Bernie Sanders releases a REAL Climate Change Plan

[Joepublic2]

wind, solar, and geothermal

So did I wake up in bizzaro world where these things can actually provide all the energy required to run our society? If you added nuclear in there it'd actually be doable, but he'd lose the watermelon environmentalist vote.

 

[flexy]

So did I wake up in bizzaro world where these things can actually provide all the energy required to run our society? If you added nuclear in there it'd actually be doable, but he'd lose the watermelon environmentalist vote.

Well Germany with 80M people did it, they basically phased-out nuclear within the last 5 years and are now getting the vast majority of energy from renewable sources.

Except that Germans are SOOO extremely overenthusiastic with "going green" that their infrastructure is now lacking, for example they produce enormous amounts of (wind) energy on the North Sea coast but cannot transfer/disperse all that energy, say, to the South. At times they actually must shut down wind power plants to avoid blackouts from "too much energy" that is produced at times...which in turns affects utility prices. Simple: They produce TOO MUCH renewable energy right now.

So, yes "it can be done", that point sure is proven.

 

[Joepublic2]

Well Germany with 80M people did it, they basically phased-out nuclear within the last 5 years and are now getting the vast majority of energy from renewable sources.

Except that Germans are SOOO extremely overenthusiastic with "going green" that their infrastructure is now lacking, for example they produce enormous amounts of (wind) energy on the North Sea coast but cannot transfer/disperse all that energy, say, to the South. At times they actually must shut down wind power plants to avoid blackouts from "too much energy" that is produced at times...which in turns affects utility prices. Simple: They produce TOO MUCH renewable energy right now.

So, yes "it can be done", that point sure is proven.

Well of course it can physically be done, but at what cost? If you make power cost 2x as much after you factor in all the subsidies etc. it's not a good trade off IMO.

 

[Accord99]

Well Germany with 80M people did it, they basically phased-out nuclear within the last 5 years and are now getting the vast majority of energy from renewable sources.

They're not actually:

You can see that brown coal is #1, black coal is #2 and even heavily reduced nuclear is still #3. And as you stated, even with just ~22% of annual electricity generation from wind and solar, Germany is already running into storage issues from the intermittency of wind and solar.

Source: https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm

 

[Joepublic2]

They're not actually:

You can see that brown coal is #1, black coal is #2 and even heavily reduced nuclear is still #3. And as you stated, even with just ~22% of annual electricity generation from wind and solar, Germany is already running into storage issues from the intermittency of wind and solar.

Source: https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm

That's still very impressive. I just wonder what the actual costs are.

http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/08/how-much-land-would-it-take-to-power-the-us-via-solar/

At that output, to meet the US electricity demand of 3.7 million Gwh per year, you’d need about 48,000 square kilometers of solar sites.

This is also not factoring in how much more we'd need if all our cars were electric etc. Still, if you hugely upgraded the grid (probably have to if electric vehicles ever take off anyway so let's call it a sunk cost) and used high voltage DC transmission AND built huge battery banks everywhere to store power for reliable base load you could do it. No idea how much it would cost, though.

 

[shady28]

Well Germany with 80M people did it, they basically phased-out nuclear within the last 5 years and are now getting the vast majority of energy from renewable sources.
...

That's an absolutely false statement. Germany gets the vast majority of its electric power generation from fossil fuels, specifically coal and gas.

 

[flexy]

Germany has been one of the few countries that have successfully moved away from nuclear energy. Germany has so far successfully shut down its nine units that had the capacity of generating enough power for at least 20 million homes in Europe. In fact, the contribution of nuclear power in Germany’s electricity generation has now fallen to just 16 percent and renewables are now the preferred source of electricity generation in the country.

Ok maybe I misinterpreted the term "preferred" there.

 

[Accord99]

Yes, 16% which in 2015 is still more than wind. And because of that foolishness, German electricity generation has replaced nuclear with coal and biomass (which often means burning wood); and natural gas with wind and solar. So despite having some of the most expensive electricity in the world, it has barely improved the CO2 emissions of its electricity and remains heavily dependent on coal. While France in the 70s-90s managed to effectively decarbonized its electricity with nuclear and has CO2 emission/kWh that are 1/5th of Germany.

 

[Accord99]

That's still very impressive. I just wonder what the actual costs are.

It would be even worse in Germany because it's much more cloudy then the ideal solar regions of the USA; German solar resources are only 1/2th as good as the American sites in the SW desert. Then you also have the problem where Germany is a high-latitude country, resulting in overproduction on noon in June but very limited production in the winter.

 

[shady28]

Germany has been one of the few countries that have successfully moved away from nuclear energy. Germany has so far successfully shut down its nine units that had the capacity of generating enough power for at least 20 million homes in Europe. In fact, the contribution of nuclear power in Germany’s electricity generation has now fallen to just 16 percent and renewables are now the preferred source of electricity generation in the country.

Ok maybe I misinterpreted the term "preferred" there.

Their actual production using nuclear power has not fallen much. The overall consumption has gone up.

They went from 12.8GWH in 2010 to 10.9 recently. That's a 15% decrease.

Brown coal about this time in 2011 was at 13.3GWH, right now it's at 17.2 (that's a fail environmentally).

Hard coal about this time in 2011 was at 2.7GWH, right now it's at about 12.23GWH.

Germany is definitely doing a lot with wind and solar, and they are politically playing up the sunny / windy days with mild temperatures on weekends when the factories are shut down, where it can supply a big chunk of their power.

But reality is quite different.

Source

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Why should I expend effort to save children if others won't. Why shouldn't I spend that time admiring my ego.

Looking at the number of emotionally preening posts you've made in this topic it would appear that you are spending considerable time admiring your ego.

And the children will thank you if you'd not expend any effort to save them from something they don't need to be saved from.

But if you'd like to support Romanian orphans who really do need to be saved you can make a difference today with a donation or the donation of your time as a volunteer in a Romanian state orphanage:

https://www.h2hint.org/

 

[BoberFett]

Well Germany with 80M people did it, they basically phased-out nuclear within the last 5 years and are now getting the vast majority of energy from renewable sources.

Except that Germans are SOOO extremely overenthusiastic with "going green" that their infrastructure is now lacking, for example they produce enormous amounts of (wind) energy on the North Sea coast but cannot transfer/disperse all that energy, say, to the South. At times they actually must shut down wind power plants to avoid blackouts from "too much energy" that is produced at times...which in turns affects utility prices. Simple: They produce TOO MUCH renewable energy right now.

So, yes "it can be done", that point sure is proven.

Citation needed.

Edit: I see flexy has been sufficiently schooled. But hey, he's fighting the good fight. Truth be damned.

 

[OverVolt]

Well Germany with 80M people did it, they basically phased-out nuclear within the last 5 years and are now getting the vast majority of energy from renewable sources.

Except that Germans are SOOO extremely overenthusiastic with "going green" that their infrastructure is now lacking, for example they produce enormous amounts of (wind) energy on the North Sea coast but cannot transfer/disperse all that energy, say, to the South. At times they actually must shut down wind power plants to avoid blackouts from "too much energy" that is produced at times...which in turns affects utility prices. Simple: They produce TOO MUCH renewable energy right now.

So, yes "it can be done", that point sure is proven.

Is it green like VW Diesel clean or is it more like 70% still comes from green coal clean.

Besides, you'd figure Europe would be the first to go this route because much of Europe is natural resource poor.

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-4949.html

Its not like they are being proactive out of the kindness of their hearts. They have to.

It looks like anti-nuclear sentiment goes back to the 1980's. Alot of what you guys are jealous of was decades in the works. Considering they must import all uranium that too doesn't seem like altruism and more like necessity/practicality.

 

[glenn1]

Is it green like VW Diesel clean or is it more like 70% still comes from green coal clean.

Besides, you'd figure Europe would be the first to go this route because much of Europe is natural resource poor.

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-4949.html

Its not like they are being proactive out of the kindness of their hearts. They have to.

It looks like anti-nuclear sentiment goes back to the 1980's. Alot of what you guys are jealous of was decades in the works. Considering they must import all uranium that too doesn't seem like altruism and more like necessity/practicality.

they also face a high level of geopolitical risk in their energy supplies as natural gas from Russia is a key piece of their energy mix. The need for diversification trumps some immediate economic considerations. They don't want to be completely crippled by shutdown of Russian pipelines, whether by Putin's direction as a mwans of foreign policy pressure or by war with former Soviet republics.

 

[Subyman]

IIRC, Germany has a lot of easily recoverable coal. It is probably pretty hard for them to forgo that especially with the phase-out commitment.

Fukushima spooked a lot of European countries. European countries have less land, so naturally nuclear plants are closer to population centers, which increases fear in the populace. There was already a large "green" and anti-nuclear movement within Germany and Fukushima gave them the catalyst. On the other hand, energy producers had aging facilities that they'd have to dump a lot of money into to get back up and running. The whisperings within the nuclear community is that the power producers would rather just build coal plants instead of updating or replacing the aging nuclear facilities. So, it was really a win-win for politicians and power providers. The power providers got to go back to cheap and easy coal, while the politicians got brownie points from the greenies for being "tough on nuclear." It was kind of a sad song and dance that, in the end, resulted in more pollution and a regression in their carbon targets (they are trending to miss their 2020 carbon goal.)

Go figure.

FWIW, France, which is mostly nuclear has 1/2 the carbon output of Germany per capita. It is more complicated than directly comparing due to regional climate differences, energy trading, and industry, but it is something to think about.

 

[Moonbeam]

IIRC, Germany has a lot of easily recoverable coal. It is probably pretty hard for them to forgo that especially with the phase-out commitment.

Fukushima spooked a lot of European countries. European countries have less land, so naturally nuclear plants are closer to population centers, which increases fear in the populace. There was already a large "green" and anti-nuclear movement within Germany and Fukushima gave them the catalyst. On the other hand, energy producers had aging facilities that they'd have to dump a lot of money into to get back up and running. The whisperings within the nuclear community is that the power producers would rather just build coal plants instead of updating or replacing the aging nuclear facilities. So, it was really a win-win for politicians and power providers. The power providers got to go back to cheap and easy coal, while the politicians got brownie points from the greenies for being "tough on nuclear." It was kind of a sad song and dance that, in the end, resulted in more pollution and a regression in their carbon targets (they are trending to miss their 2020 carbon goal.)

Go figure.

FWIW, France, which is mostly nuclear has 1/2 the carbon output of Germany per capita. It is more complicated than directly comparing due to regional climate differences, energy trading, and industry, but it is something to think about.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/nuclear-waste-crisis-france/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/0...-nuclear-waste-prob-12208.html?pagewanted=all

And what fun this one is:

http://www.dw.com/en/france-tilting-toward-nuclear-phase-out/a-18692209

 

[Accord99]

That's only if Hollande remains in power.

And anti-nuclear activists have to decide whether climate change (and hence CO2 emissions) is the most important issue facing human civilization; if it is then they must support nuclear.

Otherwise, they'll be no better than deniers since their actions negatively impact the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere.

 

[OverVolt]

..

I'm basically just saying the same thing suby already said.

 

[Subyman]

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/nuclear-waste-crisis-france/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/0...-nuclear-waste-prob-12208.html?pagewanted=all

And what fun this one is:

http://www.dw.com/en/france-tilting-toward-nuclear-phase-out/a-18692209

Got any personal commentary on this? I'm not going to take the time to respond to links.

 

[Paratus]

IIRC, Germany has a lot of easily recoverable coal. It is probably pretty hard for them to forgo that especially with the phase-out commitment.

Fukushima spooked a lot of European countries. European countries have less land, so naturally nuclear plants are closer to population centers, which increases fear in the populace. There was already a large "green" and anti-nuclear movement within Germany and Fukushima gave them the catalyst. On the other hand, energy producers had aging facilities that they'd have to dump a lot of money into to get back up and running. The whisperings within the nuclear community is that the power producers would rather just build coal plants instead of updating or replacing the aging nuclear facilities. So, it was really a win-win for politicians and power providers. The power providers got to go back to cheap and easy coal, while the politicians got brownie points from the greenies for being "tough on nuclear." It was kind of a sad song and dance that, in the end, resulted in more pollution and a regression in their carbon targets (they are trending to miss their 2020 carbon goal.)

Go figure.

FWIW, France, which is mostly nuclear has 1/2 the carbon output of Germany per capita. It is more complicated than directly comparing due to regional climate differences, energy trading, and industry, but it is something to think about.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/nuclear-waste-crisis-france/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/0...-nuclear-waste-prob-12208.html?pagewanted=all

And what fun this one is:

http://www.dw.com/en/france-tilting-toward-nuclear-phase-out/a-18692209

Got any personal commentary on this? I'm not going to take the time to respond to links.

Don't forget the fact that the reduction in nuclear power for coal ironically means more radiation exposure for the people who live within shadow of the coal plant due to the radioactive nature of fly ash.

Moonbeam won't acknowledge this fact due to his own over active amygdala on this subject.

 

[Moonbeam]

Don't forget the fact that the reduction in nuclear power for coal ironically means more radiation exposure for the people who live within shadow of the coal plant due to the radioactive nature of fly ash.

Moonbeam won't acknowledge this fact due to his own over active amygdala on this subject.

Nuclear means more coal during the centuries it will take to build them over the bodies of dead protestors and law suits.

 

[Moonbeam]

Got any personal commentary on this? I'm not going to take the time to respond to links.

Yes, the idea that we need nuclear is a joke.

 

[WelshBloke]

Yes, the idea that we need nuclear is a joke.

We need energy from somewhere.

Solar, wind and tidal are great but there's always going to be a need for a constant guaranteed supply. We obviously want to move away from fossil fuels so where do we get that supply from?

The way I see it we are going to need much more electricity generation if we are to move away fossil fuels (you're going to need to fuel your car from the grid and you won't be cooking on gas) so I don't see a lot of choice but to look into nuclear power.

 

[Moonbeam]

We need energy from somewhere.

Solar, wind and tidal are great but there's always going to be a need for a constant guaranteed supply. We obviously want to move away from fossil fuels so where do we get that supply from?

The way I see it we are going to need much more electricity generation if we are to move away fossil fuels (you're going to need to fuel your car from the grid and you won't be cooking on gas) so I don't see a lot of choice but to look into nuclear power.

You're not looking very hard.

 

[Subyman]

Yes, the idea that we need nuclear is a joke.

Thanks for that enlightening commentary, glad I didn't take the time to properly respond :thumbsup: