SpanishMatMaster
Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011 Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Germany has a huge problem with the coal lobby, firmly established since the times of Bonn and Adenauer. There are also political reasons for this. The nuclear stop was an idea of the social-democrats (well, actually of the green, but the SPD agreed and implemented it). The Christian-democrats wanted to cancel it, but at the precise moment they were moving towards it, Fukushima happened and suddenly it became politically impossible. Now the CDU Government is trying to "pay back" the environmentalists by "showing" them that the only alternative to nuclear is coal. This said... how are revewable energies supposed to develop if nobody invests on them? The only way to produce cheap renewable energy is to invest massively on it, which impulses the technology development and reduces the costs by "scale economies" (sorry if my English is poor on this). So... Germany is doing a good job investing in renewable energies. The matter of the deadlines is a real issue, and it can be understood why renewable energies cannot be the only option in the short and middle term. But the move towards coal energy can only be understood by the mentioned factors, and will be done at best using... well, exactly, new technologies, like liquifying the CO2 to deposit it in the old coal deposits. As for the strongest argument presented, the prices of energy, I would like to point out that the numbers come from a place called Oilprice.com mentioning "economists" whose name is not provided, nor are the sources provided. I fear that these prices may be inflated, outdated, and that they do not take in account the externalised costs: The Rhine, for example, was almost completely devoid of life at the end of the 80's . To recover it from the huge pollution was a titanic tasks whose costs have never been calculated as part of the energy costs of the powerful Rhineland coal industry. Costs must be considered as a whole. The cost of polluting the environment. The cost of destroying life diversity. The costs of nuclear accidents (multiplied by their probability). The costs of radioactive pollution. And it is a constant of the lobbies of the different industries (including the renewables! solar energy lobbyists ignored the costs and pollution produced by the fabrication of the cells for decades!) that they tend to ignore all costs they can externalise while they include the ones of the competing energies. I would take these numbers with more than a pinch of salt. Here are the numbers of a placer called "nuclear fissionary"... what a surprise, they look different... http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/
< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 11/21/2011 11:17:14 PM >
_____________________________
Humanist (therefore Atheist), intelligent, cultivated and very humble :) If I don't answer you, maybe I "hid" you: PM me if you want. “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, pause and reflect.” (Mark Twain)
|