Cost Of Germany’s “Energiewende” To Soar To €31 Billion This Year Alone
Eurostat estimates that in 2015 carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion increased by 0.7% in the European Union (EU), compared with the previous year. —European Commission, 3 May 2016
Germany’s carbon dioxide emissions increased by an estimated 10 million tonnes from 2014 to 2015, in a blow to the country’s claims to climate leadership. A 2011 decision to phase out nuclear power within a decade has seen dirty coal maintain a significant share of the energy mix. As a result, progress on emissions has slowed. A decrease in 2011 was followed by increases in 2012 and 2013. –Megan Darby, Climate Home, 14 Match 2016
According to the Institute of German Business (IW) the cost of Germany’s once highly touted “Energiewende” (transition to green energy) will soar to a whopping €31 billion ($35 billion) in 2016 alone, thus further burdening the already ailing German consumer The Energiewende is morphing into a central planning folly of the scale matched only by the Venezuelan Chavez communists. –Pierre Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, 3 May 2016
CO2 Emissions In The EU Have Increased In 2015, Despite €1 Trillion In Green Subsidies
Eurostat estimates that in 2015 carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion increased by 0.7% in the European Union (EU), compared with the previous year.
CO2 emissions are a major contributor to global warming and account for around 80% of all EU greenhouse gas emissions. They are influenced by factors such as climate conditions, economic growth, size of the population, transport and industrial activities. Various EU energy efficiency initiatives aim to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. It should also be noted that imports and exports of energy products have an impact on CO2 emissions in the country where fossil fuels are burned: for example if coal is imported this leads to an increase in emissions, while if electricity is imported, it has no direct effect on emissions in the importing country, as these would be reported in the exporting country where it is produced.
This information on early estimates of CO2 emissions from energy use for 2015 is published by Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Germany’s carbon dioxide emissions increased by an estimated 10 million tonnes from 2014 to 2015, in a blow to the country’s claims to climate leadership”
Followed by a graph and a link showing that Germany estimated CO2 emission raised by 0.0% between 2014 and 2015.
http://www.aei.org/publication/on-earth-day-we-can-celebrate-being-the-only-country-to-significantly-reduce-co2-emissions-thanks-to-fracking/
On Earth Day, we can celebrate being the only country to significantly reduce CO2 emissions — thanks to fracking
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/energynew1.png
Nice to see “Subsidy Sam” doing all right
Beats the hell out of interest rates on your savings
Until recently Malta was isolated and relied entirely on imported oil to fuel electricity generation.
The seeming astonishing reduction in the CO2 emissions from Malta (see bar graph) may be a result of imported energy via a cable interconnection with Sicily opened in 2015.
German fossile electrical power generation is actually quite stable at about 50% over the last decade with only gas in significant decline. All the added billions for wind, solar and biomass just makes up for the loss in early retired nuclear facillities.
Since Germany is replacing one no emission technology with another there should be insignificant effect on the CO2 emisssions jusr as obeserved. All they have to show fot their forced green shift is a facade where in reality neighbouring countries act as swing producers as the elements push Germany back and forth between surplus and shortfall. More than 10% of Benbens Dutch electricity is actually German coal.
Good thing the rest of European countries are not following the Danes and Germans on their march of folly. The only way the electrical power system in Europe could have coped with a 70% of needed capacity coming and going woud have been to dump(= waste) a lot of it as coal and nuclear, even with good prediction of needs and weather, can’t regulate up and down fast enough.
Unless the green house effect of CO2 turn out to be in highest range suggested by ICCP Solar and Wind on this scale and/ore this cost will be a mistake only matched by prematurely closing perfectly good nuclear generators. I always assumed democracies had robust enogh decission processes to prevent folly on this scale but i was wrong. If you control the facts and the premises for decissionmaking (in Europe we have to obey the precautionary principle as incoked by the greens, be it AGW, fracking, GMO..) you get what you want.
Spending 1 Trillion dollars on reducing a clearly beneficial gas which greens the planet is delusionally ludicrous. The CO2 distribution map shows that most of the CO2 is produced in industry-free zones. It suggests that much of the CO2 is coming from natural sources and from volcanoes and sea floor volcanic activity not industry. Most of the 1 Trillion dollars will go to either waste or fraud and will have almost no effect on industrial CO2 production which continues to increase (with no ill effects other than greening the planet).
It doesn’t take much thought to understand that CO2 reduction policies are another way of achieving income redistribution. Different country same atmosphere.
Energiewende, Merkel, Obama: Life goes on without you.
Some one tell them
Live only goes on without Energiewende, Merkel, Obama.
Don’t let me be misunderstood:
Merkel went for Chancellorship to get a retired floridan golden Girl.
And Obama next door she would comprehens.
Both never really minded politics or people.
Just a way of life.
comprehens, comprehend – my dinglish.
‘scuse.
And as always we’re bound to think of childrens future :
That demagogic demographic scare.
Merkels children –
frack along.
CO2 emissions are a major contributor to global warming
_______________________________________
2. and account for around 80% of all EU greenhouse gas emissions.
but
1. CO2 emissions are a major contributor to global warming.
_______________________________________
where is the proof that
— CO2 emissions are a major contributor to global warming —
While Belgium shows an important increase in CO2 emissions last year, the increase is not from increased economical activity, but because of two large nuclear reactors (each 1000 MW) were out of duty for more than a year and a third, smaller one (500 MW) was at the planned end of life at the beginning of last year,
That needed a lot of extra fossil fuel use and extra import (mostly from France which is mostly nuclear). Together they present around 20% of average power use here.
The problem with the two reactors was very fine air (/hydrogen) inclusions parallel with the walls. Te safety/stress tests under high radiation on similar materials needed over a year, after which the atomic energy watchdog did give green light for the restart. Meanwhile the current government lengthened the use of the smaller reactor with 10 years, so that we are again at 50% nuclear power…
That makes that this year the CO2 emissions should drop again, but the price of electricity will not drop as we need to pay lots of “green” taxes for the subsidies on solar and wind power from the past, present and future…