reliable than the fantasies issuing from the Oval Office or its "Energy Czar".

I got nothing good to say about much of the "green energy industry" except it paid my bills for a while. From personal experience I can attest its a conglomeraton of short-term "subsidy harvesters" owned - at least initially - by profiteers with no connection or interest in the power business. IOW an "industry" created by government fiat for the sole purpose of bilking dependent rate payers.

BTW, if "life-cycle" is your thing, then nuke is the only way to go. Current operating plants use around 10% of the fuel. Improved design and technology makes that other 80+% available while drastically reducing storage issues. >Mech

It's suggested that the present governing party can survive ( if the this coal burning scheme doesn't pan out ), by forming a coalition with the pro-nuke factions.

I have a couple more like that ..not for Germany though.