Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Germany Is Burning Too Much Coal (bloomberg.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the closer-look dept.

Several readers share a report: Germany is widely seen as a world leader in the fight against climate change. Thanks to its investments in renewable power, wind and solar energy provide a third of its electricity, more than double the U.S. share. Germany's goal to lower carbon-dioxide emissions 40 percent by 2020 is significantly more ambitious than that of Europe as a whole or the U.S. After the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, Chancellor Angela Merkel vowed even greater determination. "We can't wait for the last man on Earth to be convinced by the scientific evidence for climate change," she explained. But there's another, troubling side to the German story: The country still gets 40 percent of its energy from coal, a bigger share than most other European countries. And much of it is lignite, the dirtiest kind of coal. As a result, Germany is set to fall well short of its 2020 goal. This dependence on coal is partly a side effect of Germany's abandonment of emissions-free nuclear power and partly foot-dragging on the part of a government wary of alienating voters in German coal country. During the summer election campaign, Merkel largely avoided the subject.

8 of 451 comments (clear)

  1. fucking krauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The emergency move away from nuclear has been incredibly short sighted. I understand not wanting to build new reactors, but shutting down running reactors, with all the capital investment involved, just doesn't make any sense. Especially when there is little risk of natural disasters in Germany.

    If people are serious about maintaining the same quality of lifestyle that we have today without burning as much coal, the current solution is Nuclear Energy. Yes it does pose many risks but so does burning coal, and the latter seems to be destroying our environment.

    1. Re: fucking krauts by atomicalgebra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nuclear energy isn't unlimited

      Neither is solar, but we can run our civilization for 10000's of years with nuclear. That makes is sustainable. If we include seawater extraction and thorium we can run our civilization for millions of years.

    2. Re: fucking krauts by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nuclear is not an option only after you've converted all matter available to you into iron. We'll want viable fusion reactors built before we run out o fissile materials that are easily mined on the surface. Something that will happen, but not likely in our lifetimes. And thankfully we've been working very hard on fusion reactor technology and we will continue to do so.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re: fucking krauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thanks asshole, you the greens and the sierra club have inadvertently killed us all by turning the public against nuclear power and forcing governments to rely on coal

    4. Re:fucking krauts by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The emergency move away from nuclear has been incredibly short sighted. I understand not wanting to build new reactors, but shutting down running reactors, with all the capital investment involved, just doesn't make any sense. Especially when there is little risk of natural disasters in Germany.

      If people are serious about maintaining the same quality of lifestyle that we have today without burning as much coal, the current solution is Nuclear Energy. Yes it does pose many risks but so does burning coal, and the latter seems to be destroying our environment.

      Nuclear energy is great up until the point the time comes to dismantle an aging nuclear plant and all the nuclear waste that goes along with it. Then the power companies duck away by buying themselves out of the equation and letting taxpayer money take over.

      Nuclear power is a really nice deal. Reap all the profits and let the taxpayer take care of the dirty work.

      And if the unthinkable happens and one of the things blows up in your face due to incalculable risks, as has happened before at least two times, well, the taxpayer will also have to step in because like Fukushima taught us, the costs of a nuclear meltdown are so immense, it will bankrupt any company.

      Whatever way you look at it, nuclear is a shady deal with corporations reaping profits while carrying none of the risks.

  2. Energiewende is a failure by atomicalgebra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Germany has spent 100s of billions on renewables without much to show for it. Their electricity rates are among the highest in Europe, yet they still pollute 10x as much as France" If they spent that money on next generation nuclear their emissions would have dropped. As it currently stands nuclear power is the only viable option to mitigate climate change.

    1. Re:Energiewende is a failure by atomicalgebra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      High electric rates are a greeny GOAL.

      You are right. Increasing electricity rates in a goal of the greenies. There is a belief that high electricity rates will decrease demand. In reality it impoverishes the lower and middle classes while doing nothing to lower CO2 emissions.

  3. Re:Only 25 years by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    25-year supply if nuclear provided all electricity on Earth -- If we continue the once-through throw most of the fuel away non-cycle. Simply adding fuel reprocessing multiplies that number by a few times. Going to breeder reactors multiplies that by several more times.

    Then there's the seawater extraction mentioned elsewhere.

    Beyond that, there's thorium. According to my CRC Handbook, thorium is "about as common as lead", and "there is probably more available energy in the earth's crust from thorium than from uranium and all fossil fuels combined."