Germany Renewable Energy Could Power 100% Of Country By 2050

The Guardian:

Germany could derive all of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2050 and become the world's first major industrial nation to kick the fossil-fuel habit, the country's Federal Environment Agency said today.

Read the whole story: The Guardian

Comments

[Richeypaul1]

02:00 PM on 08/16/2010

If a whole country could be run on renewable energy a lot of money could be saved and jobs could be created.

[AyeChart]

10:38 PM on 07/11/2010

IF Germany survives, they may get to that goal in 2050. But they are approaching insolvency and that "green technology" is not economically feasible right now, so how are they going to finance it?

[netzwerg]

04:59 AM on 07/12/2010

Insolvency?? What are you talking about?? Do you like facts? : https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html

[weaselbasher]

08:07 AM on 07/12/2010

Do you ever post anything factual?

[Politisizer]

03:38 PM on 07/11/2010

The country already gets 16% of its electricity from wind, solar and other renewable sources.

Some 300,000 renewable energy jobs have been created in Germany in the last decade.

[sethdayal]

06:28 PM on 07/11/2010

Actually no net not so renewable energy when all the low efficiency radon gas GHG spewing Russian gas gas plant required to load balance is added in.

Better to have skipped the $tens of billions wasted on solar and wind and built high efficiency CCGT plant instead.

Germans have been fooled by special interest groups twice in the last century with devasting consequences for the world. The not so green renewable types allied with Russian gas interests are playing them for suckers again with the same devastating consequences.

In 1999 Germany emitted 223597 metric tons carbon. 2006 the last full year before the depression 219570. However when the 75 times methane multiplier effect of leakage from all the notorious poorly maintained Russian and Eastern European gas lines was added in the effective emissions may have actually doubled.

[AyeChart]

10:38 PM on 07/11/2010

Dang it! You are not supposed to introduce facts here!

[Freevo]

07:37 PM on 07/11/2010

That's what America needs. Bring the soldiers home, create sustainable jobs with sustainable energy industries.

[JerryAguy]

03:28 PM on 07/11/2010

I just have to imagine there would be less energy unless there are breakthroughs in solar panel technology. I would think than it could be reality.

[AyeChart]

10:39 PM on 07/11/2010

Been to Germany. Not a very sunny country much of the time.

[netzwerg]

05:06 AM on 07/12/2010

About 1000kWh/m² on a years basis. Enough to power some stuff. But wind power is much bigger in Germany.

[Mark Bailey]

03:05 PM on 07/11/2010

Let me just say.......Thank You for some good news for a change......

[Thirdcoastkites]

02:33 PM on 07/11/2010

We still face resistance from the NIMBY crowd in Michigan when it comes to wind energy...only in America do we advocate for change only if it doesn't change anything.

http://www.thirdcoastkites.com - we support great lakes wind energy

[mountainweb]

11:40 AM on 07/11/2010

The US could be doing this as well but not as long as the current democratic administration is locked into Wall Street. Nancy is a classic example, spending for a HUGE jet to carry her back and forth to the west coast, spending more money than ANY other politician in the US. The democratic party took the "mandate" as an opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayers and the country...

[bwither]

01:19 PM on 07/11/2010

Your jet baloney is just that.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/01/sliming-pelosi/

[soisay]

12:46 AM on 07/12/2010

Your Fox lines are just a crock, but once again they fail to mention the fact that Pelosi is constitutionally 3rd in line to the Presidency. While it is expensive for any Senator or Rep to visit their district or other various places around the globe (especially those from California, Alaska, Hawaii); if something were to happen at the White House impairing both the Pres and VP, Nancy Pelosi (in a meeting in SF) would immediately be our new Commander in Chief. Please find a new hymnal to sing from.

[bwither]

09:42 AM on 07/11/2010

First question that comes to mind is; why can't we do this? And then I remember that Germany's electoral campaigns are publicly financed.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/germany.php

As long as Big Oil can spend Big Bucks on getting people (re)elected, there's no hope to do this in America.

[piggybackmom]

01:47 PM on 07/11/2010

Sad that this is so true for US.
We too could have the same goal as Germany.

[mamacat]

05:57 PM on 07/10/2010

It is a very small country, with very small needs, but Iceland is already almost fossil fuel free, relying mostly on geothermal energy. When PHEVs and EVs become widely available, they will be able to cut down on their vehicle fuel imports, as well.

[sethdayal]

10:34 PM on 07/10/2010

50% of total energy (heat) is geothermal but most of the electricity almost 75% is hydro.

[mamacat]

05:55 PM on 07/10/2010

Have been watching the World Cup, and noticed a big difference in the advertising between China and the USA.
The USA has been advertising McDonalds and Budweiser, and China has been advertising Yingli Solar. So, America's emphasis would seem to be on fast food and bad beer, and China's emphasis would seem to be on converting to clean energy.

[PoloniumMan]

04:39 PM on 07/10/2010

More power to the Germans. If this is the course they wish to take, great. I'm curious how they will pay for it when they shut down their nuclear reactors and can no longer tax the fuel rods. Although, maybe they won't shut them down since Merkel’s government favors extending the running time of their nuclear plants beyond a cut-off date of about 2021. Perhaps they don't want to become dependent on Russian natural gas.

[alvdh1]

01:12 PM on 07/10/2010

Everyone is invited to enter the Sethy, Sethdayal Poll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vote number 1 or 2 after each of his posts to indicate the following.

1 means you agree with Sethy that we should only have nuclear power as a source of electrical energy and we should also put all of our retirement money into one nuclear stock.



2 means you would like to have a diversified portfolio of energy that includes wind, solar, geothermal, wave, tidal, biomass, thermal gradient and natural gas. You also agree that it would be best to have our energy policy based on energy effciency in order to achieve the most bang for the buck when it come to alternative energy. Lastly, you agree that business and residential producers of clean, renewable energy should have full access to the grid and be allowed to receive market rates for the excess power they put back into the grid.

Feel free to let Sethy know how rediculous it is to put all of our energy and retirement eggs into one basket.

[sethdayal]

03:06 PM on 07/10/2010

And 3 if you think Alvin here is a fool.

Note that Alvin shills for NG operators wanting to sell natural gas to the California ISO. Natural gas power generation produces more GHG's than coal because of the methane leakage from pipelines.

[alvdh1]

01:49 PM on 07/13/2010

or 3 for Sethieee if you think he is a paid industry shill sent here to promote the lies and distorions of the nuclear power industry.

[Michael Mann]

06:05 PM on 07/09/2010

They have to promise something so they are not lynched by the consumers paying triple what other industrial nations pay for energy. They can get there even sooner if they buy more power from France, which has a small carbon footprint and economical power due to nuclear energy.

[Ghost Dance 2010]

06:41 PM on 07/09/2010

The Germans pay $.03 more per kilowatt than Americans.

You are simply repeating lies.

[alvdh1]

06:56 PM on 07/09/2010

You are not calculating the externalized costs of nuclear power in France nor are you calculating the heavy taxation used to fund the construction of France's poison producing nukes. Just like Sethy, you will say anything fact or fiction to sell your poison producing technology. There is no need to accuse me of being in favor of coal because I am not and this is not an either or debate as the poison producing nuclear industry tries to portray it.

How much are you getting paid to post lies here on behalf of the poison producing nuke industry. Do you get paid by the word or by the post? Do you work for Westinghouse?

[Michael Mann]

08:50 PM on 07/09/2010

To alvdh1; Unfortunately I am not getting paid for providing information about clean, safe nuclear power plants. How much are the anti-nuclear, fossil fuel, toxic waste loving, pseudo-green zealots paying you? I have several friends who work for Westinghouse, they seem to be doing well, I like the AP-1000 it's a good design. How many lives could have been saved if the US had continued building nuclear plants instead of putting millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere burning coal and natural gas?

[Michael Mann]

02:28 AM on 07/10/2010

Externalized costs like disposal of worn out photovoltaic cells, toxic chemicals from batteries, tower structures from windmills, millions of tons of pollution released to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels? Those external costs? There are few externalized costs with nuclear, decommissioning is paid for upfront. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1713/ http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf19.html http://climatecorps.org/e/externalized-cost/ http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12794

[OkieMon]

05:38 PM on 07/09/2010

while germany went solar france went nuclear and has contaminated much of western europe and the north sea......

[alvdh1]

06:58 PM on 07/09/2010

Let's not forget the English Channel that France dumps 110,000,000 gallons of radioactive waste per year from its dirty La Hague commercial reprocessing plant. The Xenon gas vented from the La Hague plant has been traced around the globe.

[PoloniumMan]

04:30 PM on 07/10/2010

Just because something is detectable, doesn't mean it's harmful. One of the neat properties of radioactive material is that it can be detected in very small quantities. Also, Xenon is a nobel gas so it won't stay in your body if you happen to breath some in. Listing the total volume of waste doesn't mean much either if you don't include activity (Ci per liter) in your post. When we flush a toilet we're dumping radioactive waste because there naturally occurring radio isotopes in everyone's urine such as K-40.

[alvdh1]

02:31 PM on 07/12/2010

Meant to say Krypton-85 and not xenon.

[sethdayal]

01:14 AM on 07/10/2010

Funny all you have is climate denier junk science to back up your absurd emission claims. Lets see some peer reviewed science from a reputable journal backing your absurd emission claims

German of course has not reduced its GHG emission's one whit going solar and spending a hundred billion dollars on it. Now it plans on murdering thousands more European citizens with a massive coal plant build.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2007/gb20070321_923592.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe_more+of+today%27s+top+stories

[alvdh1]

02:10 PM on 07/10/2010

2

[alvdh1]

04:41 PM on 07/10/2010

Sethy you are a bold face liar of the most extraordinary kind.

Germany's base year 1991 Kyoto Potocol GHG Emissions in millions of tonnes were: 1,232.4

2008 GHG Emissions in millions of tonnes were: 958.1

Base year to 2008 reduction was 22.3 percent.

Source for these numbers: EU Environemnt Agency Titled: EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions: More than Half Way To 20 % Target By 2020 Dated June 2, 2010.

Your facts are lies and your truths are lies and everything in between is mis or disinformation laced with half truths and omissions.

Your above reference to Business Week is just another example of the lengths you will go to lie or misrepresent the truth. For example, almost everyone of the coal fired power plants in the 2007 Business Week article has been canceled, converted to biomass or natural gas or has been halted by the courts. It is disingenuous to keep citing outdated articles as if they applied to today. The source to correct SETHY'S lies on this account is:
EnergyNews24.com dated 5/10/2010. Sethy you might actually like this site becuase they support nuclear power. It is okay to use research that is older, but using outdated news stories where the facts have changed appreciably is typical of what you will do to lie to sell your poisoned power.

[K-Hoff45]

05:12 PM on 07/09/2010

I hope this just sits in congress' mouths like a bad taste that won't go away