Deutsche Bank Study Declares the Triple Threat of the German Nuclear Phase Out.

Higher prices, more greenhouse gases, and more dependence on the goodwill of Russia? Really?

D'oh...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f375d784-aa85-11db-83b0-0000779e2340.html

Gerhard Schroeder, Chancellor of Germany during the announcement of nuclear phase out, now serves on the board of directors of the Russian gas company Gazprom, with good reason too, since he has made the world safe for fossil fuels.

This may come as news to both Mr. Schroeder his idiot former environmental minister Juergen Tritten of the so called "Green" party, and the rest of Germany, but natural gas is a dangerous and filthy fuel that is environmentally unacceptable owing to climate change.

The German nuclear phase out was announced with all sorts of singing about the wonders of renewable energy in 2000 all of which was nonsensical because not one of the renewable options hyped produces continuous energy. Since that time, the amount of renewable energy produced in Germany has more than doubled, but German carbon emissions have nevertheless continued to rise, and as of 2004 were 20 million tons higher than they were in 2000. Germany has only closed two small nuclear reactors and is on a coal plant building binge. If they closed their nuclear plants immediately as the fool Tritten wanted, they would now be releasing hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide that they were not releasing earlier.

Let's be clear. Nuclear phase outs are paens to ignorance, appeals for disaster.

The Germans will have to alter their lifestyles! Can't have that.

'Course, can't have nukes either. Which way will they go?

I bet they opt to change their lifestyles.... that makes the most sense, don't you think?

We tend to think of energy consumption strictly in terms of personal and domestic terms. But even in the profligate USA, that only accounts for about 1/8th of all the energy used.

The rest is used for manufacturing, transportation (remember, the Europeans have far fewer private automobiles and use mass transit more), "infrastructure", and most of all, agriculture.

I take it that economic breakdown and mass starvation isn't what you mean about changing lifestyles. Everybody is riding the tiger.

It would easily take 20-50 years to make the kind of overhaul required to do without oil and nuclear power. Even Greenpeace is looking at a 43-year timetable for a 50% replacement of oil and nuclear energy with wind and solar power.

If we can make wind and solar power work, great. But the track record so far is abominable. At a 30% per year growth rate for "green" energy, it will take at least 15 years before it makes a significant dent in the energy equation, if the industry can grow, and that's a pretty big "if". Even if we keep and increase nuclear power, this level of lackadaisicality in developing other new energy sources should be scandalous.

Rejecting nuclear power is like being stuck on a lifeboat with only a case of canned meatballs for food -- but being a vegetarian, throwing it into the sea. Our best solution is to keep the nukes and improve safety (which is already pretty damned good) and take control of the industry away from the profit-at-any-price managers.

--p!

We tend to think of energy consumption strictly in terms of personal and domestic terms. But even in the profligate USA, that only accounts for about 1/8th of all the energy used.

I think humans use about all the non sun energy, eh? It's in our lifestyle to use to the upper limit of said energy. The rest of the world survives quite nicely on what energy is available. So it is we humans who are personally responsible.

The rest is used for manufacturing, transportation (remember, the Europeans have far fewer private automobiles and use mass transit more), "infrastructure", and most of all, agriculture.

Yes, for solely human uses.

I take it that economic breakdown and mass starvation isn't what you mean about changing lifestyles. Everybody is riding the tiger.

Well, nukes aren't gonna keep that from happening.

It would easily take 20-50 years to make the kind of overhaul required to do without oil and nuclear power. Even Greenpeace is looking at a 43-year timetable for a 50% replacement of oil and nuclear energy with wind and solar power.

Times a waisting. We either cut back now and take less, or we expect more and with the way we are going we will get more of what we are producing today.

If we can make wind and solar power work, great. But the track record so far is abominable. At a 30% per year growth rate for "green" energy, it will take at least 15 years before it makes a significant dent in the energy equation, if the industry can grow, and that's a pretty big "if". Even if we keep and increase nuclear power, this level of lackadaisicality in developing other new energy sources should be scandalous.

Remember people saying "We will never get to the moon. No way." ??


Rejecting nuclear power is like being stuck on a lifeboat with only a case of canned meatballs for food -- but being a vegetarian, throwing it into the sea. Our best solution is to keep the nukes and improve safety (which is already pretty damned good) and take control of the industry away from the profit-at-any-price managers.

True. But if those meatballs have a poison radiating from the molecules therein, then the meatballs will kill you. Pick your way of dying.

That's what nuclear phase outs are all about - burning more fossil fuels.

It is exactly what the are doing. There is zero evidence that anyone in Germany has suddenly become ascetic to fight climate change.

The humans are gonna burn up all the fossil fuels. Sooner or later. Nukes or no nukes.

Zero evidence of fighting climate change by slowing down? Heck, in that case we're doomed. When you really think about it.

The amount of fossil fuels that humans end up burning is proportional to the amount of ignorance they embrace.

It doesn't "have to be that way," not at all. The greatest probability is that it will be that way, but there is still a small chance to save something. We must take that chance.

The Germans with their nuclear phase out have embraced ignorance, but there is no rational reason that they cannot reverse themselves and rejoin rational humanity.

I think the phase out is already well on its way to reversal. Almost every other country in Europe with a nuclear phase out has either formally or informally abandoned it, because climate change is real and renewables don't cut it.

In the Dutch Phase Out, in 1997, the cloture of the Borssele Nuclear Station was announced "by 2003." When 2003 actually arrived, the clouture was postponed to "by 2013." As of 2006, the cloture is now scheduled for 2033, which is still almost 20 years before the total morons at Greenpeace advise us they can solve half of the climate cahnge problem with magical solar cells and wind stations.

The Dutch are understandably very nervous about the sea level. I predict they will be building new nuclear plants very soon.

Everybody who is sensible knows that we cannot afford to burn whatever fossil fuel is available, that fossil fuels must be banned. I have been doing what I do for nuclear energy for decades and I can tell you for certain that my message is sinking in every where on this planet. It's good thing too. It is my strongly held opinion that fossil fuels must be banned, not because they will be depleted, but because they are unacceptably dangerous.

Just thinking about it is an awful exercise, especially since no one is gonna change the way they live, or their lifestyles: at least not until they have too.

Like banning fossil fuels. That act would force many people to change their lifestyles.

But the thing is, nukes or no nukes, people will end up burning all the fossil fuels they can.

I believe you think nukes are the answer to a problem which is like stopping the sun from setting. Well, we, as humans kinda did just that - by using energy to make the night seem as day.

But the end is near. The trade off is the pollution and the pollution is gonna change things. So be it.

Best we just accept the responsibility for our cause and effect and do the best we can to ameliorate the situation. But we disagree on that amelioration: you see nukes as the answer and I see nukes as a non-answer; merely a way of keeping the lights on at night.

The changes coming can be handled with wisdom, vision and forethought. Or we can just do what human society has been doing forever: fight over the last crumbs.