In what seems to be a typical action from leaders in the climahysteric movement, Germany wants to increase its CO2 output, while screwing everyone else (Spiegel Online)
German Finance Minister Michael Glos wants the European Union to allow Germany to e…

Tzetzes on April 2, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Yep, all options should remain open. Just keep in mind that the largest wind generator in the world is 5 megawatts, it’s huge, takes up lots of acreage and it’s in the testing stage right now, not even operational. All those wind farms you see spinning around in places like Texas and Wisconsin are kinda small producers. They’re still going to have to burn something. Coal, oil uranium…something.

Oldnuke on April 2, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Of course. I mean keep all options open (and examine each case individually; the Columbia River dams come to mind). Build nuclear power plants, use wind where possible (such as in front of the Kennedy compound!) and take advantage of new technologies in coal-burning.

Tzetzes on April 2, 2008 at 7:34 PM

They’ve got to replace 17 power plants, each roughly 1000 megawatts in size (rough average)! That would take a lot of wind to replace. Couldn’t get that much out of Washington DC. Once again if you want power of the magnitude we’re talking here You’re going to have to burn something. Or it’s going to get very dark.

But we’re bad because we haven’t signed the piece of paper. They are virtuous because they have signed the paper, but then ignored it.

I’ve seen more wind turbines in Germany than anywhere else I’ve been.

But I agree nuclear’s the way to go.

flipflop on April 2, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Go with both! They also have a lot of rivers. Damming one can be a tricky proposal (think of China’s Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze), but it’s yet another option to consider. Neither it nor nuclear should be ruled out a priori.

apollyonbob on April 2, 2008 at 6:05 PM

You didn’t miss a thing. That sentence about Germany’s nuclear program being the world’s largest is a little misleading. IF you look at percentage produced by nuclear it looks impressive until you realize that South Korea produces just about the same number of Kwh by nuclear as Germany and France produces more. Germany isn’t even in the same ball park as Japan or the USA even though percentages are roughly the same.

Germany 579 billion Kwh 28% from nuclear
France 543 billion Kwh 78% from nuclear
Japan 1.025 trillion Kwh 25% from nuclear
S.Korea 403 billion Kwh 40% from nuclear
USA 4.06 Trillion Kwh 20% from nuclear

lorien1973 on April 2, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Nuke plants have a finite lifetime that, believe it or not, can be calculated fairly accurately. Reactor vessels become hardened and brittle over time and the plants have to be retired. Since TMI and Chernobyl not a lot of new plants have been built and the existing ones are getting old. They’re gonna have to be shut down. The plants here in the states are undergoing a stress relieving process now to extend their lifetime but that’s only going to get you about another 20 years or so.

I thought the windmills were pretty!

Ok they didn’t take away from the scenery and it was interesting to look and see if there were bigger ones.

Per Ted Turner, I say we eat the global warmists first.

misterpeasea on April 2, 2008 at 6:09 PM

Heh…good one…

Not a lot of wind, wave power, or geothermal either. They should just stay with nuclear.

indythinker on April 2, 2008 at 6:51 PM

I’ve seen more wind turbines in Germany than anywhere else I’ve been.

But I agree nuclear’s the way to go.

Kyoto is just more proof that with liberals, intention matters more than results.

Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

I thought the idea was to move away from hydrocarbon-based energy production…

So did I, at first. But every day it seems more clear, the idea behind this carbonphobic man made global warming scam is redistribution of wealth. Rather than scientific or environmental, it’s an ideological and political movement.

Since recent scientific data says there’s been no warming in the past decade, that the warmest period is recent history was not the ’90’s but the ’30’s, that in the past three years there’s been a cooling trend, then how come this “Gorebull Warming” is still a sustainable theory?

And, better yet, anyone know why the heck we aren’t building more nuclear plants ourselves?!

Tzetzes on April 2, 2008 at 6:15 PM

Blame The China Syndrome. One more reason to hate Hanoi Jane.

And, of course, alarmism by the drive-bys and the activists. Or is that redundant.

apollyonbob on April 2, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Not sure of the percentages, but bear in mind that Germany is the most populous country in Europe. (In fact, there are more native German-speakers in Europe than there are French-speakers in Europe et à travers toute la Francophonie.)

On the other hand, France produces nuclear power not only for herself but for Britain as well (which prefers to use the stuff, but have it made in somebody else’s backyard).

Anyone know more exact numbers?

And, better yet, anyone know why the heck we aren’t (along with drilling in Alaska and more in the Gulf) building more nuclear plants ourselves?! (A lot of environmentalists are now getting on board with that idea as the least bad option.)

they are climate chagists (I am not even sure that is a word) now… but to eat them would be like eating T.T., tasteless, dry, stringy and devoid of any substance!

Europeons

Think_b4_speaking on April 2, 2008 at 5:47 PM

Hee hee. I’m gonna use that one.

As for the article, is it really blog-post-worthy to find sheer, unmitigated hypocrisy being practiced by global warmists? Or by Europeons? Or by Germans?

I can’t even work up any righteous indignation. Or, perhaps more apropos, schadenfreude.

Glos urges Gabriel to press the issue before the European Commission.

Which I’m sure he’ll do by flying his private jet to Brussels, or Strasbourg, or Luxembourg.

Per Ted Turner, I say we eat the global warmists first.

Germany should be expanding their nuclear-power capacity, as should we, as a means to eliminate dependence on petroleum.

Ed, uuuummmmmmm since you mentioned expanding. What exactly do you propose for Germany concerning thier “oil and nuclear” programs?

Oil Companies of Germany:

RWE Dae

Kuwait German Petroleum Comany aka Husky Energy, Suncor Energy, Okanagan Biofuels… yet has no website!

Wintershall Oil and Gas of Germany (largest Oil and Gas company in Germany)

And an interesting article about Nuclear Energy via the World Nuclear Asso. Stating that Germany will be phasing out their Nuclear altogether due to Windfarms and the fact they use coal for 55% of their energy needs.

I don’t know about you but sometimes spiegal just likes to rant.