Hard for Europe to manufacture a vaccine when they do not have a sample of it either.
And wonderful attitude of yours. Great to see that you love killing ppl.
One thing greg missed is that this strain has always been in China. IOW, it has not been seen outside of China. That is the problem. Right now, leaks from inside china indicate that this has spread around China and it appears that it IS jumping from human2human. With a 40% mortality rate (i.e. if you get sick, 40% chance that you will die), this is not something to sneeze at, so to speak.
nope. CHina found it 5 years ago and has never shared with the world. It was not an issue 5 years ago, or even last year. Problem is, that information is leaking out of CHina that this stain is spreading amongst farm workers, getting them sick and appears to have a fairly high mortality rate.
BINGO.
This version is only known in CHina and was discovered back in 2013. At that time, it was not an issue and CHina was sharing some information about it, but never shared a single sample with the world.
Now, information is leaking out of China that this IS spreading amongst their farms, and the works are getting sick with a high mortality rate. Once this leaves China, it will take a MINIMUM of 6 months to isolate it, culture it, and start building up a vaccine to it, and then build up enough supply for the world.
Or the world could just pay CHina $100-1000 / person for an inoculation.
WHich is actually wrong.
What it SHOULD be saying is that United States is raising a stink about CHina not sharing information, let along samples, with other nations including the US. Europe, Russia, Japan, India, WHO, etc are not being allowed access to it. Yet, it is known that this is spreading in China rapidly and will almost certainly be one, if not the, main flu virus for the year.
Since the world does not have an infection yet, nor samples, nor information, all that we know is based on information leaking from China, is that Chinese farmers working with Chickens are getting sick and the death rate appears to be high.
Of course, CHina might then be responsible for a biological warfare in which they sell the vaccines.
First off, nuclear power is the single largest source of energy that we have. That is a fact. And the byproducts are minor to take care of.
Did you not read the paper? The problem with AE as well as fossil fuels today, is that for the energy put in, does not have a great ROI. IOW, back in the late 1800s, pop in a pipe in the wrong place about 10' in the ground and you got massive amounts of oil. Now, we have to go down 1000x further, pump large amounts of water and other elements into the ground to open up cracks and then pump a relatively small amount of nat gas/oil. Wind/Solar have smilar issues. Geo-thermal is actually a good one depending on locations. But, far too many ppl are fighting it.
As to having a deregulated nuke power plant, where did you come up with that?????? That is a LOONEY idea. Regs have not hurt Nukes. Lawsuits have hurt Nukes. And staying with 3rd gen reactors for 40 years is just plain STUPID. New 4th gen SMRs are the only way to go.
None of them are economists. They are biological/environmental scientists.
THis is about as stupid as reading the far right scream that AGW is not real, and few of those claiming it, have even a degree in Climate, and most are not even scientists.
Now, with that said, much of what they claim is factual. The environment is being heavily polluted all around. Worst yet, we have boneheads all over claiming that we must allow large portions of the population to pollute, while claiming that a small portion drop to zero (so foolish).
Then they go on to point out how little energy comes on the AE side. Basically, we CAN/SHOULD get energy from wind/solar/hydro/etc BUT, it can/should not be the main sources.
Oddly, the one source that can be cheap, is nuclear power and yet, they ignore it.
Without nuclear power, the globe IS in for SERIOUS trouble. We need to STOP ALL building out of new fossil fuel, esp. coal, plants. At its best, coal remains a disaster.
Blogs? Really? You now have to resort to blogs to back up your lies?
Please.
And straight out of your Reuter link:
China has vowed to raise the portion of its renewable and non-fossil fuel power consumption to 15 percent of total energy mix by 2020 and 20 percent by 2030.
Dropping from below 15 down to 10 is a 33% drop, not 40%.
Vehicles by 2025, will probably account for about 50-60% of our drop.
Add to that, more coal being dropped, more homes switching to solar, etc, and yeah, we ARE looking at ~33%.
As to trump, he will be gone before long. Thankfully, he has not done squat to really Harm America in terms of CO2.
He has been trying to grow our Coal. So far, not a thing.
He has allowed the car makers to decrease their MPGs. BUT, all that is going to do is hurt the car sales. It makes it easier to argue that EVs save money vs ICE.
Quite probably the WORST thing that is going to happen to America, is that the far LEFT (our Dems) will win congress and then focus on shutting down our nukes. Right now, nukes provide 20% of our electricity and they are CLEAN. The dems are the ones that I fear if they stop our nukes.
Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case
The problem is that this would make things even worse for the US. If the trend isn't linear, it's going to get slowed down. All the following units of emission reduction are harder than the first one, that's what basic economic principles tell us. So the linear trend has been remarkable so far for having happened despite this problem.
No, it does not mean that at all. I said disregard it, because that was nearly 100% based on moving coal to nat gas/wind. The linear portion will continue for a time, but we will run out of coal plants. However, The next trend is going to add to it and will force things down faster. A LOT faster once it gets going.
Look, for the last 10 years, America has poured a load of money into R&D. Most of the tech dealing with LED, Solar, Wind, EVs, etc comes from America. Though to be fair, the most EV, esp the battery, R&D comes from Tesla, not so much America.
But the single most important thing will be that Tesla is forcing other car and truck makers to move to EVs. Sales are picking up EVERYWHERE. Not just in passenger vehicles, but in Commercial vehicles.
In America and Europe, with EVs being bought, the older vehicles will drop off the grid. So, America has fairly clean electricity AND will see lots of OLD 1990s-2000s vehicles drop. Keep in mind that those OLDER vehicles are actually low MPGs. So, their dropping off will really drop our CO2.
BTW, compare that to Europe and China. Europe, like AMerica, has loads of old vehicles that will drop. BUT, most of those are higher MPG than America's. As such, not so much drop. OTOH, Europe has cleaner electricity, esp in the netherlands and France. Germany, along with eastern europe, will not. Far too dirty on their electricity.
Then we have China. In general, they cars are NEW, but more importanly, ppl are buying new cars, not just replacing them. So, China is going to add a bunch more, while the majority of their ICE vehicles remain on the road. Than we have the issue that their electricity is FILTHY. They still have 80+% coming from Coal. Worst yet, they have ZERO slack in their AE and continue to add more COal than AE. As such, all of their new electricity for charging EVs is going to come from coal.
So, yeah, my predictions remain:
America is going to continue dropping CO2, only faster.
Western Europe will go down
Eastern Europe will go up, some.
And China will go climb massively. What really bothers me is that I believe China will likely hit 50% more CO2 by 2030 at the latest, and possibly 2025. And I do not believe that it is possible to stop that, unless China quits adding coal plants. So far, they have not stopped.
America will very likely be below 10 before 2025, if not sooner
How? Following this data, even a continued linear trend extrapolated from the most favourable scenario of -0.35 per year would put the US at around 12 in 2025, with only falling under 10 in the 2030s.
Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case.:
1) Nearly all of America's CO2 cuts has been caused by the killing of the coal plants and replacing with Nat Gas and Wind. That will likely continue in spite of Trump's push.
2) Because of the massive focus that America has had on cutting CO2 from electricity, that has dropped as %, while Transportation % has risen. That does not mean that emissions from transportation has risen, just the % of our output has.
3) Over the next 3-6 years, the west and china will be moving heavily to EVs. In America, Commercial and passenger vehicles are all moving to these.
We have lots of new buses that are moving to EV with both BYD and Proterra. This is forcing other bus companies, even school buses to switch.
Tesla producing a Semi truck that does 600 MPC is going to put a LOT of pressure on ICE version of semis. Delivery starts in less than a year.
BYD is producing a Semi that gets less than 200 MPC, though lots of quality issues with. THis is leading to multiple other companies producing EV semis, as well as new ones. In addition, we have Rivian about to introduce both a pick-up truck and a 3 row SUV in 2020(to be shown in Nov at LA show) with more to follow afterwards.
What does that mean? It means that by 2024, EVs will almost certainly occupy at least 1/2 of ALL road-based vehicle sales, if not more. The average passenger vehicle in America is around 11.5 years. Basically, ppl have been holding off on buying cars, which is why Ford decided to kill sedans here. Point is, come around 2020/1, lots of vehicles are going to be bought and I would guess that few will want an ICE. Ideally Rivian and Tesla will be able to convince most F1, F2, F3 buyers to switch.
buildings and homes are very different. That is why I posted above showing that.
Keep in mind that the Allies over all, worked hard to NOT destroy antiquities, and that includes buildings.
Learn to read idiot.
America is not even CLOSE to being #1. Never has been. Hell, Canada and Australia are both worse.
BUT, Like AMerica, they are headed in the RIGHT DIRECTION. That is, they continue to lose emissions, while your nation continues to add massive amounts.
Yes, it is easy to lose that weight. BUT, as a %, we still lost a great deal. Simple as that.
And I notice that you have switched from trying to compare China to AMerica (and lying about the numbers), over to India. Got to move those goal posts.
Note that most of Europe's construction is from the 70s on (sweden is a HUGE exception). br
America's is about what I would expect. The rust belt has homes that are 45-65 years old, while the south east and west is generally under 30.
Uh, no.
The current reactors being built are based on 70's technology. ALL OF THE LARGE ONES come from the 70s with upgrades. They are all 3rd, and even 2nd Generation. And the large 1+Gw reactors are just an economical nightmare.
I do not know if you have ever done construction, but imagine building a single home. Per ft^2, it is EXPENSIVE, esp if this is a one time, or even only say 20 are built.
Now imagine a factory, when you build the bulk of the home via walls and then simply ship the walls to the site. You can use robotics to build those walls, and then have lots of cameras and other automated QA look it all over. Then take them onsite and erect these quickly, hook wiring and plumbing together and in several days, you have a new building. Note that the manufacturer will want to build LOTS of these. As in 1000s. That is to get their costs down.
That is the difference between the large 1GW reactors that are built on-site, vs. SMRs that are built in factories and can actually build the reactors and have them in storage so that when a utility decides to add one, the new reactor is up in less than 6 months, as opposed to 6-10 years for large reactors.
So many things right and wrong here.
First off, Most European nations are quite rich. Look, there are 2 ways of looking at this.
The first is the AVERAGE/mean, which really does not tell you much about the population. It is the median that tells you everything.
America is #5 with mean,but we are #24 using Median. Nations like Germany and Sweden are just below America,while most of Europe is ABOVE America. For example, France, UK, Spain, all of the netherlands, etc are all wealthier than America. So, that argument goes out the door.
Likewise, Canada and Australia both use more Energy per capitia than does America.
Do you realize the difference between R13 and R9? Back in the 70s, my family built a 7500' home. We have R20 in the walls and R30 in the Roof. Why? Because my dad said that energy was going to go up in costs and made it so that a simple oak log would heat our home when it was -40 or a small AC could cool us when it was 105F. And that was the case.
In my own home, I have R20 in the walls/ceiling and took it to R-30 in the ceiling. Now, with solar panels on the roof, our AC bill is next to nothing (relatively little heating in the attic).
Now, as to paying for our HVAC, America has wider temperature extremes. Very few places in Europe go from -30F to 105F (or -35C to 41C). And that is just our midwest. Go to the southwest, and you run from 25F to 115F (-5C to 47C).
In addition, we actually pay LESS than most of Europe. Europe likes to compare electricity to us, but Europe is far to the north and they use mostly Nat Gas for heating. Spain and soon France, are going to be installing lots of AC, due to their temps starting to be more like ours.
Then you have the issue with traveling more. Europeans really do not travel. They go to nations next door, but few of them have actually left Europe. And Europe is smaller than our eastern seaboard. As such, traveling in America takes energy due to how far we have to go. For example, few Europeans will travel 60-200 miles to go to their job. Heck, America has more km of railroad tracks than European Union does. And yet, we need it due to our massive size compared to Europe.
Germany's emissions HAS come down from its high back in the 70s. Now, for the last 7 years, they have been flat, while America continues downwards. BUT, Germany DID come down.
Actually, no. Both have gone down similar in %, and America has done more in actual numbers.
Since you love to normalize on a BS number, lets go with it.
Germany went from 13.59 in 1970, down to 9.47 in 2016 (and has been flat/growing for the last 7 years). That is a 30% cut.
America went from 21.74 in 1970, down to 15.56 in 2016 (and America went down again in 2017). That is a 28% cut.
So, no, there really has not been much of a difference.
And no, the average german household pays similar to the low-end of American areas. For example, I know that I pay a lot less than most Germans. Why? Because even though we have wilder climate than you do, I also insulated my home far more than what you do.
Where America is missing is we still have LOADS of old homes from pre WWII, which Europe does not. In addition, we have AC/various heating, rather than using geo-thermal HVAC. However, that is changing. We will see loads of changes coming to America. Not due to our president ( traitor ), but due to states pushing this.
uh no. Even if AMerica had not gone after coal, the world would still be in a world of hurt because China and other nations make heavy heavy use of Coal. Then add in that America has loads of oil base transportation.
Actually, no. Up to now, the 2nd and 3rd generation nuke reactors have not had the ability to load follow or scale up/down easily.
Now, the most of the 4th gen reactors are designed for load following (i.e. they can move up/down in load relatively quickly), and with the SMRs, they can bring up and down various reactors.
Slashdot Mirror
Hard for Europe to manufacture a vaccine when they do not have a sample of it either.
And wonderful attitude of yours. Great to see that you love killing ppl.
One thing greg missed is that this strain has always been in China. IOW, it has not been seen outside of China. That is the problem. Right now, leaks from inside china indicate that this has spread around China and it appears that it IS jumping from human2human. With a 40% mortality rate (i.e. if you get sick, 40% chance that you will die), this is not something to sneeze at, so to speak.
nope. CHina found it 5 years ago and has never shared with the world. It was not an issue 5 years ago, or even last year. Problem is, that information is leaking out of CHina that this stain is spreading amongst farm workers, getting them sick and appears to have a fairly high mortality rate.
This is NOT good.
BINGO.
This version is only known in CHina and was discovered back in 2013. At that time, it was not an issue and CHina was sharing some information about it, but never shared a single sample with the world.
Now, information is leaking out of China that this IS spreading amongst their farms, and the works are getting sick with a high mortality rate. Once this leaves China, it will take a MINIMUM of 6 months to isolate it, culture it, and start building up a vaccine to it, and then build up enough supply for the world.
Or the world could just pay CHina $100-1000 / person for an inoculation.
WHich is actually wrong.
What it SHOULD be saying is that United States is raising a stink about CHina not sharing information, let along samples, with other nations including the US. Europe, Russia, Japan, India, WHO, etc are not being allowed access to it. Yet, it is known that this is spreading in China rapidly and will almost certainly be one, if not the, main flu virus for the year.
Since the world does not have an infection yet, nor samples, nor information, all that we know is based on information leaking from China, is that Chinese farmers working with Chickens are getting sick and the death rate appears to be high.
Of course, CHina might then be responsible for a biological warfare in which they sell the vaccines.
China does not obey treaties. This gives them not just a possible economic advantage, but a biological weapon, which they will love.
First off, nuclear power is the single largest source of energy that we have. That is a fact. And the byproducts are minor to take care of.
Did you not read the paper? The problem with AE as well as fossil fuels today, is that for the energy put in, does not have a great ROI. IOW, back in the late 1800s, pop in a pipe in the wrong place about 10' in the ground and you got massive amounts of oil. Now, we have to go down 1000x further, pump large amounts of water and other elements into the ground to open up cracks and then pump a relatively small amount of nat gas/oil. Wind/Solar have smilar issues. Geo-thermal is actually a good one depending on locations. But, far too many ppl are fighting it.
As to having a deregulated nuke power plant, where did you come up with that?????? That is a LOONEY idea. Regs have not hurt Nukes. Lawsuits have hurt Nukes. And staying with 3rd gen reactors for 40 years is just plain STUPID. New 4th gen SMRs are the only way to go.
None of them are economists. They are biological/environmental scientists.
THis is about as stupid as reading the far right scream that AGW is not real, and few of those claiming it, have even a degree in Climate, and most are not even scientists.
Now, with that said, much of what they claim is factual. The environment is being heavily polluted all around. Worst yet, we have boneheads all over claiming that we must allow large portions of the population to pollute, while claiming that a small portion drop to zero (so foolish).
Then they go on to point out how little energy comes on the AE side. Basically, we CAN/SHOULD get energy from wind/solar/hydro/etc BUT, it can/should not be the main sources. Oddly, the one source that can be cheap, is nuclear power and yet, they ignore it.
Without nuclear power, the globe IS in for SERIOUS trouble. We need to STOP ALL building out of new fossil fuel, esp. coal, plants. At its best, coal remains a disaster.
And straight out of your Reuter link:
China has vowed to raise the portion of its renewable and non-fossil fuel power consumption to 15 percent of total energy mix by 2020 and 20 percent by 2030.
It is NOT about costs. It is about idiots pushing to close these down before we have alternatives in place. This is being pushed by California Dem, Steyer.
Dropping from below 15 down to 10 is a 33% drop, not 40%.
Vehicles by 2025, will probably account for about 50-60% of our drop.
Add to that, more coal being dropped, more homes switching to solar, etc, and yeah, we ARE looking at ~33%.
As to trump, he will be gone before long. Thankfully, he has not done squat to really Harm America in terms of CO2.
He has been trying to grow our Coal. So far, not a thing.
He has allowed the car makers to decrease their MPGs. BUT, all that is going to do is hurt the car sales. It makes it easier to argue that EVs save money vs ICE.
Quite probably the WORST thing that is going to happen to America, is that the far LEFT (our Dems) will win congress and then focus on shutting down our nukes. Right now, nukes provide 20% of our electricity and they are CLEAN. The dems are the ones that I fear if they stop our nukes.
Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case
The problem is that this would make things even worse for the US. If the trend isn't linear, it's going to get slowed down. All the following units of emission reduction are harder than the first one, that's what basic economic principles tell us. So the linear trend has been remarkable so far for having happened despite this problem.
No, it does not mean that at all. I said disregard it, because that was nearly 100% based on moving coal to nat gas/wind. The linear portion will continue for a time, but we will run out of coal plants. However, The next trend is going to add to it and will force things down faster. A LOT faster once it gets going.
Look, for the last 10 years, America has poured a load of money into R&D. Most of the tech dealing with LED, Solar, Wind, EVs, etc comes from America. Though to be fair, the most EV, esp the battery, R&D comes from Tesla, not so much America. But the single most important thing will be that Tesla is forcing other car and truck makers to move to EVs. Sales are picking up EVERYWHERE. Not just in passenger vehicles, but in Commercial vehicles.
In America and Europe, with EVs being bought, the older vehicles will drop off the grid. So, America has fairly clean electricity AND will see lots of OLD 1990s-2000s vehicles drop. Keep in mind that those OLDER vehicles are actually low MPGs. So, their dropping off will really drop our CO2.
BTW, compare that to Europe and China. Europe, like AMerica, has loads of old vehicles that will drop. BUT, most of those are higher MPG than America's. As such, not so much drop. OTOH, Europe has cleaner electricity, esp in the netherlands and France. Germany, along with eastern europe, will not. Far too dirty on their electricity.
Then we have China. In general, they cars are NEW, but more importanly, ppl are buying new cars, not just replacing them. So, China is going to add a bunch more, while the majority of their ICE vehicles remain on the road. Than we have the issue that their electricity is FILTHY. They still have 80+% coming from Coal. Worst yet, they have ZERO slack in their AE and continue to add more COal than AE. As such, all of their new electricity for charging EVs is going to come from coal.
So, yeah, my predictions remain:
America is going to continue dropping CO2, only faster.
Western Europe will go down
Eastern Europe will go up, some.
And China will go climb massively. What really bothers me is that I believe China will likely hit 50% more CO2 by 2030 at the latest, and possibly 2025. And I do not believe that it is possible to stop that, unless China quits adding coal plants. So far, they have not stopped.
America will very likely be below 10 before 2025, if not sooner
How? Following this data, even a continued linear trend extrapolated from the most favourable scenario of -0.35 per year would put the US at around 12 in 2025, with only falling under 10 in the 2030s.
Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case.:
1) Nearly all of America's CO2 cuts has been caused by the killing of the coal plants and replacing with Nat Gas and Wind. That will likely continue in spite of Trump's push.
2) Because of the massive focus that America has had on cutting CO2 from electricity, that has dropped as %, while Transportation % has risen. That does not mean that emissions from transportation has risen, just the % of our output has.
3) Over the next 3-6 years, the west and china will be moving heavily to EVs. In America, Commercial and passenger vehicles are all moving to these.
We have lots of new buses that are moving to EV with both BYD and Proterra. This is forcing other bus companies, even school buses to switch.
Tesla producing a Semi truck that does 600 MPC is going to put a LOT of pressure on ICE version of semis. Delivery starts in less than a year.
BYD is producing a Semi that gets less than 200 MPC, though lots of quality issues with.
THis is leading to multiple other companies producing EV semis, as well as new ones.
In addition, we have Rivian about to introduce both a pick-up truck and a 3 row SUV in 2020(to be shown in Nov at LA show) with more to follow afterwards.
What does that mean? It means that by 2024, EVs will almost certainly occupy at least 1/2 of ALL road-based vehicle sales, if not more. The average passenger vehicle in America is around 11.5 years. Basically, ppl have been holding off on buying cars, which is why Ford decided to kill sedans here. Point is, come around 2020/1, lots of vehicles are going to be bought and I would guess that few will want an ICE. Ideally Rivian and Tesla will be able to convince most F1, F2, F3 buyers to switch.
America will very likely be below 10 before 2025, if not sooner. The fact is, that as our cars switch to EVs, it will only continue it downwards.
buildings and homes are very different. That is why I posted above showing that.
Keep in mind that the Allies over all, worked hard to NOT destroy antiquities, and that includes buildings.
Learn to read idiot.
America is not even CLOSE to being #1. Never has been. Hell, Canada and Australia are both worse.
BUT, Like AMerica, they are headed in the RIGHT DIRECTION. That is, they continue to lose emissions, while your nation continues to add massive amounts.
Yes, it is easy to lose that weight. BUT, as a %, we still lost a great deal. Simple as that.
And I notice that you have switched from trying to compare China to AMerica (and lying about the numbers), over to India. Got to move those goal posts.
buildings != homes/dwellings.
Europes Here is America's.
Note that most of Europe's construction is from the 70s on (sweden is a HUGE exception). br America's is about what I would expect. The rust belt has homes that are 45-65 years old, while the south east and west is generally under 30.
Germany went from 13.59 in 1970, down to 9.47 in 2016 (and has been flat/growing for the last 7 years). That is a 30% cut.
America went from 21.74 in 1970, down to 15.56 in 2016 (and America went down again in 2017). That is a 28% cut.
So, no, there really has not been much of a difference.
Uh, no.
The current reactors being built are based on 70's technology. ALL OF THE LARGE ONES come from the 70s with upgrades. They are all 3rd, and even 2nd Generation. And the large 1+Gw reactors are just an economical nightmare.
I do not know if you have ever done construction, but imagine building a single home. Per ft^2, it is EXPENSIVE, esp if this is a one time, or even only say 20 are built.
Now imagine a factory, when you build the bulk of the home via walls and then simply ship the walls to the site. You can use robotics to build those walls, and then have lots of cameras and other automated QA look it all over. Then take them onsite and erect these quickly, hook wiring and plumbing together and in several days, you have a new building. Note that the manufacturer will want to build LOTS of these. As in 1000s. That is to get their costs down.
That is the difference between the large 1GW reactors that are built on-site, vs. SMRs that are built in factories and can actually build the reactors and have them in storage so that when a utility decides to add one, the new reactor is up in less than 6 months, as opposed to 6-10 years for large reactors.
So many things right and wrong here.
First off, Most European nations are quite rich. Look, there are 2 ways of looking at this. The first is the AVERAGE/mean, which really does not tell you much about the population. It is the median that tells you everything. America is #5 with mean,but we are #24 using Median. Nations like Germany and Sweden are just below America,while most of Europe is ABOVE America. For example, France, UK, Spain, all of the netherlands, etc are all wealthier than America. So, that argument goes out the door.
Likewise, Canada and Australia both use more Energy per capitia than does America.
Do you realize the difference between R13 and R9? Back in the 70s, my family built a 7500' home. We have R20 in the walls and R30 in the Roof. Why? Because my dad said that energy was going to go up in costs and made it so that a simple oak log would heat our home when it was -40 or a small AC could cool us when it was 105F. And that was the case.
In my own home, I have R20 in the walls/ceiling and took it to R-30 in the ceiling. Now, with solar panels on the roof, our AC bill is next to nothing (relatively little heating in the attic).
Now, as to paying for our HVAC, America has wider temperature extremes. Very few places in Europe go from -30F to 105F (or -35C to 41C). And that is just our midwest. Go to the southwest, and you run from 25F to 115F (-5C to 47C).
In addition, we actually pay LESS than most of Europe. Europe likes to compare electricity to us, but Europe is far to the north and they use mostly Nat Gas for heating. Spain and soon France, are going to be installing lots of AC, due to their temps starting to be more like ours.
Then you have the issue with traveling more. Europeans really do not travel. They go to nations next door, but few of them have actually left Europe. And Europe is smaller than our eastern seaboard. As such, traveling in America takes energy due to how far we have to go. For example, few Europeans will travel 60-200 miles to go to their job. Heck, America has more km of railroad tracks than European Union does. And yet, we need it due to our massive size compared to Europe.
No, we DO consume more energy than many other nations, but Europe is actually a lot closer than most ppl realize. The fact is, that Europe HAD one of the best living conditions. Now, with AGW, they will have to deal with temp extremes similar to ours. That will mean that they will be installing lots more AC, which is already the case. North America is relatively flat, while Europe has started to increase for the last couple of years, and for decades, China and south east Asia has WAY outsold America for ACs. In fact, looking at it, Europes residential demand for AC is bigger than North Americas (not surprising). It is in the commercial that it is not the case.
If Europe is based on Lumens/watts, than why ban halogen?
Germany's emissions HAS come down from its high back in the 70s. Now, for the last 7 years, they have been flat, while America continues downwards. BUT, Germany DID come down.
Actually, no. Both have gone down similar in %, and America has done more in actual numbers.
Since you love to normalize on a BS number, lets go with it.
Germany went from 13.59 in 1970, down to 9.47 in 2016 (and has been flat/growing for the last 7 years). That is a 30% cut.
America went from 21.74 in 1970, down to 15.56 in 2016 (and America went down again in 2017). That is a 28% cut.
So, no, there really has not been much of a difference.
And no, the average german household pays similar to the low-end of American areas. For example, I know that I pay a lot less than most Germans. Why? Because even though we have wilder climate than you do, I also insulated my home far more than what you do.
Where America is missing is we still have LOADS of old homes from pre WWII, which Europe does not. In addition, we have AC/various heating, rather than using geo-thermal HVAC. However, that is changing. We will see loads of changes coming to America. Not due to our president ( traitor ), but due to states pushing this.
uh no. Even if AMerica had not gone after coal, the world would still be in a world of hurt because China and other nations make heavy heavy use of Coal. Then add in that America has loads of oil base transportation.
Actually, no. Up to now, the 2nd and 3rd generation nuke reactors have not had the ability to load follow or scale up/down easily.
Now, the most of the 4th gen reactors are designed for load following (i.e. they can move up/down in load relatively quickly), and with the SMRs, they can bring up and down various reactors.
My reason for saying that we should not be say more than 50% dependent on single sources is due to national security reasons. We really need a matrix of energy sources.
A utility in Wyoming, in fact, in most of the west, can easily get on-demand base-load energy from geo-thermal. It is cheaper than nukes, but it still runs risk of running out.
For the northwest/northeast, both have loads of hydro. However, with climate change, these areas could easily run out of water. Venezuela is having serious budget issues, is also having serious drought issues and lacks electricity.
So, these should ideally have about 50% dependent on say hydro/ge-thermal, but also have wind, solar and nuclear.
This really is about national security, not just the lowest price.