4 ms·

Germany may offer a model. France has had a working model for the last few decades. It's called nuclear. France gets less than 10% of their power from fossil f

by iwwr 11y ago

Germany may offer a model. France has had a working model for the last few decades. It's called nuclear. France gets less than 10% of their power from fossil fuel and could easily move the rest of the way to either gas (half as bad as coal) or completely renewable. Without nuclear, Germany will have a tough time and reduced outputs + high taxes.

vlehto 11y ago
Checked these two charts: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2011.tot http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2011.tot and https://www.imf.org/ https://www.imf.org/ France is making 30 400$/tonne of CO2 while Germany is making 18 200$/tonne of CO2. Edit: Here is pretty informative chart about energy production in Germany: https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm
- merb 11y ago
  that doesn't look like a fair comparsion: Germany in Square Metres: 357.340,08 km² France in Square Metres: 632.834 km² (without sea: 543.965) So now you see we are only slightly ahead of france when you compare the square metres which you should. Germany isn't as good as it seems when we look at CO2. Also these values are sanitized which means somebody traded CO2 and that makes our actual CO2 Emission system broken. As soon as Countries could trade Emission. And you need to compare where the CO2 comes from. I would argue that France / Spain have lot's of CO2 even comming from their agriculture. agriculture is pretty strong in these countries. While germany makes a lot of CO2 from car manufacturing.
  - ant6n 11y ago
    Square meters don't produce CO2, people do. And Frances population is about 2/3 of Germany.
    - merb 11y ago
      animals produce as much co2 as cars. so..
      - vlehto 11y ago
        So we don't need to worry about climate change then? http://www.pnas.org/content/105/Supplement_1/11543/F2.large.jpg http://www.pnas.org/content/105/Supplement_1/11543/F2.large.... Cows produce methane. Here is methane breakdown of U.S. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.htm... Cars produce mostly CO2, here's breakdown: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.htm... That "Cow farts cause climate change as much as cars" stuff is PETA propaganda. I've seen as high as "52% of all carbon emissions result from meat consumption". Then I read the actual paper and "We are double counting all these numbers because of moral hazard of eating meat. Lying is OK if you do it for good cause." The 18% share was calculated by combining the direct effect of methane, then counting in some estimation of deforestation. It is true that Amazon rain forests end up as pasture, but that's not necessarily the biggest reason why they cut down the forest. They first try to grow some plants on it, but as the fertility goes down it's only good as pasture anymore. If you want to go from 18% to 8% you only need to stop increasing meat consumption. But that doesn't necessarily work if the driver of deforestation turns out to be something else.
        merb 11y ago
        I'm not lying the whole point of CO2 emission is so false, since higher tiered countries always sell their emission and tell others that they are the best. But that is simply not true. Also mostly our world will always change his clima, that's natural, we soon will see a ice age. however people always think that the mostly we are the reason for that. however that's simply not true, the world is really really good when it comes to compensate such things. she did that million years before, even before there were any human.
addicted 11y ago
I honestly don't understand how nuclear is supposed to be the solution when it is so much more expensive than solar/wind. In addition, nuclear is getting more expensive, while solar/wind have been getting cheaper exponentially (although the wind price improvements have started slowing now).
- gdy 11y ago
  Because it isn't "so much more expensive" http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/ http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear...
  - mohawk 11y ago
    Could nuclear advocates please include cost of insurance in their calculations? Because insurers seem to know a bit more about extreme value statistics and long-tail risk, unlike governments or nuclear power advocates. And then please include the cost of storing nuclear waste...

by iwwr 11y ago

vlehto 11y ago

Checked these two charts: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2011.tot http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2011.tot and https://www.imf.org/ https://www.imf.org/ France is making 30 400$/tonne of CO2 while Germany is making 18 200$/tonne of CO2. Edit: Here is pretty informative chart about energy production in Germany: https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm

merb 11y ago
that doesn't look like a fair comparsion: Germany in Square Metres: 357.340,08 km² France in Square Metres: 632.834 km² (without sea: 543.965) So now you see we are only slightly ahead of france when you compare the square metres which you should. Germany isn't as good as it seems when we look at CO2. Also these values are sanitized which means somebody traded CO2 and that makes our actual CO2 Emission system broken. As soon as Countries could trade Emission. And you need to compare where the CO2 comes from. I would argue that France / Spain have lot's of CO2 even comming from their agriculture. agriculture is pretty strong in these countries. While germany makes a lot of CO2 from car manufacturing.
- ant6n 11y ago
  Square meters don't produce CO2, people do. And Frances population is about 2/3 of Germany.
  - merb 11y ago
    animals produce as much co2 as cars. so..
    - vlehto 11y ago
      So we don't need to worry about climate change then? http://www.pnas.org/content/105/Supplement_1/11543/F2.large.jpg http://www.pnas.org/content/105/Supplement_1/11543/F2.large.... Cows produce methane. Here is methane breakdown of U.S. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.htm... Cars produce mostly CO2, here's breakdown: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.htm... That "Cow farts cause climate change as much as cars" stuff is PETA propaganda. I've seen as high as "52% of all carbon emissions result from meat consumption". Then I read the actual paper and "We are double counting all these numbers because of moral hazard of eating meat. Lying is OK if you do it for good cause." The 18% share was calculated by combining the direct effect of methane, then counting in some estimation of deforestation. It is true that Amazon rain forests end up as pasture, but that's not necessarily the biggest reason why they cut down the forest. They first try to grow some plants on it, but as the fertility goes down it's only good as pasture anymore. If you want to go from 18% to 8% you only need to stop increasing meat consumption. But that doesn't necessarily work if the driver of deforestation turns out to be something else.
      - merb 11y ago
        I'm not lying the whole point of CO2 emission is so false, since higher tiered countries always sell their emission and tell others that they are the best. But that is simply not true. Also mostly our world will always change his clima, that's natural, we soon will see a ice age. however people always think that the mostly we are the reason for that. however that's simply not true, the world is really really good when it comes to compensate such things. she did that million years before, even before there were any human.

addicted 11y ago

I honestly don't understand how nuclear is supposed to be the solution when it is so much more expensive than solar/wind. In addition, nuclear is getting more expensive, while solar/wind have been getting cheaper exponentially (although the wind price improvements have started slowing now).

gdy 11y ago
Because it isn't "so much more expensive" http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/ http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear...
- mohawk 11y ago
  Could nuclear advocates please include cost of insurance in their calculations? Because insurers seem to know a bit more about extreme value statistics and long-tail risk, unlike governments or nuclear power advocates. And then please include the cost of storing nuclear waste...