It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Germany Sets Example For "Green" Power, Risks Crisis?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Juergen Trittin, Germany's Environmental Minister and leader of the Green Party is driving a major effort to cut pollution in Germany. One idea he is now pushing worries experts though; He wants to do away with nuclear power quickly. Germany leads the world in wind power, but some experts are uncertain about a quick withdrawl from nuclear power. Possible problems with reliance on natural gas or wind leave many seeing the nuclear plants as necessary, at least in the short term.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
Germany's ambitious plan to phase out nuclear power by 2020 while also reducing its reliance on fossil fuels has made it a leader in efforts to fulfil the Kyoto protocol.
But critics are now predicting an energy crisis

Germany already produces 40% of all the world's wind power, and the hope is that by 2010, wind will meet 12.5% of German energy needs

Dr Pfaffenberger points out that an average kilowatt from wind costs 10 cents, whereas the average cost of electricity on the market is only about one-third of this.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Ambition is good, but you do have to be conscious of your economy. The nuclear plants are a decent stopgap- they are keeping prices low and precluding the emission of 170 million tons of CO2. In the future Germany may wish to invest in storage techniques for wind power (which currently makes up 15% of Germany's generation capacity but only 3% of their consumption.) or persue other technologies. For now though, it must be considered that only a strong economy will provide them with the necessary funding to develop clean technology for the future.

[edit on 25-2-2005 by The Vagabond]




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I'm wondering exactly how fast the Germans think they can install wind or other facilities. Certainly a cabinet member over there isn't simply advocating that they shut down a nuclear reactor every year without planning an alternative. It seems like the only option would be Russian Natural Gas.
Politically that would be great for Iran and Russia (who don't want any American intervention around the Caspian Sea and would be glad to have Germany's FULL support.), but would it ever really happen.
Afterall, if Germany did rely on Russian natural gas and felt there was a chance of the USA compromising Caspian Sea reserves, they would have to do more than just call us dirty names. Perhaps an arms embargo? They supply the cannons for our tanks, as well as several of our machine guns I believe.
Again, I really don't think Germany could be seriously considering such a thing, unless it is intended to play into a larger political setup.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'm wondering exactly how fast the Germans think they can install wind or other facilities. Certainly a cabinet member over there isn't simply advocating that they shut down a nuclear reactor every year without planning an alternative. It seems like the only option would be Russian Natural Gas.
Politically that would be great for Iran and Russia (who don't want any American intervention around the Caspian Sea and would be glad to have Germany's FULL support.), but would it ever really happen.





Worth watching IMO. Interesting analysis. I suspect you may be on target - there are new alliances being made, none of which I think are particularly dangerous. Fact is, the USA is no longer the big player on the world economic stage. Now we get to see how it all falls out.



.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Sounds like a pretty good plan to freeze in the cold. Go for it, then we can buy the place cheap.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Jürgen Trittin isn´t the leader of the "green" party..
he is just the Environmental Minister.

The leader of the "Green" party are:

Katrin Göring-Eckardt and Krista Sager

thanks


dc



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
How much energy does Germany get from Nucular Power? And from what types of reactors? How much wind do they get? Questions, questions, questions. Germany has been really been eating up the supply for Wind Turbines and Solar Panels over the last 2-3 years which has created a shortage in that area, they are very seroius about Kyoto, and getting aways from "dangerous" technology. It is an experiment and if it works out, countries that have similiar infrastructure to Germany could copy then en masse.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I wonder if they havve considered solar... I realize they probably have more wind than sun, but America is already shipping most of it's production of cells to europe anyway... they are a bargain...

it would help us and them... but that is too simple. And it would require that the germans actually LIKE us... gee thanks BUSH, for making us such a nice county to do business with ....



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Germany already produces 40% of all the world's wind power, and the hope is that by 2010, wind will meet 12.5% of German energy needs

Wow, nearly half of all wind power produced in the world isn't even one twentieth of germany's power needs? Thats incredible.


In the future Germany may wish to invest in storage techniques for wind power

Batteries? That'd be the only way to 'store' electrical energy no? Giant skyscraper sized batteries. I knew a prof once who tried to calculate the size of national batteries, and they were disgustingly huge, bigger than buildings or somesuch.


It seems like the only option would be Russian Natural Gas.

? Or coal and oil.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Political snake oil and BS. This is what happens when politicians cut back on education in science and mathematics. Now they can reap the spoils of ignorance.

There is no way to generate the amount of power from exisiting "green" technologies. Take the massive wind farms here east of San Jose. Not even enough juice to be a tenth of a decent, older reactor-not counting the new scalable pebble bed reactors. There is not a single power source in this universe that has the energy density of atomic power. Fission, and then fusion are the answers to energy needs. Eitehr that, or drastically reduce the demand for energy.

Are they going to bulldoze a quarter of the country for these windmills? Drill and build offshore constructions to place them at sea? Thousands of miles of EM emitting power cables on the sea floor? Disturbed subsurface ecosystems, or even extinctions caused by local avian wildlife not coping with multistory high rotating blades? Pristine landscapes covered in power lines and windmill towers?

Are we really going to cheer as we destroy the environment while claiming we've saved it?



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
Political snake oil and BS. This is what happens when politicians cut back on education in science and mathematics. Now they can reap the spoils of ignorance.

Fission, and then fusion are the answers to energy needs. Eitehr that, or drastically reduce the demand for energy.

Are we really going to cheer as we destroy the environment while claiming we've saved it?






Good points. Good questions.

For the long term - WyrdeOne had some interesting ideas about satellite solar collectors on another thread. IMO - a better investment than research for missile defense.


.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Good or bad ideas at least one country is trying to get off the oil dependency.

I for once, feel that with so many money going into investments and profit in our war for oil, we should have been able to afford to find a better way to get our energy and safe lives in the process.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Good or bad ideas at least one country is trying to get off the oil dependency.

I for once, feel that with so many money going into investments and profit in our war for oil, we should have been able to afford to find a better way to get our energy and safe lives in the process.





My sentiments exactly. Thanks marg.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Good or bad ideas at least one country is trying to get off the oil dependency.

The oil dependency can only be broken when alternative forms become affordable, relative to oil.
This will never happen naturally, or at least not without radical technological break thrus.

Therefore it must be engineered. Therefore oil and coal for energy production and fuel should be artificially taxed. Not enough all at once to make alt. energy sensible, but bit by bit and step by step. Call it an 'anti-osama' tax or something to get teh people behind it.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   


Call it an 'anti-osama' tax or something to get teh people behind it.


Good idea! I liike, I like very very much... Does a congestion tax apply, cuz Toronto is going to be implementing it soon.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


It seems like the only option would be Russian Natural Gas.

? Or coal and oil.


I excluded those options because Germany is on this whole "above and beyond Kyoto" push. If they are trying to minimize CO2 output they can't go to oil or coal to replace their nuclear reactors.

As for most of the questions that have been asked- beats the hell out of me. If I knew anything about nuclear reactors I'd build one, then call Edison and tell them to take my electric bill and cram it.


As for alternative energy- what about tidal generators? Why is everyone trying wind (which doesn't always blow as hard as you'd like) when we've got a great big friggin moon orbiting our planet to fuel tidal a tidal dynamo?



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
..And it would require that the germans actually LIKE us... gee thanks BUSH, for making us such a nice county to do business with ....


I do not agree with that, I am from Germany, I don´t "hate" the US-Citizens, but I am against Bush..but this dosnt matter in this thread..

please read the article below and you will understand :

"For Wednesday, all streets and shops in Mainz were closed, the busy Rhine River was shut to ship traffic, nonresidents were banned from the city center and even residents were forbidden to step onto their balconies or even open windows or shutters.
Lufthansa, meanwhile, canceled 75 flights and delayed several hundred others because of restricted airspace around the nearby Frankfurt airport. And several expressways between the airport and Mainz were closed for Bush's motorcade."

"A recent AP-Ipsos poll showed overwhelming German skepticism of Bush - about four in five Germans say they don't agree with the president's determination to aggressively promote democracy around the world."


FULL STORY:
Read the story: StarTelegram.com

Thanks!


dacruz

[edit on 26-2-2005 by dacruz]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dacruz
"A recent AP-Ipsos poll showed overwhelming German skepticism of Bush - about four in five Germans say they don't agree with the president's determination to aggressively promote democracy around the world."

[edit on 26-2-2005 by dacruz]


Wow, that could have major implications on the 2008 elections. Afterall, Germany commands a whopping ZERO electoral votes.


I'm only kidding, I honestly do think I understand the way Europeans feel towards Americas current policies. To varying degrees a lot of Americans feel the same way it seems.
This isn't an excuse, but everybody makes mistakes, sometimes for a decent reason, sometimes not.
Germany did it to most of Europe because the allies had been foolish in setting the terms of the WWI Armistice.
Egypt has done it to Israel several times over.
Israel has done it to Lebanon
The British, French, and US did it to Egypt via Israel (the Suez War)

And the list goes on Ad Naseum, but ultimately you were dead on at first when you said that's not what this thread is really about. Trade continues, despite strained relations or disapproval of policies. Everyone knows that when the dust settles we're still going to want/need to be friends.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
.
I think the move away from fossil fuels is an intelligent move. I am dubious about turning your back on nuclear. If you have dependable alternatives to Nuclear power great, but you have to get those in place first before you drop it all together.

That is as stupid as building a missile defense system before doing any research and building a working prototype first.

I guess America doesn't have a corner on stupid government actions department.
.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   
You can't corner the stupidity market. Stupidity is everywhere just waiting to be undertaken, and can almost always be purchased on credit.
I propose Vagabond's Law of Government Compitence:

GxAxF=S

G= number of people in government office
A= the governments authority, quantified as the sum of all hours and dollars controlled by the population they govern
F= funds expended by the government
S= Stupidity of the government



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
on this whole "above and beyond Kyoto" push.

? Aren't they further behind the kyoto requirements than the US even?

As for alternative energy- what about tidal generators?

Extreme fantasy is what I've allways heard them as being. As in, the tech is too far away and expensive and difficult to work with.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join