RE: Germany going green, despite the costs

RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

lemarquis2 -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 5:38:27 AM)
I agree with SMM's post about the political influence of coal industry in Germany over the past century almost (remember some of the German-French let's call them past large scale disagreements were also about controling the Saarland-Lorraine coalfields once fuelling national industries on a large scale) - there are still medium term contracts to be fulfilled about lignite/browncoal in NRW and East Germany - the only local fuel available in such abundance to be used for power generation - with detrimental effects we all know here from the former GDR situation in Bitterfeld, Leipzig asf. So the point is not to stick to what works since that is limited to next few decades anyway and no longer but to do it both ways. I personally am not too happy with new gas and coal burners but prefer them to new nukes any time. The real practical and technical problem is not power generation but transport and "storage" to have it available where and when needed, and to deal with the leftovers. "Green power" generation is already a big business as many fierce anti-greens have failed to notice and seem to continue to ignore. (on the side: what worked in Prussia in the 1760s failed in Ireland in the 1840s ... not the potato's fault though)

Sanity -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 5:38:53 AM)
By making food for the poor into energy [image]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y206/IceDrake79/Smileys/sarcasm.gif[/image] Smooth [image]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y206/IceDrake79/Smileys/sarcasm.gif[/image] quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster And Brazil is making a serious attempt for the whole country for 2014.

lemarquis2 -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 5:48:24 AM)
I agree with some of Sanity's samples that building wind farms near endangered bird's nesting sites or amidst migrating routes is no good idea at all with all due respect to HRH the Duke of Edinburgh: he is also widely known of loving to giving statements about almost everything he has absolutely no clue of - this is what makes him so popular with those of a similar mindset

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 6:10:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity By making food for the poor into energy [image]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y206/IceDrake79/Smileys/sarcasm.gif[/image] Smooth [image]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y206/IceDrake79/Smileys/sarcasm.gif[/image] No, that's your hamburger. Your hamburger is made of food for the poor, turned into tasty beef for your pleasure while millions die of hunger. And it has been done this since you started eating them. Also some dictators (many supported with your taxes) have been doing this. Turning food the poor needed into oil for your country, or good cars for them. Oh, and I almost forgot the food bubble, created by investors fleeing from the financial markets. Guess where do many of those investors come from. Smooth. But anyway, do you think that letting the climate change worsen will improve the food production? You did not thought that to the end, did you?

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 6:11:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The one thing most of these programs settle on though is the use of methanol/ethanol for vehicles which is of course a fossil fuel but at least the cleanest. Methanol / ethanol are fossil fuels? I am sorry but, fossil of what? I think that the main problem here is not the words (I really think fossil is wrong in this case) but the idea - yes, biofuel produces CO2, but only CO2 which has been previously captured during the production of the biofuel. The final balance is zero. In opposition to oil and coal.

Sanity -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 7:12:07 AM)
No that is ethanol, and if you refuse to see that there is little use trying to use facts logic or reason trying to debate with you over the issue. quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity By making food for the poor into energy [image]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y206/IceDrake79/Smileys/sarcasm.gif[/image] Smooth [image]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y206/IceDrake79/Smileys/sarcasm.gif[/image] No, that's your hamburger. Your hamburger is made of food for the poor, turned into tasty beef for your pleasure while millions die of hunger. And it has been done this since you started eating them. Also some dictators (many supported with your taxes) have been doing this. Turning food the poor needed into oil for your country, or good cars for them. Oh, and I almost forgot the food bubble, created by investors fleeing from the financial markets. Guess where do many of those investors come from. Smooth. But anyway, do you think that letting the climate change worsen will improve the food production? You did not thought that to the end, did you?

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 7:21:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity No that is ethanol, and if you refuse to see that there is little use trying to use facts logic or reason trying to debate with you over the issue. Strange, I could say the same about you. I have given you now the real reasons for the increases of the prices of food all over the world, but you refuse to see it. Because you prefer to eat flesh while you criticize people's attempt to control global warming using biofuel with the stupid argument (for a flesh-eater) that they consume people's needed food. Become vegetarian, stop voting Governments which support dictatorships, stop consuming oil, stop voting governments which allow food future's market speculation... and then you will have some right to criticize that. But there will be no reason anymore, because when everybody does this, the poor will be swimming on food.

samboct -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 8:11:08 AM)
1) There's plenty of food on the planet- we've got distribution system issues and subsidies to producers of food like substances which make us unhealthy (high fructose corn syrup) for example. 2) Brazil's crop for ethanol is sugar cane- is the world running low on sugar? Brazil's soil isn't the greatest, so producing sugar cane doesn't seem like an unreasonable use of the land. Also- since sugar cane takes CO2 out of the atmosphere to grow- there's no net CO2 increase as SMM has noted. 3) Citing Atlamonta Pass as a reason not to do wind power is like insisting that your typewriter isn't obsolete because your Commodore 64 can't run a decent word processing program. It's a bit out of date-- wind turbine siting now looks heavily at bird flyways, while there's clearly an over reaction to a single bat death near a wind turbine blade in another article. In terms of bird deaths- damn felines kill far more- and other animals tend to run into buildings until Darwin kicks in. The UK seems to be rather stubborn- they haven't turned lose their death grip on David Ricardo's theory that tariffs are bad- and that unilaterally abolishing them is a good idea although it's been bleeding their economy for the past 150 years. The problem is that the subsidies that the UK paid to construct wind farms went to China- which now has half a dozen of the 10 largest wind turbine manufacturers. Had their economy grown by spending this subsidy money in UK factories- instead of China's- well, then an 8% increase in the cost of energy would be easy to soak up. Don't blame renewables for dumb economic policy. Sam

Politesub53 -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 8:32:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 8% extra cost isnt cheap to the poorer end of the spectrum. Elderly people or those in poverty have a choice in winter, eat or keep warm. prices rising faster than income mean it is impossible to do both. 1. The comparison between a one-time 8% energy cost increase and the income and price rises in general is a fallacy, as the first would happen only one year and the others, not. 2. The 8% extra cost would not be of the whole energy, only the part substituted by renewables. The part which is already produced with renewables would need no substitution. 3. The social costs can be covered by taxes or additional social services - if needed. 4. It is not needed. In no western European country I know, including the UK where you live, are the poor really forced to choose between freezing and suffering hunger. And of course in Germany it is indeed so. 5. Even if it were so, the State could cover the expenses of the poor. Would this be a sensible investment from the State? Yes, they would get that money back with wonderful profit, as these substitution means more R & D in key areas for the long term, cheaper energy production prices due to scale economies in the short and middle term and... 6. ... the fact is, that the real costs of renewable energies are negative compared to traditional ones, because of externalised costs. Actually, I could simply return your argument back with a 50% for the renewables, if the consumers would pay all the damage done to the environment. 7. And the rises of the consumer's costs would decrease waste, reducing that 8% anyway at the end. Therefore, I really suggest that you abandon this line of argumentation, Politesub. Best regards. I suggest you learn what you are on about before telling me what line of argument I can and cant use. The governments own adviser has suggested an increase in bills of up to 30%, so lets not try and suggest otherwise. http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16062747 Dont use Chris Huhnes quote either, as he is being investigated for lying to the police about a sspeeding offence.

Politesub53 -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 8:40:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Whole regions and cities in Europe are proving the naysayers wrong and are in the process of eliminating the use of all fossil fuels...some almost entirely. The costs, one time, the benefits...for all time. This is nonsense which flies against anything you read in the media. Costs are sure to come down over time, but lets not pretend they are a one time cost. Solar panels, infrastructure, wind turbines will all need maintenance and upgrading.

samboct -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 9:37:54 AM)
Yes, but reduced cleaning costs of buildings, increased longevity of cars, reduced landfill costs, health care costs and minimizing the expense of nuclear waste also reduce costs. Coal has a lot of reach- power production is one of the largest sources of heavy metals in the atmosphere. Reduce the use of coal, and you see a lot of benefits that are not easily quantified because they're so far reaching and are often far removed from the people who benefit directly from the plant. From a UK perspective- does it make sense not to burn coal because France gets the bulk of its pollution? Or do we say that there's only one atmosphere and that national borders aren't respected? Its very hard to make an argument that by increasing efficiency of transmission lines- which largely is a one time cost- the savings don't pay for themselves over a long enough time period. I suspect that the UK has a similar problem as the US- the power producers get paid for production- but transmission is an afterthought, and there's no economic mechanism to account for losses. PV panels typically get cleaned about 4 times a year, and newer wind turbine technology with self cleaning blades will be coming on line soon- so maintenance costs moving forward will be dropping- and the percentage of availability will probably be increasing- same as what happened for the nuclear industry- which went from around 50% availability in the 70s to 90% today. Sam

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 10:40:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The governments own adviser has suggested an increase in bills of up to 30%, so lets not try and suggest otherwise. The governments adviser. 'nuff said. Ok, I gave you 7 refuting arguments, mutually independent, so that you would need 7 well founded objections. And what you give me is an attempt of objection of one, changing magically the numbers, and based on a Goverments adviser. Such an objective, serious, scientific source! And on end cosumers bills, that is, not less. Based on the Governments own policies. I mean... it is getting ridiculous, we can let it be here.

Sanity -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 11:55:48 AM)
So, despite all the highly credible news reports blaming biofuels for the worlds growing hunger problem you are arguing that the current and relatively extreme worldwide food inflation is due entirely to an individual in Idaho who raises and consumes his own beef cattle.... Youre funny! [:D] I would suggest that pumping oil is not the problem, it is the solution. If instead of devoting vast tracts of farmland to inefficiently producing energy, we revert said farmland back to growing food. Then, we resume pumping our energy right out of the ground... along with accessing other viable and feasible forms of energy. Hows that for a novel concept quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity No that is ethanol, and if you refuse to see that there is little use trying to use facts logic or reason trying to debate with you over the issue. Strange, I could say the same about you. I have given you now the real reasons for the increases of the prices of food all over the world, but you refuse to see it. Because you prefer to eat flesh while you criticize people's attempt to control global warming using biofuel with the stupid argument (for a flesh-eater) that they consume people's needed food. Become vegetarian, stop voting Governments which support dictatorships, stop consuming oil, stop voting governments which allow food future's market speculation... and then you will have some right to criticize that. But there will be no reason anymore, because when everybody does this, the poor will be swimming on food.

mnottertail -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 12:16:05 PM)
I would suggest that pumping oil is not the problem, it is the solution. If instead of devoting vast tracts of farmland to inefficiently producing energy, we revert said farmland back to growing food. Then, we resume pumping our energy right out of the ground... along with accessing other viable and feasible forms of energy. Hows that for a novel concept ---------------------------------- Well, how about we make the oil companies either drill the land they have under lease or lose it and release it. No new rigs until thats taken care of. Not a novel concept but a good one. Your math and science skills are really iffy, you might begin by telling us how vast tracts of land are being used to produce energy inefficiently....

Sanity -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 12:24:40 PM)
I dont have time or patience for you two, try asking someone smart who likes you to try to break it down for you quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail you might begin by telling us how vast tracts of land are being used to produce energy inefficiently....

mnottertail -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 12:26:41 PM)
I am not asking, I am telling you that hyserical mummery does not equal fact.

Sanity -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 12:28:49 PM)
How cute, you think you are preaching to me [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I am not asking, I am telling you that hyserical mummery does not equal fact.

mnottertail -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 12:37:34 PM)
No, one does not throw pearls before swine lest they turn and trample him underfoot. (that's from the bible, and would be preaching)

Politesub53 -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 3:41:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The governments own adviser has suggested an increase in bills of up to 30%, so lets not try and suggest otherwise. The governments adviser. 'nuff said. Ok, I gave you 7 refuting arguments, mutually independent, so that you would need 7 well founded objections. And what you give me is an attempt of objection of one, changing magically the numbers, and based on a Goverments adviser. Such an objective, serious, scientific source! And on end cosumers bills, that is, not less. Based on the Governments own policies. I mean... it is getting ridiculous, we can let it be here. You miss the whole point. The government adviser is speaking of government policy, so his remit would be to produce the lowest figure possible. Others have quoted that at around 8% which is what I quoted in my previous post, so I am not magically altering anything, since first time around I used the lowest figure being bandied about in the UK. Your arguments, which are no more than "your" opinion of what costs will be, have no bearing on ANY figure being spoken off in the UK. I would suggest the figures being talked of both by the industry and the government are more realistic than your own assumptions of costs, based on nothing in particular.

Politesub53 -> RE: Germany going green, despite the costs (11/23/2011 3:57:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Yes, but reduced cleaning costs of buildings, increased longevity of cars, reduced landfill costs, health care costs and minimizing the expense of nuclear waste also reduce costs. Coal has a lot of reach- power production is one of the largest sources of heavy metals in the atmosphere. Reduce the use of coal, and you see a lot of benefits that are not easily quantified because they're so far reaching and are often far removed from the people who benefit directly from the plant. From a UK perspective- does it make sense not to burn coal because France gets the bulk of its pollution? Or do we say that there's only one atmosphere and that national borders aren't respected? Its very hard to make an argument that by increasing efficiency of transmission lines- which largely is a one time cost- the savings don't pay for themselves over a long enough time period. I suspect that the UK has a similar problem as the US- the power producers get paid for production- but transmission is an afterthought, and there's no economic mechanism to account for losses. PV panels typically get cleaned about 4 times a year, and newer wind turbine technology with self cleaning blades will be coming on line soon- so maintenance costs moving forward will be dropping- and the percentage of availability will probably be increasing- same as what happened for the nuclear industry- which went from around 50% availability in the 70s to 90% today. Sam Someone else making a point about something I never said. I made no mention of coal, just of the "going green" costs. You also missed my earlier pint about wind turbines not always being available, such as during last years record low temps in the UK. Our own government are trying to muddy the waters by mentioning savings made from using more effecient insulation and low energy lighting, which is next to useless.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875