The problem of pollution and especially CO2 emissions has become quite a big thing, and more and more countries and activists are trying to find solutions to it. The thing is, many of the proposed and even implemented solutions are often ineffective, very costly (in relation to their effectiveness and energy production), and sometimes even harmful to the environment and even human health.
And, ironically, so far none of these implemented solutions has done almost anything to reduce emissions. Germany is, perhaps, the European (perhaps even worldwide) pinnacle of moving to renewable energy production: Something like less than 5% of the electricity used in Germany comes from nuclear power plants (and Germany's plan is to reduce it to 0% in the next decade or so), and something like 80% comes from renewable energy sources, such as wind energy.
Ironically, the CO2 emissions of Germany have only gone up year after year, not down. Germany is producing more CO2 than ever before. Moving to renewable energy production has done jack squat about Germany's emissions.
(Contrast this with France, which is in the same ballpark as Germany in terms of population size, but where something like 85% of electricity is produced by nuclear power plants. The CO2 emissions of France are less than half of that of Germany, by official statistics.)
Also, as a side-effect, the price of electricity in Germany is at an all-time high. It's the most expensive electricity in all of Europe, and is hurting the entire country economically. The cost of renewable energy is paid by the population who uses that energy.
And the thing is, completely "green" renewable energy production is not always as harmless as people think, or want to believe.
Consider wind turbines, for example. They need to be constructed a good distance away from any human settlements because their proximity has actual tangible negative health effects on people. These health effects are often dismissed and ignored, because people (including many medical professionals) simply don't want to believe they are real. Ironically, this dismissal only helps to aggravate these health effects, especially in terms of their psychological impact.
This is explained, for example, in this paper by the College of Family Physicians of Canada, published at the National Center for Biotechnology Information website.
As you might guess, in densely populated areas, like most of Europe, there aren't many isolated places to put wind turbines.
Germany is also facing a real crisis with regards to their 29 thousand wind turbines. Because they are economically unfeasible, about 10 thousand of them will be decommissioned in the near future. This is not only extremely expensive, it's also an ecological nightmare, because the vast majority of the materials used in wind turbines cannot be recycled. Yet they need to be disposed of properly, somehow.
But it's the nuclear power plants that are way too scary to be a feasible alternative. After all, there have been a whopping three nuclear plant accidents!
(Sure, nuclear power is not the final solution to the energy production of the world. However, they would be a good interim solution for the next 50 to 100 years, with almost zero pollution, which would give us time to develop some better solutions that actually work. Wind turbines and solar panels are not that solution.)
And, ironically, so far none of these implemented solutions has done almost anything to reduce emissions. Germany is, perhaps, the European (perhaps even worldwide) pinnacle of moving to renewable energy production: Something like less than 5% of the electricity used in Germany comes from nuclear power plants (and Germany's plan is to reduce it to 0% in the next decade or so), and something like 80% comes from renewable energy sources, such as wind energy.
Ironically, the CO2 emissions of Germany have only gone up year after year, not down. Germany is producing more CO2 than ever before. Moving to renewable energy production has done jack squat about Germany's emissions.
(Contrast this with France, which is in the same ballpark as Germany in terms of population size, but where something like 85% of electricity is produced by nuclear power plants. The CO2 emissions of France are less than half of that of Germany, by official statistics.)
Also, as a side-effect, the price of electricity in Germany is at an all-time high. It's the most expensive electricity in all of Europe, and is hurting the entire country economically. The cost of renewable energy is paid by the population who uses that energy.
And the thing is, completely "green" renewable energy production is not always as harmless as people think, or want to believe.
Consider wind turbines, for example. They need to be constructed a good distance away from any human settlements because their proximity has actual tangible negative health effects on people. These health effects are often dismissed and ignored, because people (including many medical professionals) simply don't want to believe they are real. Ironically, this dismissal only helps to aggravate these health effects, especially in terms of their psychological impact.
This is explained, for example, in this paper by the College of Family Physicians of Canada, published at the National Center for Biotechnology Information website.
As you might guess, in densely populated areas, like most of Europe, there aren't many isolated places to put wind turbines.
Germany is also facing a real crisis with regards to their 29 thousand wind turbines. Because they are economically unfeasible, about 10 thousand of them will be decommissioned in the near future. This is not only extremely expensive, it's also an ecological nightmare, because the vast majority of the materials used in wind turbines cannot be recycled. Yet they need to be disposed of properly, somehow.
But it's the nuclear power plants that are way too scary to be a feasible alternative. After all, there have been a whopping three nuclear plant accidents!
(Sure, nuclear power is not the final solution to the energy production of the world. However, they would be a good interim solution for the next 50 to 100 years, with almost zero pollution, which would give us time to develop some better solutions that actually work. Wind turbines and solar panels are not that solution.)
Comments
Post a Comment