I'm sorry to really be fighting becoming extremely angry, but this kind of thinking disturbs the hell out of me.
You write:
I'm not sure the relative cost of electricity in Germany matters if we address climate change. That's why I like the "it can't scale to what we need" argument better even if I don't have the background to judge the numbers.
There is no evidence, none, zero, that the German energy program, which is destructive to the future of humanity has done a damned thing to address climate change. Zero. None. Nada.
It should be
simple and
easy to see this simply by noting that massive cheering, world wide, for the German energy stupidity has not resulted in addressing climate change or slowing it but ratherthe acceleration of climate change, the acceleration of use of dangerous fossil fuels.
Rather than go through this over and over, I'll just repost my response to a person who I have added to my ignore list - after posting this response - on the grounds that some people clearly are so wrapped up in their reactionary old dogma that they are incapable of thinking and therefore useless to engage. It was in response to one of those very tiresome bourgeois types who wants to brag about the solar shit on his or her McMansion roof, without the slightest inkling of what it means.
This response consists of entirely of facts, and references supporting those facts, not some horseshit pulled off some "renewable energy will save us" horseshit website:
It includes the same references as in the OP, and there are many references (and citations) within those papers that people could call up if they were truly interested in climate change rather than promoting the mining industry - including the
coal mining industry to build so called "renewable energy" infrastructure, infrastructure that has a short life span and is thus nothing more than endless consumerism. If one were to spend oh, say, 30 years or so looking into things like this, one could in fact acquire a massive database of
information and
data on the subject, something I know because I am extremely familiar with someone who has in fact, done this.
To wit:
The death toll from
air pollution while we all wait, as expectant assholes, for the grand renewable energy nirvana that has not come, is not here and won't come:
Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (Lancet 2016; 388: 1659–724) One can easily locate in this open sourced document compiled by an international consortium of medical and scientific professionals how many people die from causes related to
air pollution, particulates, ozone, etc.
It works to between six to seven million people per year.
This means that in the last decade, while we wait for the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana, more people have died from air pollution than died in World War II.
We have spent, in the last ten years alone, more than two trillion dollars on solar and wind energy, more than three trillion dollars in this century, this on a planet where
2 billion people lack access to basic sanitation:
The amount of money "invested" in so called "renewable energy" in the period between 2004 and 2018 is over 3.036
trillion dollars; dominated by solar and wind which soaked up 2.774
trillion dollars.
Source:
UNEP/Bloomberg Global Investment in Renewable Energy, 2019
How much
energy has this grand investment produced, and how does it compare to the
growth of the use of dangerous coal, dangerous oil, and dangerous natural gas?
In this century, world energy demand grew by 179.15 exajoules to 599.34 exajoules.
In this century, world gas demand grew by 50.33 exajoules to 137.03 exajoules.
In this century, the use of petroleum grew by 34.79 exajoules to 188.45 exajoules.
In this century, the use of coal grew by 63.22 exajoules to 159.98 exajoules.
In this century, the solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal energy on which people so cheerfully have bet the entire planetary atmosphere, stealing the future from all future generations, grew by 9.76 exajoules to 12.27 exajoules.
12.27 exajoules is slightly over 2% of the world energy demand.
2019 Edition of the World Energy Outlook Table 1.1 Page 38] (I have converted MTOE in the original table to the SI unit exajoules in this text.)
And yet we hear from people who have obviously never looked in their lives at read data, and who supply no references that solar and wind are means of addressing the growth in the use of dangerous fossil fuels, and that anyone who
looks at data, is engaging in "talking points."
When confronted with hand waving airheads who have no interest in the fate of humanity, I often point to this paper, co-authored by one of the world's most famous climate scientists, Jim Hansen, about how many lives nuclear energy saved, and how many billions of tons of carbon dioxide it prevented from accumulating in the atmosphere, by his calculation (in 2013) about 31 billion tons:
Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)
Maybe there are people with solar cells on the roofs of their McMansions who "know more than the scientists" about climate change, and can confidently say that this paper, published in one of the most prestigious Environmental scientific journals in the world is "propaganda."
Of course, I feel differently about what propaganda might be. To me, "propaganda" usually consists of slinging nonsense invectives by people who have no information at those who do, say like, um, "much misinformation, lack of context, and propaganda, with just enough facts to make it plausible."
As for context, the data on the accumulation of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide speaks volumes. I've analyzed it extensively, for several decades. But any asshole interested in humanity could do the same, if they gave a shit, which clearly they don't.
The data pages of the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Web Pages, with data going back as far as the 1950's are here:
Data: The complete Mauna Loa CO2 records described on this page are available.
We hit 417.43 ppm of CO2 in the planetary atmosphere this spring, in the week beginning May 24, 2020.
In the 20th century the average rate of increase in the dangerous fossil fuel waste was as follows:
1961-1970: 0.898 ppm/year on average.
1971-1980: 1.339 ppm/year on average.
1981-1990: 1.554 ppm/year on average.
1991-2000: 1.541 ppm/year on average.
In the age of the rise of "renewable energy will save us" beginning with Germany:
2001-2010: 2.038 ppm/year on average.
2011-2018: 2.418 ppm/year on average.
The 20th century average annual increase overall: 1.31 ppm/year
The 21st century average annual increase overall: 2.12 ppm/year
The last 5 years annual average increase: 2.55 ppm/year
Are we tired of so much winning yet? Do we care a shred for the planet we are leaving behind for our children, our grandchildren and their great grandchildren?
Well, I think the
data speaks for itself, even this superficial evocation of it. Of course, if one isn't
lazy, one can dig really, really, really, really deep into data, the chemistry of silicon refining, lanthanide mining, child slaves digging cobalt in the Congo for lithium batteries for "green" energy storage, the use and source of methylethylketone electrolytes in those batteries, leaching from lead mines, well, it goes on and on and on and on, but one would have to give a shit to look.
Propaganda?
There are two kinds of Trumpers in my view:
One of course consists of those who believe and support his lies, for the most part poorly educated racists. Everyone who writes here is well aware of these types.
The second, somewhat more subtle sort are those who "
reason" like Trump, who believe that if they simply make stuff up and repeat it over and over and over in contradiction of the facts, it should be believed.
Anyone, I do mean anyone, who embraces the obvious
lie that so called "renewable energy" is doing a damn thing about climate change or about the growth in the use of dangerous fossil fuels is engaged in Trumpism of the second kind.
Facts matter. They are clear, and they are unambiguous. Little bourgeois brats crowing about the solar cells on their roofs don't cut it if the issue under discussion is the most critical of our times, climate change.
Again, and again and again and again: Facts matter.
You may cheer all you want for mines so people can live "off grid" and congratulate yourself for knowing them.
I know this: History will not forgive us, nor should it.
Now, you want to talk about Fukushima, and ask a "question" about it.
Before answering questions about Fukushima - the death toll from air pollution since March of 2011 is between 54 and 63 million human beings - let me ask
you a question about the endlessly discussed events at Fukushima.
The event was triggered by an earthquake and a tsunami. Here's the question: In the event, which killed more people, radiation or seawater?
Somewhere around 20,000 people were pretty much instantly killed. Seawater or radiation?
If
seawater killed 19,900 people and radiation killed 100 people - it didn't, but let's just say so for the sake of argument - which is more dangerous, 3 destroyed nuclear reactors or living in a coastal city? (Early in this century
seawater killed about a quarter of a million people in the South Asian tsunami of 2004 that people seldom discuss, certainly not as much as the want to talk all about
Fukushima.)
What's your theory here, that Fukushima is more important than people who may be killed by seawater in the future as the seas rise, particularly in low lying areas that are densely populated, like say, Bangladesh or even New Orleans?
Since living in coastal cities is more dangerous than leaking nuclear power plants, shouldn't we phase
coastal cities out?
So called "renewable energy" is clearly and unambiguously demonstrated, in an experiment costing trillions of dollars, proved that it is incapable, totally ineffective, useless to address climate change.
Is that not enough? Do people carrying on about Fukushima have even the faintest idea of what the death toll from climate change might be? What about other technologies about which they couldn't care less while they fear the radiation bogeyman? Cars? Fatty foods.
How about aircraft...
At Tenerife, in March of 1977, two aircraft collided killing far more people than have died from radiation than died at Fukushima. Since then many thousands more people have died in air crashes. One of my favorite shows on television is the
engineering show
Air Disasters. When comparing death tolls for high technology, aircraft have clearly killed more people than nuclear power plants just in accidents, never mind in air pollution. The show, Air Disasters, is all about how after an air crash takes place, teams get together, analyze the accident, and engineer away future occurrences. It works pretty well. Air travel has gotten safer and safer over the years, ignoring the people who die from aircraft related pollution, and of course, aircraft converted into weapons of mass destruction.
Um, since aircraft have killed more people than nuclear power plants, where is the German plan for an aircraft phase out, exactly?
Do they have any logic for
not having one, given their morally reprehensible decision to phase out
nuclear energy, a decision which will kill people?
You cannot address me with selective attention. Nuclear exceptionalism, the claim that nuclear energy and only nuclear energy must be perfect and without risk or things which are much, much, much more and demonstrably worse will be allowed to kill at will is deadly and morally and intellectually without any foundation.
Nuclear energy need not be perfect - it need not be without risk - to be better than everything else. It only needs to be better than everything else, which it is.
It is tiresome and foolish and disturbing that I have to continuously address Fukushima and Chernobyl as if they are the only fucking things that matter. Again, hundreds of millions of people are dead because we didn't use nuclear power to its fullest. The fucking oceans are acidified. Forests are dying, burning. Permafrost is melting. Seas are rising. Entire ecosystems, the great barrier reef for example, are nearly dead. Polar Bears are in danger of extinction.
But, but, but, but...Fukushima?
Can anyone grasp that this is the precise equivalent of "...but...but...her emails?"
Goddamn it, over 70,000 human beings died
in 2003 from a
heatwave in Europe:
Death toll exceeded 70,000 in Europe during the summer of 2003 (Plus de 70 000 décès en Europe au cours de l'été 2003) (Robine
et al Comptes Rendus Biologies Volume 331, Issue 2, February 2008, Pages 171-178.)
Just a brief moment's reflection will suggest that this sort of death toll is taking place regularly now, at an accelerating pace, the 2003 event is becoming "small potatoes."
And still...and still...and still...
I have to talk about Fukushima?
Tell me why...
= new reply since forum marked as read
