French per capita emissions of greenhouse gases are in decline.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/franenv.html

Some relevant quotes:

" Since 1980, when France emitted approximately 136 million metric tons of carbon, the country has cut its energy-related carbon emissions by just over 20%, to 108 million metric tons in 2001. "

" France's carbon emissions make up approximately 1.6% of the world's total, according to EIA data. France's per capita carbon emissions are the lowest among the major Western European countries and are on the decline. In 1980, per capita carbon emissions in France stood at 2.52 metric tons of carbon equivalent, but that figure declined to 1.83 metric tons of carbon equivalent by 2001. In comparison, per capita carbon emissions in 2001 in Germany (2.71 metric tons of carbon equivalent), the United Kingdom (2.59), Italy (2.10), and Spain (2.05) were all higher than in France. "

" In 2001, France's carbon intensity was 0.06 metric tons of carbon per thousand 1995$--exactly half the country's carbon intensity level in 1980. France's level of carbon intensity in 2001 compares favorably with its neighbors in western Europe, as the UK (0.12 metric tons of carbon per thousand 1995$), Spain (0.11), and Italy (0.10), and Germany (0.08) all posted higher levels of carbon intensity than France in 2001. "

(Definition of carbon intensity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_intensity)

Gee, I wonder why France has such a low carbon intensity?

See figure 11 in this link for an interesting graph on carbon intensity and France's standing among some important nations with large economies:

http://www.cornellcollege.edu/physics/courses/phy228/InternationalEnergyOutlook.pdf

Is the fact that almost all the country's energy comes from nuclear power.
Whether you think that's a good or a bad thing, I'll leave up to you

Someone should have included this excerpt as well...

<snip>

According to the French business association, between 1990 and 2002, French steel plants reduced their specific emission of CO2 by 22%, while increasing their steel production by 13%. The group estimates that steelmakers have avoided the emission of 46 million tons. According to an official November 2002 MIES report on France's progress towards meeting its Kyoto goals, the country's carbon dioxide emissions have been brought down 15.5% from 1990 to 2001 (EIA data shows otherwise). The report stated that French industry has reduced emissions by 25 % over this period, and energy generation companies by 22%.

However, the report showed that France's emissions from transport and home heating have increased during the same time period. The MIES report stated that carbon emissions from transport have risen more than 26% since 1990, and emissions from house heating more than 12%. These two sectors produced 47% of greenhouse gases emitted in France in 2001, according to MIES.

<snip>

The second figure in the linked article further indicated that France's total carbon emissions INCREASED from 1990-2001 whereas Germany's total carbon emissions declined by ~50 million tonnes during the same period.

Did Germany expand their nuclear capacity during the period 1990 to 2001????

nope

http://www.uic.com.au/nip46.htm

What DOES it all mean????

It means that sole reliance on nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a joke.

Conservation and energy efficiency are far more effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions than the "most cost" option (nuclear power).

Something that "nuclear only" Larouchian twits can't seem comprehend.

:rofl:

Yes, Germany expanded it's nuclear capacity during the 1990's just as most countries did. In fact the growth of nuclear capacity in the 1990's from 140 billion kilowatt-hours to 157 billion kilowatt-hours in 2002. Production peaked at 162.7 billion kilowatt-hours in 2001 before the so called "Greens" tried to enforce national stupidity on Germany with their poor comprehension of science.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls

22.7 billion kilowatt-hours (the increase from 1992-2001) is 8 X 10^16 Joules, the equivalent (at 25000 MJ/kg) of 3 billion kg of coal - coal being the fuel that Greenpeace - the international organization for propping up the fossil fuel industry - is shilling for. Three billion kg of coal, 80% carbon, 5% sulfur, and the rest heavy metal contaminated ash is the equivalent of 9 billion tons of carbon dioxide.

Get that, 9 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year were saved merely by the growth in the nuclear power plant production in Germany in the decade between 1992 and 2002?

Let me put this clearly: WITHOUT THE INCREASE IN NUCLEAR PRODUCTION IN GERMANY IN THE DECADE BETWEEN 1992-2002, GERMANY'S CARBON DIOXIDE PRODUCTION WOULD HAVE INCREASED BY 8 BILLION KG..

Got it?

I didn't think so.

Now a billion kilowatt-hours is something that solar only f(l)akes - whose understanding of numbers is especially poor - could comprehend. Typically they talk about 3 mega"watts" or 2 kilo"watts" - and leave out the fact that their big deal plants only operate a few hours a day. In fact the growth of nuclear production in Germany in the 1990's exceeded the entire installed PV capacity of Germany, which according to solar buzz, is 424 Mega"watts" (the usual peak power fraud rating). This means that when the sun is shining brightly, for about at hour a day, the entire solar PV industry can produce as much power as a small coal fired plant.


http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsGermany.htm

Now let's consider the case that the sun never goes down and that it is always sunny in Germany and pretend that a solar mega"watt" is the same kind of watt that someone who understands high school science uses:

424,000,000 watts * 31,557,600 sec/year = 1.34 X 10^16 J or 16% of what the nuclear industry grew without building a single plant, or even really spending an additional dime (Euro dime.)

But let's get real. The sun goes down, and it does get cloudy in Germany. The best capacity loading factor for a solar plant in Germany is actually about 25%. Seen in real energy terms, the entire solar industry in Germany is 4% of the growth in the nuclear production of Germany. Measured in total terms, 157.2 billion-kilowatt hours, a person who can do math can easily see that for all the hype, wishful thinking, subsidies, payoffs to rich shill investors, pretending, and wasted money the solar PV industry is still not producing even 1% of what nuclear plants in Germany produce.

Not even 1%.

You got that?

Not even 1%, 0.6% to be exact.

Oh I forgot, the members of Greenpeace don't understand numbers. They're too busy drinking and wondering if other people are Lyndon LaRouche. Textbook: How to Argue When You Don't Understand Numbers.

Big Deal. Let's be clear what Greenpeace is selling: Coal.

"...the nuclear industry grew without building a single plant, or even really spending an additional dime (Euro dime.)"

Not a dime? Damn, that's a bummer. All that radioactive waste and they ain't spent an additional dime to figure out what to do with it over the next 10,000 years? I doubt it. I'm sure they have spent some serious coin trying to find a solution to that problem. Of course, you may be right, maybe the govt. is welfaring them along? Nuclear welfare, anybody? LOL

One fact about solar that you may have missed: most solar is not tied to the grid, so the majority of solar generation would never be found in your cherry picked facts.

Still, at even 1%, it means the growth of the solar industry will be phenomenal. Let the sun shine!

Instead of creating more problems, we should be focusing on how to fix the problems we've got that can be fixed real quick. Problems like wasteful uses, wasteful transfers on the grid, and wasteful centralized-big businessmen wasting our preciuos clean air. Those big bussineesmen are the people who have created the problem, and they are the one's who need to be attacked, not the sun (lol) worshippers.

Peace. How? Bring the troops home NOW!

<snip>

Let me put this clearly: WITHOUT THE INCREASE IN NUCLEAR PRODUCTION IN GERMANY IN THE DECADE BETWEEN 1992-2002, GERMANY'S CARBON DIOXIDE PRODUCTION WOULD HAVE INCREASED BY 8 BILLION KG..

<snip>

using your figures...

3 X 10^9 kg of coal is 3 X 10^6 tonnes of coal (assuming your numbers aren't bogus to begun with...).

...which is 2.4 x 10^6 tonnes of carbon (assuming a coal carbon content of 0.8) per year in "savings" due to the increase in nuclear generation between 1991 and 2000.

Between 1990 and 2001 Germany reduced its carbon emissions by ~5 x 10^7 tonnes per year (Fig 2 in the OP).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/franenv.html

That 2.4 x 10^6 tonnes "savings" is equivalent to only 4.8% of the reduction in Germany's carbon emissions over this period.

How any of that translates into a net increase in carbon emissions of "8 billion kg of CO2" is anyone's guess...

...but in the bizarre world of Larouchian Twit Psuedoscience, anything is possilble.

Futhermore...

How 3 billion KILOGRAMS of coal can magically transform itself into 9 billion TONNES of CO2 is indeed mystifying...

At most, 3 billion kg of coal could be converted into 8.9 MILLION tonnes of CO2.

Someone's figures are off by a few orders of magnitude.

As a Charter Member of the Killer Drunk Greenpeace Twit Mantra Chanting Marching and Chowder Society, I can only say....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:rofl:

NNadir, Post 3, Para 2: Energy content of coal is 24-31 MJ/kg, not 25000 MJ/kg. However, the overall math was right: 22.7B kw-h is equivalent energy to 3 billion kg of coal.

3 billion kg of coal, or 2.4 billion kg of carbon, would combine with oxygen to form 8.8 billion kg of CO2. My guess is that this is error number two - the substitution of 'tonnes' with the correct 'kg'.

I can't find the link regarding germany's reduction in carbon emissions.

But this quote from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/germany.html is telling:

"Germany set a goal of reducing the six greenhouse gases cited in the Kyoto Protocol by 21% between 2008 and 2012, within the context of the EU burden-sharing program. This has been made more achievable given the sharp drop in total German carbon emissions since 1990, due mainly to decreased consumption of energy overall (and in particular lignite) in the former East Germany. "

So, a reduction of energy use in general, and coal specifically, has helped germany lower it's emissions. However, given that much of the energy use was in the former East Germany, it is difficult to make an apples to apples comparison. Likely the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 had something to do with it. Ya think?

Global carbon emissions from ALL anthropogenic sources are currently ~7 Gt C per year or ~26 Gt CO2 per year.

Clue for all Larouchian Twits: 1 Gt = 1 billion tonnes

How the fuck can the modest increase in German nuclear power generation between 1990 and 2001 "save'" 9 Gt of CO2?????

That's equivalent to 35% of ALL anthropogenic CO2 emissions each year.

Them gurmin nucular power reactors sho' iz summ'n, mmmm mm!!!

What breathtaking horseshit!!!!!

:rofl:

:beer:

That about says it all.

Do you predict that France could replace even that 4% from your coal friends with PV?

Zero to four too hard?

Oh don't worry yourself too hard, just make another undeliverable dumbass promise about 2100. You won't hear much about it when you continue to fail, will you?

Where nuclear and PV fraud compete directly - without mysticism and scientific illiteracy - it's not even close.

Zero. Zero. Zero.

What was that number again: Oh yeah, we don't understand numbers do we?

Let's try though: Zero. Zero. Zero. To give you a hint what zero means, it means nothing

Let's be clear what PV frauds are selling: Coal, coal, coal, coal.

And now let's have another drink in honor of the illustrious campaing governor Hydrogen Hummer billion trillion solar roofs steroid boy.


:toast:

And then let's pass out, complaining about Lyndon LaRouche: :boring:

Duck, it's a cosmic ray! :scared:

as a prime example of Larouchain Twit Quackery and Charlatanism.

France's renewable energy capacity lags other EU countries because...

1) France's electrical grid is a state monopoly. That monopoly actively opposes competition from independent (renewable) electricity producers...

2) Until quite recently France has not actively promoted renewable energy...

<snip>

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/franenv.html

Renewable Energy
Due to its lack of indigenous energy resources, France's energy self-sufficiency depends to a great extent on conserving energy and developing renewable energy sources. Hydroelectric power accounts for 7% of the country's overall power consumption, but there is little in the way of additional potential. Although the country's consumption of geothermal, solar, and wind power has been increasing in recent years, reaching 0.04 quadrillion Btu in 2001, it still makes up less than 1% of the country's overall energy consumption.

The European Union has established a target of deriving at least 20% of national electricity needs from renewable sources by 2010. Recognizing that something must be done to spur the growth of renewable energy, the French government, in its January 2000 plan to meet its Kyoto commitments, included several long-term structural measures to encourage the use of renewable energy resources. However, renewable energy use will not see a real surge until the French government removes market barriers (such as subsidies for other energy sources) that inhibit the use of renewables for electricity and heat production. Currently, France has only about 80 MW of installed wind power (compared to about 3,000 MW in Germany).

Nevertheless, France is trying to promote wind power in the country by extending the public service policy tax to households. CRE, the French regulator, says that prices will have to rise in order to meet the government's target of providing 21% of power consumption by renewable means by 2010.

<snip>

Scientific illiteracy?????

Please refer to post 3 for a prime example.

:rofl:

The Greens started as a civil rights movement, as the state had a tendency to disregard individual rights when it came to nuclear power.

Then: there was no increase of nuclear plants in the 90s. What happened was an increase of productivity - they tuned their engines. The same thing is still happening BTW, the production is still rising (with a minor hitch, when several plants were down for maintenance).
The reported number of security breaches is rising accordingly; not too long ago the Philippsburg plant was caught: they had disabled their emergency shutdown system.

There are a few facts:
1) No energy company is willing or able to build new nuclear plants
2) Anyone not blinded by fancy 60s technology can see that the German plants are rustbucketts.
...



Ideology is never a good basis to solve problems. That the pro-nukes folks are starting to overtake the greens in the ideology department ... who would have guessed?

Maybe you never heard of global climate change.

If you think that a "security breach" at a single plant in Phillipsburg is comparable to global warming in risk, you may know what ideology does, but you haven't even a remote clue about what it is.

If you think the Green supported war in Iraq is a worse problem that the fear of some illiterates about their "so calleed individual right" - and what about the right of everyone on the planet to not have to breath coal waste? - than you may know what ideology does but you don't know what it is.

In most posts, as a pronuke, I use numbers which come from something called data. This is science, not ideology.

Anti-environmentalist anti-nuclear types are very weak on data. They want to note every nuclear problem in isolation but they do not compare it to its alternatives. That, my friend, is ideology, selective attention.

You seemed to have missed by the way, the fact that the nuclear industry worldwide is expanding its capacity world wide by almost 25%. Almost 30 reactors are now under construction worldwide:

Start Operation* Organisation REACTOR TYPE MWe (net)

2005 Japan, Tohoku Higashidori 1 (Tohoku) BWR 1067
2005 India, NPCIL Tarapur 4 PHWR 490
2005 China, CNNC Tianwan 1 PWR 950

2004 Ukraine, Energoatom Khmelnitski 2 PWR 950 - started
2004 Ukraine, Energoatom Rovno 4 PWR 950
2004 Russia, Rosenergoatom Kalinin 3 PWR 950

2006 Iran, AEOI Bushehr 1 PWR 950
2006 Japan, Hokuriku Shika-2 ABWR 1315
2006 India, NPCIL Tarapur 3 PHWR 490
2006 China, CNNC Tianwan 2 PWR 950
2006 China, Taipower Lungmen 1 ABWR 1300

2007 India, NPCIL Rawatbhata 5 PHWR 202
2007 Romania, SNN Cernavoda 2 PHWR 650
2007 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 1 PWR 950
2007 India, NPCIL Kaiga 3 PHWR 202
2007 India, NPCIL Kaiga 4 PHWR 202
2007 USA, TVA Browns Ferry 1 BWR 1065
2007 China, Taipower Lungmen 2 ABWR 1300

2008 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 2 PWR 950
2008 India, NPCIL Rawatbhata 6 PHWR 202
2008 Russia, Rosenergoatom Volgodonsk-2 PWR 950
2008 Korea, KHNP Shin Kori 1 PWR 950

2009 Finland, TVO Olkiluoto 3 PWR 1600
2009 Japan, Hokkaido Tomari 3 PWR 912
2009 Korea, KHNP Shin Kori 2 PWR 950
2009 Korea, KHNP Shin Wolsong 1 PWR 950

2010 Russia, Rosenergoatom Balakovo 5 PWR 950
2010 Russia, Rosenergoatom Kalinin 4 PWR 950
2010 India, NPCIL Kalpakkam FBR 440
2010 Pakistan, PAEC Chashma 2 PWR 300
2010 Korea, KHNP Shin Wolsong 2 PWR 950
2010 China, Guangdong Lingao 3 PWR 950
2010 Russia, Rosenergoatom Beloyarsk 4 FBR 750
2011 China, Guangdong Lingao 4 PWR 950
2011 China, CNNC Sanmen 1 & 2 PWR
2011 China, CNNC Yangjiang 1 & 2 PWR

About twice as many as that are planned or on order.


I suppose too, you object to the increase in efficiency of nuclear power plant operations. Another sign of the "failed" industry.

And now for a graph:



Note that this graph covers a period where nuclear opposition was enforced by world wide stupidity - and had low public support. Renewables (that dotted green-line near the ZERO axis) meanwhile had tremendous public support. Everybody loves renewables. Renewables are sexy. Renewables are cool.

<snip>

nuclear industry worldwide is expanding its capacity world wide by almost 25%

<snip>

Not enough to offset the decline in global nuclear capacity due to plant retirements between now and 2020...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/forecast/gencap.html

2005 = 360 GW

2010 = 364 GW

2015 = 361 GW

2020 = 349 GW

Where IS this "25%" increase in global nuclear capacity?????

Fucking quackery

:rofl:

It reduces the volume and radioactivity of the waste.

I recall there are reprocessing sites in Japan and France that set the reprocessed material into a different reactor to further use the radioactivity. Both sites are demonstration projects and certainly do not consume all of the nuclear waste of each country.