“Green” energy policy in Europe – The numbers don’t lie
March 10th, 2010
|
| Share |
Many countries in Europe like to talk about how “Green” they are and indeed in many of these countries the Green Party has become one of the most powerful political parties and has gained control of the government, either directly or as part of a coalition in the past decade. But for all the talk of programs for renewable energy, reduced greenhouse emissions and better enviornmental policy, how have these countries actually been doing and how do they compare to the less “green” countries?
For the purposes of this comparison, a “green” energy policy is defined by the following:
- Rejects nuclear power, in the most extreme examples, calling for its complete phaseout or banning it outright.
- Strong focus on wind and/or solar power
- Favors enormous subsidies to wind and solar power
- Generally has a fairly favorable stand on natural gas, even if it is rarely (if ever) mentioned
- Attempts to reduce energy consumption through effeciency
- Believes it is acceptable to heavily tax or penalize energy usage as a means of encouraging reduced consumption
- Is supported by Greenpeace, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, Earth First and other groups with similar agendas
The following numbers are from the US Energy Information Administration. Some of the data is a couple of years old, but if anyone knows of any other source of information that provides better country profiles with comprehensive data of this type, let me know.
Lets take a look..
Belgium – Somewhat Green
Currently, the government of Belgium is controlled by the Christian Democratic and Flemish Party, but when it comes to energy, the policies of Belgium would be the policies are very much in line with “Green” politics, especially when it comes to nuclear energy. In 2003, Belgium passed a law banning the construction of new nuclear power plants and seeking to expedite the closure of the existing nuclear facilities. This would result in a complete nuclear phase-out by 2025. There has been a good deal of controversy on this issue, however. The current political leadership is generally considered to be right of center and concern has been expressed over the fact that loss of nuclear power would force Belgium to import most of its electricity. While the Greens are not in control of the government of Belgium, they remain a powerful political group which does control some local offices.
When it comes to energy-related CO2, which serves both as an indicator of greenhouse emissions and a general indicator of the fossil fuel emissions of a country, Belgium is not doing especially well.
While the emissions in Belgium have only risen nominally, the same can’t be said for the country’s consumption of natural gas. It’s skyrocketed and in the process left Belgium extremely dependent on the constant importation of gas.
Austria – Very very Anti-nuclear, Very Green
Austria has a reputation for being one of the most anti-nuclear countries in the EU and indeed in the world. This was not always the case, as the Austrian government favored nuclear energy in the 1960’s, but in 1978, the Austrian Parliament banned the use of nuclear fission for energy purposes in the country until 1998 and banned the transport of nuclear material through the country, effectively making any nuclear activities, even pure research impossible. The ban was only for thirty years, but sadly the Parliament of Austria renewed it in 1997, thus affirming the country’s anti-nuclear stance.
Austria gained attention when the country threatened to block the entry of its neighbor, the Czech Republic into the European Union unless the country shut down the Temelín Nuclear Power Station, located about 50 km from the border with Austria. Representatives from Austria to the EU have consistently pushed for anti-nuclear policies, but with little success.
The official energy policy of Austria favors “renewable” energy as the cornerstone of future energy development. Their emissions numbers for energy-related Co2 are … abysmal.
Despite efforts to build more generation capacity in the form of wind and solar, the net generating capacity of the country is actually slightly down.
Austria has managed to reduce coal burning, but this has been replaced by a combination of electrical imports and natural gas, which, not surprisingly, has surged.
Denmark – The World Leader In Wind Power – Very Green – Very Anti-Nuclear
Many in the “Green” movement like to point to Denmark as an example of what a country’s energy policy should be. Denmark is fiercely opposed to nuclear energy, outlawing any nuclear reactors in the country in 1985. Only three nuclear were reactors ever built in Denmark, a series of small research reactors at the Risø DTU National Laboratory, but that reactor was ordered shut down and the laboratory has since been renamed the “Risø DTU National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy.“ The laboratory no longer does any nuclear related research.
Denmark is also one of the biggest supporters in the world of “renewable” energy, especially in the form of wind power. Starting in the 1980’s, the country invested billions upon billions of Euros in wind energy, making it one of the largest producers of wind turbines in the world and giving Denmark the undespited first place in wind energy as a proportion of total domestic electrical generating capacity. By the late 1990’s the country claimed to have over 15% of power coming from wind and by 2005 the number topped 20%, with nameplate capacity exceeding three gigawatts.
A large portion of the energy from wind farms is exported (often at a loss) to Norway and other nearby countries where hydroelectric installations can provide some degree of load-following and energy storage – albeit at a huge net energy loss.
Despite the huge investment, the emissions of energy related CO2 in Denmark have not been going down, at least not by very much. In fact, they seem to be all over the place.
There really does not appear to be any kind of trend, certainly not downward. There have been some reductions in emissions since the mid 1990’s, but those have been pretty modest and don’t even go far enough to undo the growth in the early 1990’s. It appears that the CO2 emissions are as variable as the wind. One major reason for the reduction in CO2 emissions may be the reduction in the use of coal in Denmark. Coal has the highest emissions per unit of energy of any fuel, as coal is nearly 100% carbon. Coal use has been dropping, even if not spectacularly.
Is this because coal is being replaced by wind? Not exactly. Coal is being replaced with another fossil fuel: natural gas. Natural gas does have some benefits over coal: it produces somewhat less CO2 and is substantially less dirty when it comes to emissions like mercury, sulfur dioxide and fly ash. However, natural gas is also more expensive and less stable in prie and supply. The use of natural gas does not eliminate the emissions issues with coal, it only reduces them somewhat, and the price is security of energy supply.
In the early 1980’s Denmark’s consumption of natural gas was very small, almost negligible and Denmark was not a net importer of gas. Since then, the consumption of natural gas has skyrocketed in Denmark and hundreds of billions of cubic feet are imported annually.
Spain – The world leader in solar power
Spain has gotten a lot of good press for the numerous solar projects it has bled copious amounts of national treasure into. Spain has some of the world’s largest photovoltaic plants and also has constructed large solar thermal “power towers.” Spain not only subsidizes solar energy directly but also mandates higher rates for electricity be paid to solar generators than other sources of electricity by grid operators and rate payers. Spain also has been increasing wind capacity in recent years and now has a large wind power industry.
Spain has eight nuclear power reactors, but has generally been opposed to nuclear energy since the late 1970’s. In 1983, the Socialist government of Spain enacted a ban on the construction of any new nuclear power plants and has restricted the upgrades to any existing nuclear plants. This also haulted the construction of new reactors at two of Spain’s nuclear power plants, even though the reactors were already partially built. In 1994 a further law stopped any further construction on partially built plants, which had been in a state of limbo since the 1983 decision, insuring that the plants would be torn down and not completed.
Officially, Spain is committed to phasing out nuclear energy in favor of renewables. Shutdowns of nuclear power plants began in 1990, when a small turbine fire shut down one of the nuclear plants. The government would not allow an upgrade or replacement of the turbine, effectively shutting down the plant and any others which may encounter the need for systems replacements. The José Cabrera nuclear power plant, a relatively small nuclear power reactor was shut down in 2006 after 38 years of operation.
Spain’s ambitious renewable energy policy has helped the country achieve something that many would have thought impossible. Spain has actually done worse than pittiful policies of Austria. CO2 emissions alone have skyrocketed:
Coal consumption in Spain is down slightly, but the natural gas imports of the country have gone in a different direction. Want your energy, Spain? Better pucker up and prepare to plant a big smooch right on Russian’s backside, or someone might be inclined to turn off the supply. So much for domestic energy security…
The Netherlands – Very Green
You could just about call the Netherlands Greenland if the name were not already taken by the large island north east of Canada. The Netherlands actually provides taxpayer money to support groups like Greenpeace, which is headquartered in Amsterdam. Illegal ships run by groups like Greenpeace and Sea Shepard fly the dutch flag and are ported in Amsterdam. The Dutch have been big supporters of “renewable” energy and in recent years have been fervently anti-nuclear.
The country does have nuclear power reactors, but inn 1994, the Dutch Parliament voted to phase out all nuclear energy. In 1997 the first plant was shut down. A second nuclear reactor remains in operation in the Netherlands at the Borssele nuclear power plant. Plans had initially called for shutdown in 2003, but the power deficit could not be filled by other sources, leading for an extension in the plants operating license until 2013. Later the Dutch government decided that the plant would be allowed to operate up to 2033, if necessary, but have reserved the power to shut it down if they believe it is not meeting safety standards – a very arbitrary requirement.
The operators of the plant are required to pay most of the profits from the plant into a fund for “sustainable energy.” Profit is almost illegal in the Netherlands and in this case, the money goes to a fund that provides about half a billion euro in direct subsidies toward the construction of “sustainable energy” – meaning wind and solar power facilities.
In recent years, the Dutch public has become more receptive of nuclear energy, but with powerful entrenched groups like Greenpeace screaming bloody murder at the very word “nuclear” the country remains a very anti-nuclear nation in terms of policy.
Fossil Fuel Related CO2 has only gone up nearly as fast as wind turbines...
The increase in Co2 emissions is not surprising considering that the Netherlands has been burning nearly twice as much coal in recent years as it did in the early 1980’s.
Sweden – Somewhat Green In The Past (situation has changed twice)
Sweden is an interesting case when it comes to “Green” politics. Throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s, the government of Sweden favored nuclear energy and was not prone to burning money on things like renewable energy. That changed in 1980, when the political party in charge, force a referendum in which Swedish voters could vote on the fate of nuclear power in their country. However, the ballot measure only allowed for three different phase-out options, effectively making it a no-choice situation for voters.
For some time, Sweden was committed to the phase out of nuclear energy, but this never really happened because the language of the law allowed for nuclear energy to be used until renewable energy could replace it: In other words, forever. However, it also prevented Sweden from building or upgrading their existing nuclear plants. Despite the politics that seemed to hate nuclear energy, the Swedes by and large have supported nuclear energy in public opinion poles.
Only recently was the policy reversed. Still, in the intermittent time period, Sweden has, like many other countries, invested quite a lot in “renewable” energy and has seen absolutely no benefit from it. Today Sweden gets most of its electricity from hydroelectric and nuclear power generation. For political reasons, the two reactors at the Barsebäck nuclear power plant were shut down in 1999 and 2005, respectively. This lead to a small increase in the net electrical imports to Sweden. Sweden also has some fossil fuel power generating capacity, although this only accounts for about 10% of the total power generated in the country.
Interestingly, the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel in Sweden dropped throughout most of the 1970’s. However once “Green” politics began to take hold in the early 1980’s the dramatic improvements just about flatlined.
Sweden does not use natural gas in any large capacity for power generation. The use of natural gas has risen in years past, in part because Sweden used almost no natural gas prior to 1980 and has since begun to use gas for heating and industrial activities like oil refining. However, after an initial rise in the 1980’s, when gas was first introduced at a large scale, it has since barely increased at all. As a net exporter of gas, Sweden is not dependent on gas imports and not at all dependent on gas for electricity.
Sweden is not far from Denmark and has a similar climate (although it is actually a bit colder). It also has twice the population. Yet Sweden consumes only a tiny portion of the natural gas that Denmark does! Per-capita, the average Swede uses less than ten percent as much gas as the Danish.
Coal is also not used at any large scale for power generation, and has largely been disused for heating. Some coal is still used for industry, coking and other such uses, but the trend has been toward less coal consumption since the mid 1980’s.
The UK: A little bit of both. “Middle of the Road”
The UK is not the kind of green stronghold that many other European countries have become, but at the same time it is not strongly anti-green either. The country has 26 nuclear power reactors, with the last being built in 1988. Although the UK does not have any official “nuclear phase out” like other countries do, it also has not been building any new nuclear power plants. The proportion of British electricity provided by nuclear energy has dropped as some of the older plants have reached the end of their useful lifespans and been retired. The UK still operates at least two Magox reactors, which are considered to be technically obsolete and are slated to be retired in the next few years with no viable replacements yet forthcoming.
The UK also has a fuel reprocessing operation, although it not as large or as modern as that of France, in part because of political opposition. Politically the issue has remained very contentious. Two of the largest political parties in the UK (the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party) generally been opposed to new nuclear plant construction, but have fallen short of calling for a nuclear phase our or banning the possibility of new nuclear plants. The current political party in power in the UK is the Labour Party, which has generally been more receptive toward nuclear energy. In 2008 the government gave the go-ahead to begin planning for new nuclear power plants, but plans for new plants are still very tenative.
In other areas, the UK also has been only somewhat receptive to “green” politics and policies. The UK has begun to burn money on worthless wind turbines in recent years and has promoted “renewable” energy, but not nearly to the degree that some other countries have. Energy effeciency legislation in the UK has not generally been quite as draconian as in Germany, Spain or the Netherlands. The UK continues to rely heavily on coal for electricity, and like many other countries, has been increasingly turning to natural gas for power generation. British society has begun to fall for the “organic food” nonsense, but has not gone so far as to ban genetically modified foods.
Given the indecisive politics and general stalemate of British energy policy, it’s not surprising that the energy related CO2 emissions from the UK are not getting any better. However, unlike most of the “greenest” nations, they’re not really getting any worse either, which actually makes the UK one of the better examples of energy policy in Europe…
The UK did manage to decrease coal consumption for most of the 1980’s and 1990’s, but as “green” policy support became more popular in the mid to late 1990’s and new nuclear power plant construction ended, the numbers began to rise again.
So too has natural gas consumption. The UK has historically been a large producer of gas and increased development of North Sea natural gas fields in the 1990’s eventually lead to the UK being a net exporter of natural gas. Unfortunately, increased demand domestically combined with well depletion and restrictions on further development of natural gas fields has once again turned the tide and made the UK a net importer of gas.
Romania: Not Green At all
Romania is about as un-green as you get, if you go by the politics of groups like the Green Party, Greenpeace and other enviornmental groups. For one thing, Romania has not spent any significant national assets on “renewable” energy in the form of wind, solar and other worthless energy forms. Romanian energy policy has long favored the deployment of hydroelectric energy to the maximum extent and the use of nuclear energy.
Romania has been seeking nuclear energy since the 1980’s and began construction of its first power reactors the Cernavodă Nuclear Power Plant in the late 1980’s. The project was put on hold for a few years due to the disruptions caused by the fall of communism, but resumed in the early 1990’s. Unit one, a CANDU-6 reactor began full operations in 1996 and unit two in 2007. Unit two was amongst the lowest cost CANDU-6 reactors ever built and was completed under budget and ahead of schedule.
At present, Romania is constructing two additional reactors and has plans for the possibility of adding up to three more reactors in the near future.
The combination of pro-nuclear policies and improvements to fossil fuel power plants while all but ignoring solar and wind power may bother many in the psuedo-enviornmental movement but Romania’s CO2 numbers don’t lie.
Although Romania remains a net importer of natural gas, the country has managed to buck the trend of most other nations when it comes to natural gas consumption. Romania has slashed domestic consumption of natural gas, with a very noticeable drop when they first began using nuclear energy as a major energy source in 1996. Coincidence?
Coal consumption is generally down as well:
France: Not green at all and a huge thorn in the side of the whole “Green” movement
France embraced nuclear energy like few others ever have. In a relatively short period of time they went from being a large importer of power with very little domestic nuclear energy to being nearly 100% free of fossil-fuel in their power generation sector and the regions largest exporter of electricity. France managed to go from only a relatively small percentage of nuclear energy on their power grid to more than 80% i just a couple of decades.
The CO2 numbers for France are considerably better than many other countries. The country managed to buck the trend of higher CO2 emissions throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s. Since the completion of the nuclear energy transition, CO2 has risen, but only slightly. All and all, France produces less CO2 today than it did in the early 1980’s and even less than the mid 1970’s. Something few countries can claim.
Natural gas consumption has risen, though not as badly as most other countries in the region. Recent initiatives to increase the use of electric heat and other replacements of fossil fuel with electricity are beginning to reverse this trend.
Coal consumption is another story. It’s only gone down to almost nill. Today France only uses a small amount of coal for things like coking and as a carbon feedstock for chemical processes. Coal is no longer used for prime energy in France.
Amazingly, despite these numbers, the French are not using less energy. In fact, the consumption of energy in France has actually gone up.
It should be noted that the CO2 numbers in France only reflect the gross emissions within the country. They don’t take into account the net reduction in CO2 emissions and gas consumption that occurs when French-generated nuclear electricity displaces other sources in adjacent countries. Exports of electricity have only gone up.
Germany: Very Green and phasing out nuclear energy
A quick look at the CO2 figures from Germany might lead one to think that the country is doing fairly well when it comes to cutting back. However, these need to be taken in context. The modern state of Germany came about from the reunification of East Germany and West Germany. East Germany was equipped with soviet-era infrastructure that was anything but effecient. Since then, there has been a rapid modernization of East German facilities, accounting for most of the reduction in CO2. Even so, the net CO2 emissions have not fallen by very much and are generally a flat-line.
Coal consumption dropped immediately after reunification, but by 1999, most of the older East German power plants had been upgraded and the trend began to reverse, if only slightly.
While coal consumption has only risen moderately, natural gas has seen a steeper rise.
Given that Germany has installed a great deal of wind, solar and other “renewable” capacity, you might think that they’re producing more energy than in the past. You’d be wrong, however, because domestic prime energy is actually down. This does not mean that less energy is being used, however, as more and more electricity is being imported.
The Czech Republic: Not Green
The Czech Republic has not invested very much in the favorite “Green” energy systems, such as wind and solar. The country continues to get much of its power from coal, but has embraced nuclear energy as and has considered expanding its nuclear power capabilities. 60% of the public supports more nuclear energy, which would add to an already significant domestic capacity.
Nuclear energy already represents 30% of the power generated in the Czech Republic. There are six power reactors in the Czech republic, with the first coming online in 1985 and the most recent coming online in 2003. Last year, the country announced it was interested in taking bids for building of additional reactors. There are also projects underway which are expected to upgrade the power output of existing reactors. The two reactors at the Temelin nuclear power plant currently produce 963 MWe each, but are being upgraded to produce 1050 MWe in the near future.
The enthusiastic support for nuclear energy in the Czech Republic has had some political concequences. Austria has repeatedly claimed that the reactors put their country in danger and even threatened to block the Czech Republic from entering the European Union. Yet the Czech Republic remains strongly in favor of nuclear energy, both for enviornmental benefits and because of the impact it has on the country’s energy independence. The head of the Czech Academy of Sciences recommended increased nuclear energy.
It’s no wonder that there is such support, the country has done quite well with the current energy policy. CO2 emissions are down since the mid 1990’s and have not risen as they have in most other countries.
Coal consumption has been on a downward trend.
This would not be noteworthy if, like so many others, the Czech Republic had replaced coal consumption with consumption of more expensive and mostly imported natural gas. It has not.
Conclusion:
While some might claim that correlation does not imply causation, it’s certainly clear that the more “green” energy policies are not producing any benefits when it comes to emissions or energy independence and economics. Furthermore, it appears that those which are most prone to embracing these policies are actually doing fairly poorly. The numbers are surprisingly consistent: countries which have committed most strongly to renewable energy and have moved away from nuclear energy are failing, while those that reject this ideology are doing very well, in many cases, improving signifficantly. Countries which are somewhere between or have gone back and forth on the issue have seen similarly inconsistent or neutral levels of improvement.
It’s also worth looking at the numbers for CO2 per capita rank. Nuclear-friendly France ranks number 59, and Sweden, which uses a combination of nuclear and hydroelectric ranks number 62. Meanwhile Germany ranks 36, but is rising, Belgium is 25, and Denmark is ranked 31. The Czech Republic is 24, but improving.
Of course, there’s more than just power generation that goes into what makes a country’s CO2 footprint large or small. Oil refining, heating and transportation also factor in. In general, colder countries use more energy and countries that are geographically large rely more on automobiles. Even given these differences, there’s no indication that sticking to a renewable-based and anti-nuclear energy policy does anything to help with CO2 emissions. Indeed, the data indicates the opposite may very well be the case!
The numbers don’t lie!
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 10th, 2010 at 2:49 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Enviornment, Good Science, History, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
March 10th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Excellent post Steve, I’m waiting for the naysayer with enough gall to tell you to ‘do the research’ when disagreeing with these findings, as you certainly have done it.
The whole Green thing is starting to fray around the edges in Europe by the looks of it. It has been stated that nuclear is at least going to be considered seriously in the next little while by a few national governments, something that would have not happened five years ago, and more and more there are admissions that wind has not lived up to what it has promised. Hopefully this trend continues.
Note too that the Russians have kept their paws off the gas taps this winter, likely not wanting to provoke any move away from NG from their Western costumers.
Quote Comment
March 10th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I think you’re wrong about the UK — AFAIK the Lib Dems want a nuclear phaseout (as well as complete carbon neutrality and a ban on the internal combustion engine by 2050).
Pity, because I kinda liked some of their non-energy-related policies…
Quote Comment
March 10th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
George Carty said:
Well, the UK may be pushing for a nuclear phase-out now, but historically, until recently, the UK has been a fairly heavy user of nuclear energy. The last UK nuclear plant to come online was in 1995 and since then a couple of plants have been closed, but those were relatively low-power and technically obsolete Magnox plants.
Still, there has been a bit of a reduction, when you consider the combined capacity of the plants that were shut down between 1998 and 2005, it’s a good couple GWe lost.
We shall see though. Oldbury and Wylfa are slated for shutdown in the next couple years. That will be a good 1.5 GW lost, in capacity. It’s a cross roads, because this is where the UK has to decide what to replace the capacity with – build replacement reactors or burn more coal and gas.
Really until the late 1980’s the British were doing very well at increasing nuclear capacity. The building streak ended around the same time that natural gas consumption skyrocketed in the UK.
Anyway, if the UK commits to building more wind turbines and shutting down nukes, they’ll still get their electricity. They’ll pay for it to be imported, but there’s already talk of putting in more HVDC trunks, possibly using the Channel Tunnel.
Quote Comment
March 10th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
“coloration is not causation”
Does this mean coloring something green will not cause CO2 to decline?
Sorry, it was too freudian to pass up.
Quote Comment
March 10th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Oops, I meant to mention- google for BP statistical review. Lots of interesting numbers, but only regional data.
Quote Comment
March 10th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
[...] Depleted Cranium » Blog Archive » “Green” energy policy in Europe … [...]
Quote Comment
March 10th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
brian said:
noted and corrected
Quote Comment
March 10th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
The UK is rapidly becoming dependent on gas for power plants. It seems to be the only one that people tolerate. Nuclear is too politically problematic and even though coal has been traditionally the big source, nobody can deny how dirty it is. Gas seems to slip under the radar and so it’s what is being built.
I’m worried by this. As I have read, gas is the one fuel that has no reserve or tolerance for interruption. It is not stored in any quantity to speak of, so the gas must be constantly pumped in and as soon as it becomes interrupted, if not enough alternative power is there, the electricity grid fails for lack of fuel.
A storm on the north sea or a political dispute could turn a pipeline off and if not enough gets through then there’s nothing to be done to stop the catastrophe that it could cause. The north sea and coastal wells are not enough anymore, so it needs to be brought in on either a tanker or in pipelines that stretch to sources as far as Finland, Norway and through Denmark, Germany, Poland and on to the gas fields in Russia.
That is a long run of pipe with many nodes in the run and many places something could go wrong. Very little buffer to deal with it should it go wrong. I worry that a failure in the long pipes could cause a sudden power shortage.
Quote Comment
March 10th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
That is true. Even with coal, there’s usually at least a couple of days before the fires go out if a train derails or something, and since each plant has its own supply routes and suppliers by rail, barge or both, it’s unlikely that more than one or at worst a couple could shut down for lack of supply.
As the grid becomes more and more dependent on gas, a single pipeline being damaged or shut down could be catastrophic. It depends on where it were to happen though. There’s some redundancy that gas can be routed through different pipelines, but only to a certain degree.
Quote Comment
March 10th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
I’ve always been a sci-fi lover and have hoped I would see giant space-based orbital solar power plants beaming cheap, limitless energy to earth, before I die.
But seeing as how we wont even have a space shuttle after this year I guess that’s out of the question.
Till then nuke plants will have to do.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 1:48 am
drbuzz0 said:
It isn’t – both Labour and the Conservatives seem reasonably pro-nuclear. The anti-nuclear Lib Dems are Britain’s third party, and would only really come into play in the event of a hung parliament…
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 3:31 am
Wow. The ones that really get me are the natural gas. Don’t just look at the graph, stop and look at the numbers!
Denmark uses almost 200 billion cubic feet of gas a year! And that’s up from almost nothing 20 years ago! That’s with only a population of about 5.5 million. Compared to Sweden, with a bigger population and only uses about 30 billion cubic feet. HUGE difference.
The one thing though: Eventhough France has not gotten worse on Co2 it has not gotten much better either. Basically flat-line since the early 1990’s. That’s probably because it already had all the power plants replaced a while ago so all that’s left is other emessions. Also, France does use quite a bit of natural gas, even if it has not gone up as much. Probably this is heating and industry, I’d think. It’s admirable that they were using coal as their major power source and then got rid of it completely in the early 1990’s.
Still, I guess it’s not bad all things considered. France has a population of 65 million versus 85 million for Germany, and Germany consumes twice as much natural gas. I think the UK is much higher per capita too.
Spain really has gone up like crazy with gas consumption. 1200 billion cubic feet from initially having almot no need. That’s a country of 45 million, and on top of that has very little need for heating compared to Sweden or Norway or something.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 3:32 am
WOW! Spain doubled CO2 emissions in less than ten years!
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 3:38 am
Interesting data. Looks to me like France is quite admirable. They had a massive improvement in the 1980’s and has not so much since then because they’re done phasing out fossil fuel generated electricity. They’re already ahead of the game.
For best numbers in recent years, Romania stands out as being extremely impressive. That kind of reduction in Co2 and fossil fuel use can’t be just attributed to old Soviet tech being upgraded. It’s interesting because Romania stands out as having one of the most enthusiastic crash program to go nuclear in Europe. I hope they continue with the new reactors under construction.
The Czech republic looks poised to do great things too. I read the linked article and clearly the government there is very pleased with their nuclear plants and wants to build more. Good thing too! Historically they’ve relied mostly on coal and it’s really impacted the health and enviornment of that area.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 6:03 am
Well, i’d just want to add a few things.
First: I’m from belgium (so please forgive my spelling, english is only my 3rd language) and i’m personally a defender of nuclear power. Of course, radioactive garbage is problematic (at least until we can get rid of them), but until we can achieve fusion, it’s probably the best energy source available. (on a sidenote: Italy voted for a nuclear phase out some years ago. Now they’re forced to buy electricity from France, as they don’t produce enough by themselves. Problem: most of electricity produced in France comes from nuclear plants. So not only italians still (indirectly) use nuclear, but the costs skyrocketed. )
Second, and this one is really on-topic: i’m from belgium, and your analysis of our political situation is quite accurate. But, talking about the “general energy policy”, i’d say you’re a bit biased:
- sure, most of my fellow citizens are against nuclear power, but it’s mainly an education problem. When talking about nuclear, they hear “radioactive”, not “power”. That being said, our leaders know that we NEED it for now, so i don’t see our nuclear plants go down before long.
- strong focus on wind/solar, favors subsidies: well, we’re far from Germany in terms of wind, and further still from Spain about solar. The subsidies you’re talking about are mainly subsidies granted to citizens for individual solar panels and better domestic insulation, wich really is a good way to reduce domestic CO2 emissions.
- the “is supported by greenpeace, etc.” argument is totally irrelevant, except if you want to suggest our political leaders consort with these (semi)extremists groups. I call that defamation, plain and simple.
Now, it’s true that we believe that “it is acceptable to heavily tax or penalize energy usage as a means of encouraging reduced consumption”, or that we “attempt to reduce energy consumption through effeciency”. So what ? Of course, it will do close to nothing to help reduce industrial CO2 emissions. But what it CAN do is create an “ecological consciousness”. Most of us do sort garbage to help recycling. We also try and use to focus on public transport instead of buying 2 or 3 cars for a single family (talking about cars, what do americans think of the whole “SUV/4×4/civil humvee” bandwagon ? Do you think it’s “right” or even “effective” to drive a car that consumes so much, and use it mainly in towns ?)
As for heating: on colder days, we’re encouraged to reduce CO2 emission by wearing a warmer pullover instead of turning the radiator up. Common sense, and a very simple compromize between individual comfort and ecology. Still… “everything counts in large amounts”
From our european point of view, being part of a “green” country doesn’t mean “nuclear is baaad, let’s go full solar”. It’s more like being educated in seeing the big picture: everyone can help, and everyone MUST help.
Of course, we won’t see the benefits before a few years. But at least we (and most importantly, our children) won’t live and act as if the whole world resources were ours, wich is how most europeans see the american way of life.
Want some numbers ? (taken from http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption, but it’s common data)
Oil consumption worldwide:
Rank Countries Amount Date
#1 United States: 20,680,000 bbl/day 2007
#2 China: 7,578,000 bbl/day 2007
#3 Japan: 5,007,000 bbl/day 2007
#4 Russia: 2,858,000 bbl/day 2007
#5 India: 2,722,000 bbl/day 2007
As you said: numbers can’t lie…
That being said, good article, and correct informations. But i think you missed the point of “green political parties”.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 6:04 am
It would be interesting to see a few of these graphs combined and/or displayed alongside each other (with matching scales). Perhaps a downloadable CSV of the numbers for people to play with to their heart’s content.
Coming from England, I have to say that there are 2 problems with the article – 1, that Labour is the only party with a remotely sensible nuclear policy, because other than that they’re bloody awful and highly unlikely (thankfully) to return to power, and 2, that France is better than us.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 6:15 am
as an Austrian physicist just one thing: afaik, there IS nuclear research happening in Austria, afaik at the “Austrian Institute of Technology” in Seibersdorf (some research lab for the UN Atomic Agency there as well, the agency itself being based in Vienna).
From what I know, there most definitely _is_ a research reactor in Austria. Not used for generating electricity, though.
Also, the popular perception in Austria is that “we don’t need no stinking nuclear because we have all this abundant hydro-power”. Which of course is only true for the western (i.e. alpine) parts, not for the most heavily populated area around Vienna which relies on coal/gas. Pity. Also, of course, all the juicy hydro-power is not used for domestic consumption, it’s sold internationally at high prices (because those are not river-hydro plants but, given the availability of high mountains and lots of water, they are storage power plants (hope that’s the right word there)) and instead cheap power is bought internationally for domestic consumption. Still, all children learn in school that “we don’t use nuclear power in Austria”. Well no, in fact, we do. Quite a lot.
*sigh*
Note, though, that on most _other_ topics (i.e. except the nuclear thing and animal rights extremism), the Austrian Green party still is the one that represents my interests best. Which makes me clench my teeth quite a bit every time I vote.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 6:18 am
Phil said:
You could always burn it and charge people for the resultant electricity, the only thing stopping that from happening is that the pre-reactor mining and post-reactor storage are so cheap it’s not yet worth it.
Phil said:
Numbers can’t on their own, but they can be made to. Of the countries listed only the US and Japan are at a similar level of development, and a comparison to the others is meaningless. After you then compensate for population the difference between the numbers decreases from a factor of 4 (4.13) to less than double – 1.70.
US (popn. 309M): 0.067 bbl/person/day
Japan (popn. 127M): 0.039 bbl/person/day
(popn. figures taken from 2010 census according to Wikipedia)
Additionally factoring in the relative physical size of the country will reduce the gap further – America is a larger country so Americans have further to go => greater energy consumption.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 7:43 am
Not wanting to risk my job it’s probably best if I don’t directly admit who I work for and where and how, but let it just be said that from the inside, the nuclear industry sees the construction of further nuclear plants in the United Kingdom as far from “still very tenative” and more like “quietly and unofficially confirmed, announcement to be made immediately after the next general election irrespective of result”.
A lot of work is being done on the development and logistical details of UK-based nuclear plant construction and you can bet it’s not just “us” – and no, I’m not willing just yet to tell you who “us” is.
I agree with [Other] Matthew though, it would be nice to see those graphs normalised to the same scale or something similar – and particularly scaled for per capita figures as direct numbers are often deceiving (as the same person has noted above with some elegance).
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 7:45 am
Phil said:
Agree on that one, maybe i should have write: “until it’s economically viable to get rid of them”
Phil said:
see ? that’s why the rest of the world is slowly growing angry against the US. You can argue about your so called “level of developement” or the pysical country size, you can turn those numbers any way you want, the fact is: 300 millions americans consumes 1/4 of the world (around 7 BILLIONS people) oil production. How do you JUSTIFY this ?
However, i don’t want to turn the debate into a “us/rest of the world” war, it’s not my point, nor (imho) drbuzzo’s. I just wanted to give another point of view on why Europe is starting to become “green”.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 8:06 am
Phil said:
Isn’t oil consumption for electrical generation already very low (outside major oil-exporting countries), because oil is too expensive to use this way? In most Western countries, well over half of all oil consumption is for transportation purposes.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 8:06 am
On the whole, the numbers seem to be taken out of context or represented lopsided, I’m sorry to say. Take your ‘European model citizens’ for example, the Czech Republic and Romania. Both are profiting heavily from the ‘eastern block effect’ that you used to explain (and discount) the partial success of ‘green’ Germany after 1990.
Also some nations scrapped their heavy industry during the timeperiod, others built up industry.
Engineering Edgar said:
Which is less a result of failed energy policy but rather a result of transforming from a backward, agricultural state to a modern industrial country with the help of EU subsidies.
What I want to say is that you are falling for the same trap the enemy you hate so much does. You are presenting some numbers and drawing ‘easy’ conclusions to prove your points. It’s not that simple. What I like to call ‘Scientific Environmentalism’ (you may subsitute ’sane’ for ’scientific’, it both starts with an s) should not lower itself to the same argumentative shortcomings as the other side.
Satan_Klaus
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 8:54 am
George Carty said:
Transportation is indeed a big problem. And most of our “green” leaders are trying to replace road (trucks) transport by train and/or boat, wich are much more efficient in term of CO2 emissions. Accordingly, they are also trying to tax more heavily the suv (and the likes) drivers. All in all, as i said, our mentalities slowly change, wich is the first step in the right direction
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Phil said:
I don’t need to turn those numbers at all because actually they appear almost reasonable just as they are. If I really wanted to find an enemy I’d ask myself this: At what level do you think Russia or China’s emissions would be if they were as technically and socially advanced as the US?
The rest of the world is already angry at the US for two primary reasons – 1, the rest of the world is jealous of the US, and 2, their foreign policy either is or at least appears to be extremely arrogant. Their use of fossil fuels and the resulting creation of pollution is only a small part of the problem, and a part of both 1 and 2, at that.
Phil said:
I don’t justify it, I live in England. However if I had to I’d point out that that the US consists of 50 states, each of which can be roughly considered as its own mini-country. This quarter is then reduced to less than 1% each. You know, I was going to say more about why taking scale into consideration was important, but frankly I can’t be arsed. Suffice it to say that the US is 2.5 times the size of Japan by population, or 26 times by area, yet oil consumption is only 4 times is high. QED.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 9:12 am
I have to agree with Satan Klaus that some of these are ‘easy’ conclusions, but personally for me they are just reinforcing what I have already come to know from various other sources.
Irrespective of the numbers, there is one thing that I find absolutely shocking. I had no idea so many European nations decided to phase out nuclear power before 1979! Why? What the hell? The only reasoning can be fear mongering. Until the TMI scare, (which I must re-iterate, killed no one and the safety systems worked perfectly) there was no reason to think nuclear power would have any serious detrimental effects except for financial costs. Why phase out an asset that represents a sunken cost and can only produce revenue?
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Engineering Edgar said:
Actually, Sweden and Denmark are not really comparable. Sweden has lots of hydroelectric power, as well as a bunch of nuclear power plants. Apart from transportation, oil for house heating and heat from burning garbage, we have almost no combustion based energy. The back bone of our power production is, and will most likely remain so, hydroelectric and nuclear power. This is why our energy production is so clean (…and yes, nuclear power is clean!).
Denmark, on the other hand, is flat as a pancake. No hydroelectric power there. They don’t have nuclear power. So, they have to burn fossil fuels.
Also, Swedes have larger penises and Danes have fleas.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Carletes said:
Because for some people, nuclear power = nuclear bomb.
Europe was also a bit late on the hippie movement and all that flower power thingy. I suspect that had something to do with it as well.
Sweden has recently started considering phasing nuclear power back in, though, and the cold winter has strengthened that position. There is some debate over if the plan should be to build big reactors for electricity, or small reactors (like the ASEA Secure) for heating, and it’s unclear where it’s going to land.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Carletes said:
In 1945, scientists delivered the means to change the face of war. On the Pacific front at least, the Second World War wasn’t ended by heroic combat or noble diplomacy, it was ended by pure, brilliant science.
Over the next few decades two things happened.
To start with perhaps the least important, it became increasingly evident that whilst certain cities on the western front had seen utter devastation (London, Dresden, Coventry) they could rebuild capably and, once the attacks had ceased, the injuries healed. In Japan that wasn’t quite the case, and people started to understand that atomic bombs had some serious after effects. The phrase “nuclear holocaust” entered the common vocabulary.
And set against this display of the potential of atomic weaponry, came the worsening of relations between the Soviet Union and the NATO powers. Both sides developed their atomic weapon technologies and built massive stockpiles of warheads and delivery systems, hell bent on assuring that the other side would not be able to destroy them. At various flashpoints the Cold War seemed on the brink of heating up, of delivering the much feared nuclear holocaust.
Unsurprisingly, people came to view nuclear power as an attempt to cage a wild beast, to attempt to willingly and openly site a highly explosing ball of death on the outskirts of a city in order to provide power. Few people were willing to trust that such a monster could be contained forever, that it was safe. What if it explodes? they thought, what if the last thing I see is the beginnings of a mushroom cloud forming over the hilltop where those looming dark buildings once stood?
Perhaps we should note the slight irony that it is the largely neutral states without atomic arsenals who have ditched nuclear power too.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 10:28 am
[Other] Matthew said:
Because it could be worse doesn’t mean it’s good as it is. That’s dumbing down.
Plus, the “level of development” you mentioned above is meaningless as well. Most subsaharian countries suffer from wars, malnutrition, lack of drinkable water, and a general poverty. They’re far more numerous than americans and japanese, and they cover 2/3rd of Africa in surface.
Do you really think that they don’t need more energy ? Do you really think they couldn’t use it for irrigation, education, buildings, whatever ? There is just one thing that keeps them in the 3rd (4th) world: they lack the money.
Why they lack it is off-topic, but saying that western (+ japan or any emergent) countries need more oil because they have achieved a certain level of developement is fallacy: most of them (and i count in Europe as well) could develop to such a point to the detriment of the (now) poorest countries.
Now, let me say it again: i don’t hate americans (or i could hate myself as well for what it’s worth), but they need to admit – as we’re starting to admit it in Europe – that all industrial countries need to
1) stop wasting energy, and
2) find efficient renewable sources.
So saying “look, i got numbers: green politics doesn’t work” is irresponsible. Hence my post
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 10:45 am
I believe Denmark does not import natural gas, as it is “produced” in the oil and gas fields in the Danish part of the North Sea. This probably explains why coal goes down and gas up, as coal is typically imported, while gas is produced enough to cover domestic consumption and also create revenue by exporting.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Satan_Klaus said:
You have a somewhat valid point here, but I don’t quite agree with everything that you’re trying to say.
If we take the amount of CO2 emitted from burning fuel to be a measure of how “dirty” a country’s power is, then a good comparison can be found in this chart. These data were taken from the indicators of the International Energy Agency’s statistics for 2007. For comparison purposes, the CO2 emissions have been normalized so that the largest producer (usually the Czech Republic) is assigned a value of 1, and the other emissions are reported relative to that.
Several trends can be observed. First, Sweden and France (in that order) consistently show up as having the “cleanest” energy, regardless of how the emissions are scored, usually by a fairly wide margin. Obviously, both countries are benefiting from using nuclear energy, and Sweden also benefits from substantial hydroelectric resources.
The Czech Republic and Romania are not as economically fit as the Western European nations. Thus, they both have substantially higher CO2 emissions per Gross Domestic Product (GDP). (In fact, Romania has the dubious distinction of simultaneously having the highest CO2 emissions per GDP and the lowest CO2 emissions per capita, which illustrates just how poor the Romanian economy is.) Even when Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is used, they are still significantly higher than the rest.
In terms of Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES), Romania’s energy is not particularly dirty — it scores lower than the “green” countries of Spain, Germany, and Denmark. In this measure, most countries are relatively the same, with the Czech Republic and Denmark being noticeably dirtier, and Austria’s hydroelectric and Belgium’s nuclear (22% of TPES) helping to reduce their emissions.
Finally, Spain, for all of its investments in wind and solar, is rather unremarkable when compared to the other European countries. It scores rather high (next to Germany, another solar and wind champion) in terms of TPES, and it scores in the middle of the pack when population and GDP(PPP) are considered.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 11:57 am
It’s also interesting to note how reliant Denmark is on norwegian and swedish hydro in order to integrate wind turbines into their grid. They export most of their wind power at basement prices, Sweden and Norway dial back their reservoired hydro a bit allowing reservoir levels to rise; at some point the wind dies down and Denmark wants to imports electricity, Sweden and Norway dial their hydro up a bit so they can export.
Recently Nord Pool felt compelled to introduce a new price floor, allowing danish wind to sell to Sweden and Norway for negative prices at particularly inconvenient times: http://www.nordpoolspot.com/Market_Information/Exchange-information/No162009-Nord-Pool-Spot-implements-negative-price-floor-in-Elspot-from-October-2009-/
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Phil said:
Phil – both your points are categorically wrong.
The amount of energy ‘wasted’ in modern Western nations, has been grossly overstated by the so-called Negawatt supporters, and I have yet to see properly referenced sources for their contentions that there is a vast amount of room for improvement. In fact in most cases they are not preaching higher efficiencies, (that is doing the same with less) as they are demanding a net reduction in overall use by being frugal. This is not the same.
As to the second point, there are no efficient renewable sources, that themselves do not have a major environmental impact like hydro, and geothermal for example. Converting more nebulous sources like wind, waves and solar will never be efficient in any systemic sense because they are too damned diffuse and intermittent. To properly harness them would require vast installations that themselves would both dominate the landscape and raise the level of complexity of the grid past the point where it would remain reliable.
We have nuclear energy. I am getting tried of repeating this, but the fact is it is available now, ALL of the traditional issues with this power source that have been raised over the last fifty years, now have good solid solutions, and the only thing that is stopping nuclear energy from becoming the dominant supplier of electric power on this planet is political.
The history of this time, as it will be read by our great-grandchildren, will not be kind to those that pursued renewables and avoided the obvious solution. It will be seen as one of the great collective blunders of the past, and will be ridiculed as such.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Ontario says they will phase out coal by 2014, should help with CO2. However they decided not to pay $26 bill. for reactors, instead they’re paying 80¢/kwhr for this.
http://microfit.powerauthority.on.ca/
How much you wanna bet they still have coal in 2014?
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
[Other] Matthew said:
Oh god no! Just their energy policy. France has a huge social problem that’s just about insurmountable: the whole country is full of the French!
Troberg said:
That’s kind of my point. Denmark went with wind, Sweden went for nuclear and hydro. The superior strategy should be obvious
MrD said:
They are a net exporter, but they burn as much domestically as they export. The consumption cuts the potential exports in half.
Phil said:
I agree that the US is not a shining example of good energy policy – far from it. However, the consumption of both energy and fuel needs to be taken in the greater context of a country’s energy needs: colder countries almost always consume more energy. The use of oil/gasoline has a lot to do with population distribution. The US has a level of “sprawl” that you don’t see in most of Europe. It makes automobiles necessary and the only way to change that would be to radically redistribute the population.
But as I said: the US is not a shining example of good energy policy. I mean, I’m a little envious of Romania and South Korea which I consider much better examples of energy policy.
Regarding the two points: First, I don’t think that the data supports the use of “renewables” as a viable means of reducing fuel consumption or emissions. It simply does not work. Denmark is using more fossil fuels than in the past and has not reduced carbon dioxide emissions. Spain spends more of its GDP on “renewable” energy than any other country. It has enormous investments in solar power and has been at it since the early 1990’s. Clearly, Spain has yet to show any progress in national emissions.
Countries like Romania and France (especially in the 1980s) show progress. Sweden shows progress as well, especially when they were building reactors back in the 80’s. No country that rejects nuclear energy and spends high GDP proportions on renewable energy development shows any consistent improvement – none.
As for wasting energy: This is really more myth than fact. Big energy users tend to be the first to adopt the most effecient technologies without any need to subsidize or force the issue. it’s a simple issue of saving money and creating more with less. If you have to force someone to become more effecient it’s likely because the amount of energy they are “wasting” is fairly trivial to begin with. Then there’s Jevons paradox which has a tendency to bite you in the ass.
BMS said:
Yes, hydroelectric does factor in. Its the one renewable energy source that does work and hence my own stand is to encourage its use to the maximum extent possible within reasonable enviornmental impacts.
(That despite the fact that it is also the most dangerous form of power in terms of probability of a catastrophic failure resulting in severe loss of life. Actually, it’s BY FAR the worst in this respect)
BMS said:
The Czech Republic is actually a very interesting case-study if you have looked at any of the news items on their energy policy. Historically, the country has relied almost entirely on brown coal (filthy) to produce energy and until recently it was nearly 100% of their base generating capacity, with a small amount of hydroelectric and trivial gas generating capacity.
The country began to go nuclear in the 1980’s (actually there were a couple of very small pilot nuclear plants before that, but the first one of any scale opened in 1985) The country is admittedly not in an economic situation that enables it to build plants as fast as they would like to, but in 2000 and 2003, they opened two new reactors with a capacity of about 950 MW each. For a country of that size, that’s a fairly large chunk of generating capacity.
As it now stands, the Czech Republic is only about 60% dependent on coal for power generation. The current government is very pleased with the nuclear plants built. They plan on upgrades to squeeze out a bit more power and also they hope to have more reactors under construction in the next few years.
There has been an enormous increase in the power used in the Czech Republic due to more development in the past ten years. The country has, never the less, managed to have a respectable, if not huge, reduction in CO2 emissions since the early 1990’s. They’ve also managed to keep coal use in check while at the same time not becoming dependent on natural gas.
I’d look at the Czech republic as a country that is becoming very enthusiastic about nuclear energy. Clearly they consider their investment in nuclear energy thus far a success and would ultimately like to use more of it to reduce coal usage.
Romania is another similar situation, although abit ahead of the Czech republic: True, they have a ways to go, and they started off in a fairly unadmirable situation to begin with, but their economic improvement has been fairly good and energy consumption is up, but emissions are down. They are pleased as punch with their CANDU’s and enthusiastically want more of them.
Anyway, I respect the point of view that this is overly simplistic and that may be right. In any case, I do want to see some debate. That’s healthy. Back and forth discussion by intelligent people is what needs to happen.
Furthermore: On a national note, I’m not trying to bash Europe or the Europeans. Obviously I’m an American and therefore an outsider. My reason for this is that the European continent represents a fairly broad spectrum of energy policies that can be looked at side by side.
There are countries in Europe that are pro-nuclear and have been building reactors and increasing capacity in recent years. (Romania, the Czech Republic, Finland)
There are countries which are fairly neutral: They built reactors in the past and still have them but are not building new ones and are not investing huge amounts of money in “renewables”
Then there are countries which are very strongly renewable-friendly and do not see nuclear power as part of their energy policy. These include Spain, Austria, Denmark, Germany. What these countries have in common is that their energy policy is based on renewable energy – they spend a high proportion of GDP and have high capacities for wind and solar.
Of those which have chosen to invest heavily in renewables, I do not see a single example of a resounding success, even given that many have been doing so for many years.
I don’t harbor any ill feelings toward a country like Spain that has built large solar installations and enormous wind capacity. I would be completely respectful of Spain’s policy if they made a truthful statement like: “We attempted to improve energy policy over the past 15 years by heavily subsidizing renwables and implementing solar power station building. We did this in good faith that it would provide enviornmental benefits. Clearly it has not. It was a noble experiment and now it is inescapable that it has not returned a benefit.”
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
drbuzz0 said:
The French would likely say that France is full of everyone BUT the French these days, and that is at the root of their problems.
Sort of reminds me of a poster I saw recently in Florida. It showed a black and white photo of some native Americans (Apache, I think) taken sometime in the 1800’s. The caption read something to the effect of, “Just ask the Indians what happens if you don’t control immigration.”
…
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
DV82XL said:
Heh. Well to be honest, I am not really the prejudiced type and I have nothing against the French as a group. (I should add, when I am critical of a country, I’m saying I dislike the national policy, not the individuals who live there).
I was making a bit of a joke over an old saying that I believe came from the UK “The biggest problem with France is it’s full of the French.” Traditionally, the British have had a stereotype of the French has being stuck up, rude and difficult to deal with. (Not surprising considering the two countries were enemies for much of their history.)
Actually, I find it a little funny how different nations have looked at eachother.
Syphillis is a funny example of this. To the Germans and the Italians, it was known as “The French Disease.” The French never called it that. They called it “The Spanish Disease” or occasionally “The Italian Disease” The British were split on calling it “The French Disease” or “The Spanish Disease” but also accepted “The Italian Disease” In Germany it was also acceptable to call it “Russian Disease” or “The Eastern Disease,” but in Russia it was “Polish Fever” and occasionally also seemed to pick up even more ethnic names like “The Scotsman’s Curse.”
It seems a number of illnesses (many of them STD’s) went by the name “Spanish Fever,” although this term later taken over by the Spanish Flu of 1918.
It seems everyone thought that syphilis was caused by some other foreign country but never admitted it was just as much domestic.
Anyway… I think it’s funny.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
drbuzz0 said:
I think that the Czechs would agree.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Yes, quite funny really. It’s that std’s are seen as dirty, unsavory and something nobody actually wants to admit that an STD might actually be festering in the population domestically. The “Old French Whore” is one that seems to imply that there are not plenty of old whores in London, while really there are plenty of indigenous whores, yet stereotypically the whore has a French accent. Surely in France, this would not be the case.
My father’s generation had a saying that I had heard from older family members. It’s an unsavory euphemism for saying that a woman was loose, dirty and would likely give you a disease. “She bedded a mic” as in “Stay away from that one, I hear she bedded a mic” The implication being that Irishmen were somehow carriers of all kinds of things and any woman willing to bed one of them was clearly a walking biohazard.
I heard a similar saying, not so common, for a man being infected. Anyone ever heard “He picked up something Spanish?” as in the saying “Poor bloke, he got drunk and left with some damn. Seems he picked up something Spanish and’ll have to see the doctor.”
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
By the way: Before someone thinks I can dish it but not take it when it comes to energy policy, I’m working on a post comparing the US to other countries in terms of energy policy, trends and so on.
The US does not come off well.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
DV82XL said:
I’d like some more details about this comment: if I get you right, do you think that there not enough white Christians in France ? Too much colors for you, maybe? Too exotic? You sound like a supremacist, so, if not, please explain a little more. It would strengthen your comment if you happen to live in France now and know a little about the current status of the French society, but somehow, I doubt it.
Back to the subject, on CO2 emissions, I just think that France struck gold on that: the idea behind the big nuclear program was independence from fossil fuel imports (which is still a big issue), not CO2 emissions reduction. Now, energy company like AREVA (reactors and fuel cycle) and EDF (power producer and distributor) have no major competitor in France (despite liberalization laws) and are really strong now in Europe.
Quote Comment
March 12th, 2010 at 12:06 am
Matt the French said:
France, like many European countries has experienced a great deal of immigration from the Middle East, North Africa and to a lesser extent Asia. There’s no denying that this has caused social problems. You may remember the riots that occurred a couple of years ago and primarily involved Muslim youth.
It’s a very acute problem in many European countries.
Quote Comment
March 12th, 2010 at 1:59 am
France is weird.
They have this fantastic energy policy which they have applied with intelligence and determination.
They tax the bejeezus out of businesses, and provide no fault labour laws which make it impossible to fire people for misconduct without incurring fairly substantial legal liability. In France, you can do a mom and pop type business, or a mega-corporation. It’s hard (and very risky) to grow beyond owner/operator scale.
They undercut the competitiveness of their own workers by allowing unskilled, low wage migrants to flood into the country in huge numbers.
The civil service expect to get handsomely paid for doing, effectively, very little. When they don’t get their way, they paralyze the whole country. This seems to happen every weekend (or every weekend I’m in France).
And then they blame the whole darn fiasco on “Muslim youth”….
Quote Comment
March 12th, 2010 at 2:09 am
Matt the French said:
First, as many regulars here know, I am a French-Canadian and a Francophone, and I read enough material published in France to know what is going on there, and were I you I wouldn’t be assuming tones of moral ascendancy if you do live there (and are pure lain.)
Nevertheless, the original remark was made as a tongue-in-cheek reply to Doc’s over-the-top statement prior that “France has a huge social problem that’s just about insurmountable: the whole country is full of the French!”
You have taken my remarks in that exchange out of context, but I obviously hit a nerve thought, didn’t I?
Quote Comment
March 12th, 2010 at 7:59 am
Lying by numbers
I took the time to check your stated source ( http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm ) and found out some interesting things. I focused especially on Germany and Spain, two of your prime negative examples.
Let’s start with Germany:
First you try to sell falling “Primary Energy Production” as a reason for Germany’s reduction in emmission. A closer look at the EIA statistic ( http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=GM ) reveals that “production” also includes the production of coal but is NOT ITS USE. The drop in German “Primary Energy Production” is not a drop in living standards, it’s giving up uneconomical coal mining and switching to import coal.
The statistics you SHOULD have presented are “Primary Energy CONSUMPTION” (slightly up) and “Electricity Net Consumption” (also slightly up). Now the big hammer is “Electricity Net Generation” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/img/charts/GM_elec_prod_large.png , which is up 20% ! Now if you compare the increase in consumption of primary energy and electricity generation with the drop of emissions, you will find that Germany has succeeded. Not dramatically, and there IS the eastern block effect, but a correct look at the numbers shows exactly the opposite of your conclusion.
Now Spain:
I don’t have an as glaring example of actual falsehood as in the case of Germany (PE production vs consumption) but let’s look at those charts again nonetheless. First open up the Spanish CO2 Emmissions:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/img/charts/SP_co2_large.png and let’s compare that to the Spanish generating power http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/img/charts/SP_elec_prod_large.png you can also pull up Primary energy consumption if you want, it looks the same.
Now what the numbers tell us is that spain has been building up industry like crazy. It is very hard to read a failure of wind power out of the CO2 chart once you put it against generating power. One could actually say that, despite relying on wind they have almost tripled generating power (although a bit more than half of that increase seems to stem from fossile fuel, likely gas).
Another thing I noticed is you calling Spain “the world leader in solar” along with your 2005 statistic. Now Spain IS the world leader in solar, but if you check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Spain or http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php you will notice that almost all solar plants went online in 2008 or 2009, a good 3 years after the end of your statistic. So the solar expansion does NOT show in the numbers at all.
In short, you are either misreading the charts or trying to sell your point so hard that the facts don’t matter. Now considering that you seem to be a smart person in general, I can’t shake the impression that it’s intentional misleading rather than accidential misreading.
You, Sir, lost a lot of credibility.
Satan_Klaus
PS: We are NOT talking about the economy of renewable sources where some of them look truly pitiful (PV in rainy, cloudy, flatland Germany for example. Solar-thermal in arid, sunny, highland Spain looks somewhat acceptable). I’m also not disputing the success of France or (also hydro blessed) Sweden. I just looked at your source and found (and proved) your conclusions for Spain and Germany false to the point of being unsavory.
Quote Comment
March 12th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Satan_klaus said:
Not quite. While it is true that electricity generation in Germany has increased in the past 15 years (PDF), natural gas has been as much responsible for this increase as solar and wind.
This is mostly irrelevant, however, since CO2 emissions are going to depend on the Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES), of which electricity comprises only a small portion. In the case of Germany, we see that TPES has remained fairly flat or has even slightly decreased since the eighties (PDF), mostly due to a reduction in the amount of coal burned for energy (which Steve points out), including replacing some coal with natural gas.
The contribution that solar and wind have made (the tiny orange region at the top of the graph) is pitiful. Germany’s CO2 emission reductions are largely a result of using less coal, using natural gas instead of coal, and producing less energy overall.
No, they’re not relying on wind for much. Spain’s renewable energy sector did not contribute much at all to this near tripling of electricity generation since 1980 (PDF). Instead, it resulted from Spain doubling its use of coal for producing electricity, building nuclear plants, and most recently, drastically increasing its use of natural gas for electricity. Since 1980, electricity generation from nuclear has increased almost twice as much as generation from wind and solar combined, and generation from natural gas has increased three times as much as these renewables.
Who cares? Even if you add up the (peak) capacity of all of the “largest” solar plants mentioned on that Wikipedia page, they amount to only about 570 MW for a country that already has over 70,000 MW of capacity. It’s a drop in the bucket. Even worse, these solar plants have a capacity factor of something like 20%, so they’re not even comparable watt-to-watt to Spain’s existing baseload capacity.
Spain’s solar expansion is trivial. It’s just a feel-good scam to waste a substantial amount of money on something that doesn’t produce much of anything at all except EU subsidies and energy sprawl.
Quote Comment
March 13th, 2010 at 6:14 am
drbuzz0 said:
I was waiting for that reference, because, at the time of the riots, we catch a glimpse of what was broadcast in the US and it was frightening. 2 main errors:
- riots did not involve “Muslim youths”, there were involving poor youths, who are shunned out of employment and other prospects. Religion has nothing to do with that, it is a simplistic way of looking at this problem, a journalism bias
- massive immigration has been stopped in the 80s, it is now really difficult to get a visa to France (or any European country). The “riot youth” were born in France, are French from immigrants parents. They don’t know **** about their country of origin, never visit it, don’t plan to do it, but support it anyway during the world cup like you would support the underdog.
My message here is that the main problem is economical, not racial. It is big enough, don’t put this nasty cherry on the top.
And please, beware of the journalists, they see what they want to see. You wouldn’t like French news reports on the US, you obese-gun slinging-nationalist Americans…
DV82XL said:
The joke is funny when you say “is full of the French”, but not as funny when you say “is full of Muslims”. That is how I heard it anyway, hence the nerve hit. If it is not your message, then I apologize. If it is, then please see the answer to Doc above.
Quote Comment
March 13th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Matt the French said:
For the record I did not write ‘is full of Muslims’ – you read that in yourself. What I did write however was a fair observation of the way a lot of pure lain French think.
You might also note that I underlined the fact that I am French-Canadian, and if you know anything of our history, you would realize I know full well the feeling of being treated like a foreigner in the country of one’s birth.
Quote Comment
March 13th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Matt the French said:
There’s a difference between what it means to be “French” versus “American.” The US is a country of immigrants so anyone born here is pretty much as American as the rest of us. That’s not the case in Europe. There are established ethnic populations of a country that go back thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. The French are Francs, Normands and so on. If you’re a French born citizen of African parents, you’re seen as distinctly different from those who are indigenous for thousands of generations.
“New World” countries (the United States, Canada, Australia) have a distinctly different culture when it comes to citizenship and heritage. The cultural identity of these countries tends to be based on mixing of cultures to some degree.
There’s a saying “France for the French.”
Part of it is a desire for cultural preservation. There are certain things that are distinctly associated with a given European country (or even a region there of) These include language, cuisine, arts and other kinds of things that can be threatened by having a lot of cultural influx.
Quote Comment