The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I suspect it is more ideologically (and financially) driven propaganda than fact-based argumentation. But,
Consumption from renewable sources and hydropower in China grew by a quarter in 2012. But that growth came from a low baseline, and was more than offset by an increase of 6.4 percent in coal, which has a higher baseline. Coal accounted for 68 percent of Chinese energy consumption in 2012. Other significant CO2 increases occurred in Japan (+6.9 percent) and Germany (+1.8 percent), pushed by a switch to coal to offset dependence on nuclear. "CO2 emissions +2.2% in 2012, driven by China and coal" Phys.org
But that growth came from a low baseline, and was more than offset by an increase of 6.4 percent in coal, which has a higher baseline. Coal accounted for 68 percent of Chinese energy consumption in 2012.
Other significant CO2 increases occurred in Japan (+6.9 percent) and Germany (+1.8 percent), pushed by a switch to coal to offset dependence on nuclear.
"CO2 emissions +2.2% in 2012, driven by China and coal" Phys.org
In 2012 many countries increased dependence on coal. German emissions increased 1.8 per cent in 2012, with coal growing at 4.2 per cent. "Coal continues to dominate global carbon emissions" AlphaGalileo
"Coal continues to dominate global carbon emissions" AlphaGalileo
I think the thrust of the WSJ article is that wind and solar are still too inconsistent energy sources, and coal -- being abundant and cheap -- is the easy, convenient and logical thing to turn to to make up for that shortcoming, especially after dropping nuclear. Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire
I will await the response of Crazy Horse, DoDo or Jerome for a better answer. But I remain suspicious of anything the WSJ might have to say about energy. It does seem that the cost of energy for manufacturing, as opposed to residential uses is posing a problem in Germany and industry, in conjunction with Merkel's conservative government, when it emerges, could do damage to Germany's world leading wind energy manufacturing industry. But where else can Germany get affordable power. Wind is roughly competitive with coal in the USA now, and doesn't have to include the cost of sea shipment, but no new coal plants are being built. This indicates that the issue is not based on the fundamental costs of the two sources so much as on who gets subsidized by whom. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
It sounds like you think this is a temporary phenomenon and in the long run carbon emissions will go down as renewable power becomes more competitive and thus widespread in Germany. Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire
It sounds like you think this is a temporary phenomenon...
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
How much is attributable to that, and how much is attributable to burning coal imported from the USA. There must be figures for that somewhere.
Let's talk about energy. You say alternative energy can't scale. Is there no role for renewables? I like renewables, but they move slowly. There's an inherent inertia, a slowness in energy transitions. It would be easier if we were still consuming 66,615 kilowatt-hours per capita, as in 1950. But in 1950 few people had air-conditioning. We're a society that demands electricity 24/7. This is very difficult with sun and wind. Look at Germany, where they heavily subsidize renewable energy. When there's no wind or sun, they boost up their old coal-fired power plants. The result: Germany has massively increased coal imports from the US, and German greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing, from 917 million metric tons in 2011 to 931 million in 2012, because they're burning American coal. It's totally zany! ― Vaclav Smil quoted in This Is the Man Bill Gates Thinks You Absolutely Should Be Reading, Wired
I like renewables, but they move slowly. There's an inherent inertia, a slowness in energy transitions. It would be easier if we were still consuming 66,615 kilowatt-hours per capita, as in 1950. But in 1950 few people had air-conditioning. We're a society that demands electricity 24/7. This is very difficult with sun and wind.
Look at Germany, where they heavily subsidize renewable energy. When there's no wind or sun, they boost up their old coal-fired power plants. The result: Germany has massively increased coal imports from the US, and German greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing, from 917 million metric tons in 2011 to 931 million in 2012, because they're burning American coal. It's totally zany!
― Vaclav Smil quoted in This Is the Man Bill Gates Thinks You Absolutely Should Be Reading, Wired
Pissing around with a few hundred billion here and there just isn't gonna cut it.
... The increased coal burn that has occurred (and it has) comes from existing units. But this is due to short term economic factors, not a long term revival of coal's economics (which are terrible). In the EU, coal use has been growing since 2009 (after a steep drop in the preceding two years) but it is still below 2007 levels and well below increases in renewable energy generation. There's a lot of reasons for this short-term bump. The most important are: 1) strict new air pollution rules that ensure a huge amount of coal-fired capacity will be retired or constrained by 2016; 2) rock-bottom carbon prices; and 3) national level coal policies. But some of these same factors will conspire to have the exact opposite effect in the long run. ... "Europe's 'Coal Renaissance' Masks Industry Downfall" by Justin Guay, Washington Representative, Sierra Club
There's a lot of reasons for this short-term bump. The most important are: 1) strict new air pollution rules that ensure a huge amount of coal-fired capacity will be retired or constrained by 2016; 2) rock-bottom carbon prices; and 3) national level coal policies. But some of these same factors will conspire to have the exact opposite effect in the long run. ...
"Europe's 'Coal Renaissance' Masks Industry Downfall" by Justin Guay, Washington Representative, Sierra Club
Here in the UK, the usual opinion among energy consultants (those I've spoken to, at any rate) is that these rules will be ignored and the plants will stay online. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Clean Options, alphabetical:
Advanced nuclear : Build molten salt reactors in the Czech republic, France. (these are two of the nations with the most actual, current, research into this)
Boring nuclear: Same, but with PWR's.
Renewable: Solar: Longer HVDC lines. Into north africa. Lots, and lots of solar. Mostly this gets you increased reliability and removes the "winter" problem.
Renewable: Wind: North sea floating windmills, produced shipyard style. Domestically, build http://eduard-heindl.de/energy-storage/energy-storage-system.html to level out supply.
At the top of your list, I would add two options:
Passivhaus construction -- which is even spreading to China now -- is in line with these two. Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire
Like me.
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 30 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 5 22 comments
by Oui - May 13 65 comments
by Carrie - Apr 30 7 comments
by Oui - May 3113 comments
by Oui - May 309 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2718 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 233 comments
by Oui - May 1365 comments
by Oui - May 910 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 522 comments
by Oui - May 449 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - May 29 comments
by Oui - Apr 30273 comments
by Carrie - Apr 307 comments
by Oui - Apr 2644 comments
by Oui - Apr 889 comments
by Oui - Mar 19143 comments