Despite Climate Campaigners Efforts, Germany’s New Coal Boom Reaches Record Level

From The GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser

Dirty Coal Revived As Europe Speeds Green Retreat

With Greenpeace successfully forcing the shutdown of nuclear power, and keeping out fracking for gas, what’s left? A boom in coal. In fact, over the next two years Germany will build 10 new power plants for hard coal.  Europe is in a coal frenzy, building power plants and opening up new mines, practically every month. It might sound odd that a boom in German coal is the result of Greenpeace’s political success. –Ezra Levant, Toronto Sun, 7 January 2014

Germany’s wind and solar power production came to an almost complete standstill in early December. More than 23,000 wind turbines stood still. One million photovoltaic systems stopped work nearly completely. For a whole week coal, nuclear and gas power plants had to generate an estimated 95 percent of Germany’s electricity supply. –Daniel Wetzel, Die Welt, 24 December 2013

Europe’s appetite for cheaper electricity is reviving mines that produce the dirtiest type of coal. Across the continent’s mining belt, from Germany to Poland and the Czech Republic, utilities are expanding open-pit mines that produce lignite. Alarmed at power prices about double U.S. levels, policy makers are allowing the expansion of coal mines that were scaled back in the past two decades. Lignite demand worldwide is forecast to rise as much as 5.4 percent by 2020, according to the International Energy Agency.  –Stefan Nicola and Ladka Bauerova, Bloomberg, 6 January 2014

Germany’s energy transition has also been a transition to coal: Despite multi-billion subsidies for renewable energy sources, power generation from brown coal (lignite) has climbed to its highest level in Germany since 1990. It is especially coal-fired power plants that are replacing the eight nuclear power plants that were shut down, while less CO2-intensive, but more expensive gas-fired power plants are currently barely competitive. Energy expert Patrick Graichen speaks of Germany’s “energy transition paradox”: the development of solar and wind farms, yet rising carbon dioxide-emissions. —Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7 January 2014

Question: What happens when you forcibly implement an overly ambitious plan to overhaul your entire energy infrastructure by ridding yourself of both nuclear power and coal, instituting on outright ban on hydraulic fracturing and hence natural-gas exploration, and relentlessly subsidize politically preferred forms of so-called “green” energy that investors and consumers aren’t choosing to use of their own volition? Answer: Across the continent’s mining belt, from Germany to Poland and the Czech Republic, utilities are expanding open-pit mines that produce lignite. This is what happens when you let big-government delusions of “green” grandeur commandeer policy. –Erika Johnson, Hot Air, 7 January 2014

Coal remains the biggest source of fuel for generating electricity in the U.S. and coal exports are growing fast. Demand is being stoked by the rise of power-hungry middle classes in emerging economies, led by China and India. By the end of this decade, coal is expected to surpass oil as the world’s dominant fuel source, according to a recent study by consultant Wood Mackenzie. –John W Miller and Rebecca Smith, The Wall Street Journal, 7 January 2014

The Energy Information Administration estimates that hydrates contain more carbon than every fossil fuel available on Earth combined. EIA also reports that these ice-like structures could hold anywhere from 10,000 trillion to more than 100,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. By way of comparison, the administration, which acts as the independent statistical arm of the Energy Department, said in 2013 that there are just over 7,000 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas deposits throughout the world. –Clare Foran, National Journal, 24 December 2013

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Fire up the coals!

Germany is such a strange country…..they destroy their beautiful rural areas with wind turbines, and then fire up more coal, which is what they are supposed to be eliminating. Why not just get rid of the useless turbines, and spend the money on modern filters, scrubbers, and co-generating systems, which would allow them to burn coal, without the negative effects on the environment. Jus sayin!!!

Bruce

Good news too for W. Virginia, Germany is a major client for coal mining here.

Bruce

@1957chev-It is mandatory to install those plats with scrubbers and filters to modern standard, that is factored already into the decision to build the ~30 plants plotted on the map. The lignite plants I think will be near-field (Braunkohlegebieten) belt-fed plants like those in the Chumotov-Most region in N. CZ, so there is an economy of delivery here. Those Bk fields on the CZ side will be exhausted in ~30/40y so the switch in CZ is in the opposing direction to that of Germany (i.e., Thermo-nuclear). Given proximity factors (CZ and the F system also), it seems hardly sensible to close the German T-n plants ahead of their time.

Man Bearpig

I’m in the UK and I want one 🙁 I’m fed up seeing these motionless windmills dotted around the countryside.

R. de Haan

How long will it take to burn up the US Georgia swamp forests now the EU has made it mandatory to burn coal 1/3 together with wood pallets 2/3 ?
2 billion CO2 certificates stashed in the banks ready to compensate the CO2 emissions but they will be used when the CO2 trading prices are much higher.
Burning wood together with coal allows the industry to deliver relative cheap electricity for years to come.
I think the massive burning of wood in coal plants (4 times the volume of coal) is together with the bio fuel mandate one of the most criminal decisions made by the EU.
Spain lost it’s oak forests when Philips II during the 80 years war build his “Armada”.
A single coal plant burns 20 Armada’s in a week.
We’re talking about every coal plant in Europe here.
Where are the freaking environmentalists when you need them?

rogerknights

Lignite demand worldwide is forecast to rise as much as 5.4 percent by 2020,

Typo? 5.4% doesn’t sound like much.

so new videos of bucket wheel excavators will be forthcoming?
cool.
spent a few years in germany, 87 to 89, and could see the tensions then between older land owners and younger activists regarding respectful land use. older ones respected and used it, younger ones worshiped it. could tell the populace was swinging towards the younger point of view but I never expected them to go as far as they did though.
the older people treated us army soldiers a hell of a lot better than young people did. maybe that was because tracked vehicles can really do a number on a field…

R. de Haan

1957chev says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:04 am
Germany is such a strange country…..they destroy their beautiful rural areas with wind turbines, and then fire up more coal, which is what they are supposed to be eliminating. Why not just get rid of the useless turbines, and spend the money on modern filters, scrubbers, and co-generating systems, which would allow them to burn coal, without the negative effects on the environment. Jus sayin!!!
Modern coal plants ARE clean.
The crazy policies come from the environmentalists who pushed for the bird schredders and renewable energy like palm oil, bio fuels and now wood, masses of wood while at the same time collecting money to plant trees. It;s these people tat are completely bunkers and now pose a bigger threat to the biosphere than anything from the past.
The average German has had no say in this.
This is what happens if a country is run by a bunch of freaking Commies.
Germany = DDR 2.0

Oldseadog

Is this the new black economy?
Sorry.

rabbit

Question: In total, have Greenpeace’s efforts through the years harmed or benefitted the environment?

Kat

Unintended consequence strikes again.
Well done Greenpeace. You have pushed to stifle valid energy alternatives, such as fracking and nuclear, so much that everything has backfired. This makes me very happy 🙂

PaulH

So how “dirty” is dirty coal? If the smoke stacks are equipped with modern scrubbers, is the effluvia still dirty? Or are scrubbers just there for show? Or do the coal haters hate just because they hate?

R.deHaan…..steady on there! Environmentalists have largely disappeared in Europe…I know, because I am one of the last ones standing! I belong to a society of conservationists that has stood out against turbines and biofuels. We don’t like nuclear, either. I also made a strong plea against wood-chips. These are ‘green’ policies….they have not had environmental impact assessment, instead they are based upon dogma and ‘collusion’ of interests….renewable energy companies like Siemens, bankers and brokers, and yes, modern day campaigners in the green NGOs – but these people are NOT environmentalists – they are professional political lobbyists, just like many climate modellers are….where the policies they promote guarantee them a role for life. If you want a serious analysis – read my book ‘Chill’…half the book deals with why the ‘greens’ have colluded in a false consensus on climate science. These people are not ‘commies’….(my wife is Czech and lived under their occupation for the first half of her life – so we have some idea), but ‘greens’ DO have something in common with communist regimes, and that is the belief in a command and control economy – as long as they happen to have a hand on the control levers. It is a syndrome not confined to any particular culture – its ugly head can arise anywhere.
There are many old-school environmentalists who believe passionately in freedom, local decision making, appropriately scaled technologies, a decent lifestyle that does not compromise the ability of others to live well, as well as clean air, pure water and unpolluted oceans, and abundant biodiversity – the latter for which you ought to thank the early environmentalists. Many of us have opposed the madness of turbines as well as the risks of nuclear power and do not support biofuels. The problem is that ‘green’ is some modern weird imperative that cannot examine its own assumptions – because it is the only pitch that many have for the levers of power and influence. These people are the ones in ‘denial’ of their own self interest – what someone called ‘willful blindness’.

negrum

rabbit says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:59 am
Question: In total, have Greenpeace’s efforts through the years harmed or benefitted the environment?
—-l
A question worthy of a research grant 🙂

M Courtney

negrum says January 7, 2014 at 12:10 pm “A question worthy of a research grant :)”
Great.
What do you want the answer to be?

GH05T

Am I the only one who reads this and immediately thinks “insider futures trading”? How much money did the Greenpeace higher ups invest in coal during the downturn they helped cause before shoring it back up? So much of junk science centers around practices that just coincidentally have massive and sudden impacts on the price of various commodities. One well placed “preliminary finding” can send pork belly prices plummeting and a month later “New research” just happens to pop up causing a swing in the other direction. The average low-information voter will distrust a person because they work directly for one group or the other but lacks the basic understanding of how third parties can make billions by first trashing and then resurrecting a market.

Joe E

Modern coal plants are basically clean of the old type pollutants such as sulfer and soot – why do you think the push for CO2 as a pollutant? Its the only real thing the enviros can use to pretend that coal/fossil fuels will be the end of us all.

This is an interesting development. In the UK the coal plants are being closed down due to an EU directive (or so we are told ) but Germany apparently does not have to comply with the same rules ! What are our politicians up to ? Oh I know – there is not a single Chartered Engineer in the house of commons, so none of them understand the difference between a kW and an MW, so what chance do we have of getting things right. Looking forward (not) to power cuts due to their lack of engineering competence and hence dithering for more than a decade now.

DirkH

Peter Taylor says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:08 pm
“There are many old-school environmentalists who believe passionately in freedom, ”
Sure. In Germany, they got purged out of the Green party ca. 1980 by the maoists like Joschka Fischer and Kretschmann who recognized their ticket to power and quickly entered the young party. That was also when I voted the first and last time for the Greens.

DirkH

John says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:12 pm
“This is an interesting development. In the UK the coal plants are being closed down due to an EU directive (or so we are told ) but Germany apparently does not have to comply with the same rules !”
Wrong. EU allows new coal power plants given they have flue gas scrubbers of a certain quality; doesn’t come cheap. If UK would spend as much money as Germany they could have for instance modernized Drax accordingly. UK decided not to do that due to the age of Drax.
I don’t know your tariffs but I guess we pay twice as much as you for a kWh. 26 Eurocents ATM.

@ Peter Taylor. Whilst the early technology of Fusion Reactors leaves something to be desired ultimately the mass production of Electricity lies with Fusion, even now the successor to ITER, DEMO is being planned and costed, powered by Hydrogen Isotopes they produce practically no ( in that the radioactivity is caused by the Neutron bombardment of the reactor chamber walls ) radioactive waste as compared to the current Uranium fueled reactors, whose technological development via Thorium was curtailed by political expediency under the Nixon administration and latterly by France possibly in an attempt to protect it’s very large and profitable Nuclear industry. The 2 countries that are the most likely to be the first to have Fusion on line, Japan & France both utilize Nuclear heavily, of the two France is the greatest to the extent that 85% + of their electricity production is by conventional Nuclear power, even though Germany is involved with the ITER project, how long do you think it will be before the average conservationist realizes that the scaremongering of Nuclear does not apply to Fusion and votes for it when it comes on line sooner than expected ( the latest forecasts predict around 2035 ).

Vince Causey

Germany always gets a free pass with the global warming brigade.
In “Any Questions” a few months ago, Jonathan Porritt of Friends of the Earth was forced to deal with this inconvenient truth as it was mentioned by Lord Lawson. Porritt swatted it away quite casually, with yes, yes, it is true that Germany has taken to coal generation, but only as a TEMPORARY measure, which they HAD to do because they CORRECTLY removed themselves from nuclear generation following the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster.
Yet if the UK mentions cutting subsidies for renewables, you can be sure the likes of Porritt will breathe hell fire and brimstone upon all concerned.

Stephen Richards

This is not “EUROPE” Germany is not europe even though it pretty much funds it. The french have refused the right to drill, the spaniards have none, neither do the italians. The germans are doing their utmost to protect their thriving economy and have no choice but to build coal fired generators.
Though there are more problems ahead. The EU commisariate has demanded a reduction down to 130gco²/km by 2015 and to 98 grco²/km by 2020. The germans have one a delay of about a year but my gut feeling is that may change. That is why BMW have introduce the all electric car and daimler have introduced the hybrid and soon the EV. The crunch won’t come in my lifetime but it will come. Without germany the eu is bankrupt.

R. de Haan says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:42 am

Modern coal plants ARE clean.

They are if you build them that way, which I’m sure the Germans will do. But it’s not a completely unreasonable assumption that true air pollution could result. Look at the Chinese, they chose NOT to include the filters and scrubbers necessary.

Stephen Richards

@ Peter Taylor. Whilst the early technology of Fusion Reactors leaves something to be desired ultimately the mass production of Electricity lies with Fusion
Nuclear fusion is like AGW. Great theory but no proven, viable outcome.

Stephen Richards

TomB says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:44 pm
R. de Haan says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:42 am

Modern coal plants ARE clean.
The german ones will burn lignite. This is a devil to clean but I’m sure the germans will manage.
Vince Causey says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Germany always gets a free pass with the global warming brigade
Not a free pass. The germans were better negociators than the rest of the idiots. The start year for co² reduction targets was agreed in such a way that they chose a year when germany emitted masses of co². Reduction becomes easy. The other idiots such as the UK and france had already made reductions in co² before the commissars had set the date.

DirkH

Vince Causey says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm
“Germany always gets a free pass with the global warming brigade.”
Kyoto was written by the German Bundestag. We made sure we’d fullfil it without doing anything but close down obsolete DDR industries. It was a ruse. We were so awash in carbon credits we gave some for free to France for some political favor.
Now that carbon credits are a dime a dozen it doesn’t matter anyway.

The reality is that Germany and other European countries have drastically reduced their coal use and carbon emissions as they have ramped up their use of wind energy. See the IEA data near the bottom here:
http://aweablog.org/blog/post/correcting-fossil-fuel-industry-misinformation-about-germanys-success-with-renewable-energy
Also, those “new” coal plants aren’t so new, and the number of planned coal plants is down six since the nuclear phaseout began.
http://energytransition.de/2013/04/germany-builds-minus-six-coal-plants-after-nuclear-phaseout/
Michael Goggin,
American Wind Energy Association

negrum

M Courtney says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:35 pm
negrum says January 7, 2014 at 12:10 pm “A question worthy of a research grant :)”
Great.
What do you want the answer to be?
—-l
My budget unfortunately does not allow for extensive research, so a double-headed coinflip should suffice – payment to be the coin itself and a berth on the Arctic Sunrise (as soon as the Russians release it.) A public institution or an eccentric billionaire might be a more lucrative option, if your morals were adequately flexible 🙂

Gail Combs

rabbit says: @ January 7, 2014 at 11:59 am
Question: In total, have Greenpeace’s efforts through the years harmed or benefitted the environment?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Severely harmed.
Corn for Biofuel =====> Corn is heavy feeder and hard on the soil. Corn uses lots of fertilizer, herbicides and now insecticides as the GMOs lost effectiveness on corn parasites. All these cause chemical run-off into water ways for no reason except politics.. Also as of 1996 the land banked fields that supported wild live in the USA have been put back into producing Biofuel.
Palm Oil is doing even worse things elsewhere. Palm oil and orangutans
Cheap energy and a decent standard of living means people can AFFORD to care for the environment. Make energy expensive and impoverishing the people and people will do what is needed to live. Willis Eschenbach has an excellent photo that illustrates this in the WUWT article How Environmental Organizations Are Destroying The Environment
In Denmark they were clear cutting Thy, the first Danish national park to put in windmills. link Or as James Delingpole calls them bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes
That is just quick and random off the top of my head.
Most if not all of us here at WUWT are conservationists and look on all of this as madness.

Gail Combs

Peter Taylor says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:08 pm
R.deHaan…..steady on there! Environmentalists have largely disappeared in Europe…I know, because I am one of the last ones standing! I belong to a society of conservationists…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Peter you are a Conservationist NOT an Environmentalist. An environmentalist uses little kids and fluffy animals to push a nasty hidden agenda. We need to continue making that distinction.
ENVIRONMENTALISM vs CONSERVATION A LOOK AT TWO ROADS

Germany has an almost oriental attitude to saving face. You can’t admit you made a mistake if you are the boss of a German organisation. Once they commit to a course of action, they stick to it, come hell or high water.

DirkH

Eric Worrall says:
January 7, 2014 at 2:23 pm
“Germany has an almost oriental attitude to saving face. You can’t admit you made a mistake if you are the boss of a German organisation. Once they commit to a course of action, they stick to it, come hell or high water.”
That’s what you see. As with the CO2AGW scare, the pretense is not the real thing. There are background layers (as with the design of the Kyoto treaty).

johnnyrvf

@ Stephen Richards.
Nuclear fusion is like AGW. Great theory but no proven, viable outcome.
Nope, AGW is a Hypothesis, Hot Fusion Plasmas are not only a credible theory but also a proven reality; at present only in timescales too short to be of viable use to generate steam to power turbines but as the knowlege and technology in all fields continue to evolve via the ITER project, an international consortium of Nation States, so the reality of commercial Fusion generated electricity comes closer. The level of research is now not ‘ if ‘ but when.

DirkH

Michael Goggin, AWEA says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:54 pm
“The reality is that Germany and other European countries have drastically reduced their coal use and carbon emissions as they have ramped up their use of wind energy. See the IEA data near the bottom here:”
Misleading. Data is from before Fukushima, after which half our nukes got switched off. Coal use ramped up after Fukushima, not before.

Mario Lento

Last year, I was trying to think of a way to hedge against the crisis. I bet against the stock market, and my gamble so far lost the bet. Still I proposed that coal would see a resurgence. I still think it could be a viable energy source again. Germany will not tear down these plants, I think, and so I hope Europe follows with a clean technology. Brown coal is not as good as black coal, but scrubbers should clean the air so that mostly only life giving CO2 is emitted.
Anyone here have some advice?

Jordan

To John and Dirk
For information ..
It is not the EU which blocks new coal fired generating stations in the UK. As Dirk says, emissions limits for SO2, NOx and dust is not a barrier to investment in Germany or elsewhere.
The UK has special additional rules relating to CO2. In 2008, DECC published a National Policy Statements (“National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2)). New coal fired power stations will be refused consent to proceed if they do not have carbon capture and storage (CCS) as follows:
“2.3.6 As set out in EN-1, new coal-fired generating stations in England or Wales are required to be constructed with a full CCS chain fitted on at least 300 MW net of their proposed generating capacity. Coal-fired generating stations of less than 300 MW capacity are required to show that the proposed generating station will be able to capture, transport and store CO2 from their whole capacity….”
As CCS is not technically and economically demonstrated at this time, the above condition effectively blocks new coal fired generation investments. Germany has no such rule AFAIK, and they argue CO2 savings from efficiency gains when older plant are being replaced by modern and more efficient plants.

Jimbo

Did greens think that politicians were just going to use only wind and solar? Freezing voters is not a good political move for any politician.

Questing Vole

Differences between UK and Germany re coal-fired generation?
1) UK plant closing now have not been upgraded to meet emissions standards applicable to all older stations from 2015. All German stations were much younger and already compliant, and some of those have been/are being replaced with newer technologies which deal with NOx, particulates, etc and increase output per tonne of coal and per tonne of carbon.
2) Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act gave legal effect to what had been de facto policy for at least a decade in that it bans new-build coal capacity without carbon capture on at least one of the new units. This applies also to replacement of units at existing power stations. The Act was passed even though CC remains unproven on a fully commercial scale and there are no authorised carbon sequestration facilities in UK. But the effect has been to kill any chance of updating UK c-f capacity in the way that Germany has.
3) Of course, remaining UK plant could have invested to meet next round of EU emissions constraints, which would have allowed them to continue operating normally to at least 2023. But the latest UK energy act – passed just before Christmas – commits us to a carbon tax specifically designed to price coal out of the generation mix by 2018.
The best UK can hope for is that a few coal-fired stations will take the “limited hours derogation” that will allow them to operate for a couple of months a year until 2023 (if the price is right, despite the carbon tax), but that will be it. We will be dependent on plant converted to burn (mostly imported) biomass, intermittent renewables, any nuclear base load that may be on line (and the chances of getting any new build by then look v. slim), plus any gas plant we can afford to operate as we become increasingly dependent on imported LPG. If we’re not careful, the last person to leave UK won’t need to switch the lights off…

Jimbo

It’s not just Germany opening up new coal fired power plants but around the world.

20 November 2012
More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show
World Resources Institute identifies 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/20/coal-plants-world-resources-institute
—————————————
TABLE-Japan’s new coal-fired power plant pipeline
Tue Oct 15, 2013
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/16/japan-power-coal-idUSL4N0HL1SN20131016

Greens have kept their eyes off the ball. As has been mentioned above and I have mentioned many times: Methane hydrates. We have a long way to go my friends, we will not run out of usable energy. France generates most of its electricity from nuclear.

Jimbo

Even Monbiot has given up on peak oil. Long live fossil fuels, the wonderful ingredient of modern day living and mass fertilizer of the biosphere.

Guardian – 20 November 2012
We were wrong on peak oil. There’s enough to fry us all
A boom in oil production has made a mockery of our predictions. Good news for capitalists – but a disaster for humanity
…..Some of us made vague predictions, others were more specific. In all cases we were wrong. In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010. In 2003 the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes said he was “99% confident” that peak oil would occur in 2004. In 2004, the Texas tycoon T Boone Pickens predicted that “never again will we pump more than 82m barrels” per day of liquid fuels. (Average daily supply in May 2012 was 91m.) In 2005 the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that “Saudi Arabia … cannot materially grow its oil production”. (Since then its output has risen from 9m barrels a day to 10m, and it has another 1.5m in spare capacity.)
Peak oil hasn’t happened, and it’s unlikely to happen for a very long time……
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/02/peak-oil-we-we-wrong

Kjetil Nesheim

It’s a paradox that the green energy needs a equal amount non-green energy if you wount to have a stable supply of electric energy . The only ‘stable’ green energy is hydro-electric power. It can be stored and used when needed.
Wind and sun i variable and can for day’s and weeks be very low. Then a backup is needed. On the other hand having a lagre amount off powerstation just on standby is also very expensive.
The result is that when a major part of the production is ‘green’ the market start to swing a lot and the avrage price goes up. Denmark has a high prosentage wind-power and the must exepnsive avarge price in europe, but spot price can change a lot in just a few days based on the amount generated. Powerstation based on coal or gas need time to change production. This result in to much produce when there i a lot off wind and not enough when ther is little wind-power.

R. de Haan

Stephen Richards says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:44 pm
This is not “EUROPE” Germany is not europe even though it pretty much funds it. The french have refused the right to drill, the spaniards have none, neither do the italians. The germans are doing their utmost to protect their thriving economy and have no choice but to build coal fired generators.
Though there are more problems ahead. The EU commisariate has demanded a reduction down to 130gco²/km by 2015 and to 98 grco²/km by 2020. The germans have one a delay of about a year but my gut feeling is that may change. That is why BMW have introduce the all electric car and daimler have introduced the hybrid and soon the EV. The crunch won’t come in my lifetime but it will come. Without germany the eu is bankrupt.”
With all due respect but with the German Bank with an on/off balance liability of 10 x the German GDP and 100 x the total sum deposited on German savings accounts Germany is more bankrupt than any country in Europe.
Anyone who tells you the EU crises is over, take it from me, it’s just beginning.
Next step to drag the corpses a few months further in time: Mass bail ins just like they did in Cyprus. That’s when the Germans will know they have been sold out. Stock up on beer and popcorn and watch the show.
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2014/01/05/iwf-studie-draengt-auf-rasche-enteignung-der-sparer-in-europa/

R. de Haan

Peter Taylor says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:08 pm
“R.deHaan…..steady on there! Environmentalists have largely disappeared in Europe…”
That’s what I said, “Where are the freaking environmentalists when you need them (LOL).

RoHa

Big Oil and Thatcherites grind their teeth. Coal is back, at least in Germany.

R. de Haan

John Leon says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:36 pm
@ Peter Taylor. Whilst the early technology of Fusion Reactors leaves something to be desired ultimately the mass production of Electricity lies with Fusion, even now the successor to ITER, DEMO is being planned and costed, powered by Hydrogen Isotopes they produce practically no ( in that the radioactivity is caused by the Neutron bombardment of the reactor chamber walls ) radioactive waste as compared to the current Uranium fueled reactors, whose technological development via Thorium was curtailed by political expediency under the Nixon administration and latterly by France possibly in an attempt to protect it’s very large and profitable Nuclear industry. The 2 countries that are the most likely to be the first to have Fusion on line, Japan & France both utilize Nuclear heavily, of the two France is the greatest to the extent that 85% + of their electricity production is by conventional Nuclear power, even though Germany is involved with the ITER project, how long do you think it will be before the average conservationist realizes that the scaremongering of Nuclear does not apply to Fusion and votes for it when it comes on line sooner than expected ( the latest forecasts predict around 2035 ).”
It’s not going to be build.
We’re swimming in oil, gas, shale oil, shale gas and they are not going to be introduced.
The only opportunities I see is the small size Thorium Laser tech that is designed for mass production, static and mobile power generation and the project currently underway by the guy’s from Skunk Works: 17 trillion terrawatt doubling by 2050.
Skunk Works “Cheap Energy for All” solution: A series produced 100MW compact fusion reactor that runs on plentiful and cheap deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen). https://www.solveforx.com/moonshots/solve-for-x-charles-chase-on-energy-for-everyone
Both developments need another 5 years of development.

R. de Haan

TomB says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:44 pm
R. de Haan says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:42 am

Modern coal plants ARE clean.
“They are if you build them that way, which I’m sure the Germans will do that.
But it’s not a completely unreasonable assumption that true air pollution could result.
Look at the Chinese, they chose NOT to include the filters and scrubbers necessary”.
The Germans will build their coal plants according to the highest standards.
I only wonder how long they will be burning wood pallets from Georgia USA because some activist environmentalists plan to cut down a tree in Germany for every tree they cut down in Georgia.
They have one guy in the group who can put down a tree in two minutes time but who can’t see the difference between a tree, a wind mill or a street lamp.
Now that could be a problem… for his chain saw.

R. de Haan

So her we have it.
Plant a tree initiatives all over the world to prevent erosion and restore barren lands.
At the same time the mass processing of mature forests on a scale not seen since the Industrial revolution and the construction of the rail tracks in Europe.
I think the public will get very, very confused.