G7 Vows To Phase Out Fossil Fuels By 2100

Taco Cowboy writes: The G7 group of countries has issued a pledge that they will phase out fossil fuels by the end of this century. The announcement was warmly welcomed by environmental groups. "Angela Merkel took the G7 by the scruff of the neck," said Ruth Davis a political advisor to Greenpeace and a senior associate at E3G. "Politically, the most important shift is that chancellor Merkel is back on climate change. This was not an easy negotiation. She did not have to put climate change on the agenda here. But she did," Davis said. The G7 plege includes a goal proposed by the EU to cut emissions 60% on 2010 levels by 2050, with full decarbonisation by 2100.

Comments

No, not really

[Kartu]

Nuclear power in Germany
In 2001 a law was passed requiring the closing of all nuclear power plants within a period of 32 years. The shutdown time was extended to 2040 by a new government in 2010. After the Fukushima incident, the law was abrogated and the end of nuclear energy was set to 2022

Renewable energy in Germany
Net-generation from renewable energy sources in the German electricity sector has increased from 6.3% in 2000 to about 30% in 2014

Renewable sources:
40% - wind
30% - biomass
16% - solar
14% - hydropower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

There are countries which are way ahead of Germany in this regard, for instance, Sweden.

Re:No, not really

[dunkelfalke]

Not really difficult, given four times the population and way more sun (the most southern German towns are on the same latitude as Seattle).

Re: No, not really

[Computershack]

Jesus Christ man why do you tolerate it ?

Because the £8Billion the British motorist pays more in tax than is spent on the roads goes on funding the NHS so we don't end up in the situation that you have in the USA where the prime cause of bankruptcy is medical bills and people die from really easy to treat shit because they can't afford treatment.

85 years from now eh?

[Karmashock]

And who cares what the G anything said so much as 10 years ago? This more worthless than when China said they'd cut the GROWTH of their PROJECTED CO2 increase and that they would be the only ones permitted to determine if they were in compliance with their non-binding agreement.

85 fucking years? Who here thinks that anyone will even remember what the G anything said in 85 years? None of it is binding. It is all gentleman's agreements.

Which means you can rebut any of them with this argument "well you see... ehm... I wanted to do that... so... I ehm... I just did."

Totally valid response by any G anything member to any other G anything member about whatever.

So... allow me to calculate the number of shits anyone should give about this little announcement... carry the one... divide by zero... and... yes, that works out to exactly zero shits.

Re:Noocular

[wvmarle]

Uranium is a mineral deposit, not fossilised material (which is formed from dead organisms).

partially Incorrect

[aepervius]

Renewable production reached 30% roughly, but 1) that is gross production not usage AFAIK, and 2) this is only electricity production. Does not count heating (40% energy usage). It is inreality more like11% , a feat, but shows that fully removing CO2 geenrating method a far flung goal:

 

As of the end of 2014, renewable energy sources, such as biomass, biogas, biofuels, hydro, wind and solar, accounted for11.1% of the country's primary energy consumption, a more than doubling compared to 2004, when renewables only contributed 4.5%. Renewable contribute most to the electricity sector with 27.8% (gross-generation), followed by the heat and transportation sector with 9.9% and 5.4%, respectively.

 
You should not use energy==electricity as it is misleading. Always precise what you are speaking of. In the case of the 27% it is gross electricity generation.

Re:Replace with what?

[DarkOx]

You do realize that even the dessert is a complex ecosystem of micro flora and fona that would be greatly harmed by being permanently covered in solar cells. You must also be aware that transmission loss with electricity is well HUGE. So you are discussing a large ecosystem altering deployment of solar cells, much larger than anticipated, in place where there is nobody to maintain them. Sounds like a pretty stupid plan.

Right up there with daming another river or installing another giant bird migration path altering wind farm. Those are okay in Europe because the Europeans already killed all the birds in past centuries but they kinda suck in the states.

Someday folks are going to wake up and realize their is more to protecting our the environment than CO2 emissions. All the greenies want to do is run around and spoil the last few unspoiled places are earth to stand up their renewables; personally I'd rather burn a little more oil.

China not part of G7

[rubycodez]

China and India's road map are the important ones for the world, G7 doesn't matter