Does it really matter?

[Sidhe]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6433503.stm

EU agrees renewable energy target
Royd Moor wind farm in Yorkshire, in the UK
Some EU countries want renewable energy targets to be voluntary
European Union leaders have agreed to adopt a binding target on the use of renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, officials say.

UK PM Tony Blair said the deal was "a major step" which put the EU in a leadership position on climate change.

There had been strong opposition from some countries to the proposal to boost renewable fuel use to 20% by 2020.

On Thursday, EU leaders agreed to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by the year 2020.

Prime Minister Tony Blair said the package of measures agreed in Brussels gave the EU "a very clear leadership position on this crucial issue facing the world".

He said the EU's 27 member states had also agreed to a target on the use of bio fuels.


These decisions are very important for the future of our planet, for the future generations, for the global community
Jose Manuel Barroso
European Commission President

Barroso defends 'gas guzzler'
Summit tests EU resolve
Europe diary: Going green
Speaking before Friday's agreement, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the proposed binding target on renewable energy would "inject a new quality into the energy and climate policy of the European Union".

The final text allows flexibility in how each country contributes to the overall target on renewable sources.

Poorer Eastern European countries, which are more dependent on heavy industry and carbon-heavy coal, had argued they would struggle to make the investment in wind farms and solar power necessary to meet binding targets.

The concerns of countries, like France, which wanted nuclear energy to be taken into account also had to be addressed.

Mrs Merkel, whose country holds the EU presidency, said nuclear energy was not renewable energy but conceded that it might be considered as part of the overall carbon reduction plan.

'Ambitious package'

Speaking before the agreement was announced, EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he was hopeful a historic agreement would be reached.

"These decisions are very important for the future of our planet, for the future generations, for the global community," he said.

"I hope a very ambitious package will come out of this summit - indeed, the most ambitious package ever agreed by any institution or any group of countries in the world on energy, security and climate protection."

It is thought the EU could offer to extend its 20% target for emissions cuts to 30% if other heavy polluters like the US, China and India come on board.

Honestly though does anyone think the US is likely to come on board soon? I mean obviously the republicans are the authority on AGW(anthropogenic Global Warming) So until the scientific fringe can overturn there incontravertable assertion that lalalalalalalalalalalalala it's not happening, does anyone see any chance of the US coming on board? Will a Democrat president push for something or not?

Anyway another question, do you as x citizen think you should be on board?

 

[El_Machinae]

The US is being sold on the concept of renewable fuels because of their dependance upon foreign fuels. People are making it a security issue.

 

[Mirc]

Wow, this is the first poll I've seen with 100% results for an option!
*waits for Americans to vote*

 

[Sidhe]

You can almost guarantee that the US citizens will sway the poles the other way and lets face it, everyone else is a wild card, I predict a pretty even swing between yes and no. but?

 

[dcbandicoot]

I voted US, on board no matter what. It's worth it.

 

[ShannonCT]

Honestly though does anyone think the US is likely to come on board soon? I mean obviously the republicans are the authority on AGW(anthropogenic Global Warming) So until the scientific fringe can overturn there incontravertable assertion that lalalalalalalalalalalalala it's not happening, does anyone see any chance of the US coming on board? Will a Democrat president push for something or not?

Voted for option 2.

The great majority of Republicans would be on board with Kyoto if it included China and India as equals. Even Bill Clinton rejected Kyoto as unfair to the US. This is an issue of the free-rider problem.

Another point: although nuclear energy is not renewable, we currently have a huge untapped world supply of nuclear fuel. Nuclear power will be viable for many centuries, and is just as good at reducing emission as wind and solar power. For once, I side with France.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not sold on nuclear, at all

The amortized capital costs make the operating+capital costs of everything else look cheap by comparison.

 

[ShannonCT]

I'm not sold on nuclear, at all

The amortized capital costs make the operating+capital costs of everything else look cheap by comparison.

Of course fossil fuels are still cheaper than nuclear when emissions aren't factored in as costs. If the US adopts Kyoto, emissions costs will become more severe and explicit for fossil fuel plants, and nuclear power will be competitive. Anyway, fossil fuels are running out.

And nuclear power is certainly cheaper than wind and solar power because of the latter's problem with intermitent supply. Recent efforts in the US to streamline the bureaucracy of new nuclear plant construction will make the economics even more favorable. I heartily approve.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, as long as it's not loan guarantees, which are basically subsidies. Then you're just forcing out superior products since there will be monopolies. And I don't think that nuclear is cheaper than fossil, even when fossil captures its externalities.

I think that the intermitency of solar and wind are not really problems, given that coal can subsidise them. Remember, the goal isn't to get to zero CO2 output, but to reduce CO2 output. Given that wind and sunlight are rather predictable, the coal-fired plant can be fired up during a shortage and slowed down (to idling) when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing.

 

[Riffraff]

Nice to see, that the EU is taking a step foward in the right direction, without concerning themselves too much with other nations. I don't think that simply pointing fingers and crying "but he's also doing it!!" will do our planet much good.

 

[Masquerouge]

Yay. I think this is a step in the right direction. France obviously had to whine, but at least that made a but more sense this time.

 

[Mercenary82]

I voted for option 3. However I would support cutting US emmissions if countries like India and China would do so, and if we could build more nuclear power plants throughout the country.

 

[ShannonCT]

Well, as long as it's not loan guarantees, which are basically subsidies. Then you're just forcing out superior products since there will be monopolies. And I don't think that nuclear is cheaper than fossil, even when fossil captures its externalities.

Every energy technology receives hefty subsidies (which I'm all for, as it benefits everyone to have reliable energy supplies).

The relative cost of fossil vs. nuclear depends on how you price emissions. But nuclear doesn't need to be cheaper, just competitive. Nuclear fuel reserves dwarf fossil fuel reserves; nuclear power will only grow cheaper in the coming decades.

I think that the intermitency of solar and wind are not really problems, given that coal can subsidise them. Remember, the goal isn't to get to zero CO2 output, but to reduce CO2 output. Given that wind and sunlight are rather predictable, the coal-fired plant can be fired up during a shortage and slowed down (to idling) when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing.

Let's assume for a minute that wind and solar with coal backups would be enough to meet our energy needs? Why not replace the coal plant with nuclear? Isn't more CO2 reduction better? Won't more CO2 reduction help to reverse climate change faster? What's your aversion to nuclear power?

Now, do you believe this assumption is actually right? Can we really make up for the coming fossil fuel gap with wind and solar in an economically sound way? A few decades down the road, when a billion cars need electricity (to charge their batteries or electrolyze water) to run, can wind, solar, and coal meet the need? I think nuclear power will become a growing necessity in the future, and it only makes good sense to make the technology cheaper and safer.

 

[Leonel]

I would say US on board and tell the member nations of OPEC to fall in a ditch!

 

[El_Machinae]

Hiya, Mr. CT. First off, I do not in any way disagree with this statement. If it seems that I do, then we're running into a communcation hiccup. If fully think that research into nuclear power should be subsidised and that the price and safety should be improved.

I think nuclear power will become a growing necessity in the future, and it only makes good sense to make the technology cheaper and safer.

Let's assume for a minute that wind and solar with coal backups would be enough to meet our energy needs? Why not replace the coal plant with nuclear? Isn't more CO2 reduction better? Won't more CO2 reduction help to reverse climate change faster? What's your aversion to nuclear power?

Now, do you believe this assumption is actually right? Can we really make up for the coming fossil fuel gap with wind and solar in an economically sound way? A few decades down the road, when a billion cars need electricity (to charge their batteries or electrolyze water) to run, can wind, solar, and coal meet the need?

Yes, more CO2 reduction is better. And to do that, we require money (which has opportunity cost). If you capture the offsetting of coal-fired CO2 in the price of the electricity (i.e., taxes which then are used in other programs) then you get the same effect as building a nuclear plant - a net zero CO2 output. Of course, this is the ideal scenario, and so I would like to do it as cheaply as possible. You raise a most interesting point, that pricing the offsetting of CO2 is how to compare the price of coal to the price of nuclear. I don't have numbers, but the capital costs of nuclear are so huge that I suspect that offsetting coal is cheaper.

And I'm quite certain that wind is much, much cheaper than nuclear. You'll need to keep your eyes open, but most pro-nuclear papers talk about 'operating cost to generate kWh' when they should be talking about operating costs + amortized capital costs. This means that as our needs for kWh goes up (and it blessedly will) then we should be supplying that need at the cheapest ecologically sound way.

But, I do see what you're getting at. We need sustained power sources (at the very least, to compensate for dark and still nights). As well, offsetting CO2 output is one of those programs that has diminishing returns. I can personally offset 2 tonnes of CO2 (per year) for very little personal cost. But the second 2 tonnes would be much, much more expensive. As the cost of offsetting CO2 rises (with the number of coal plants), then eventually it will become more expensive to supply the sustained power with nuclear.

*I'm a bit lost right now on the cost of solar. I know it's more expensive than coal right now, but it's really trying to become competitive.

 

[Sidhe]

Personally I think nuclear is the way to go too, but let's not forget it is a stop gap, at least with renewables there's an endless supply. I say focus on renewables, and then if you can't meet needs go for nuclear. Nuclear seems the contingency option atm, although it is much more viable than the alternatives if implemented properly. I'm really praying fusion will eventually pan out but, it's a little bit of a what if...

 

[Irish Caesar]

It would be nice to see the world on board, but I'm not holding my breath.

Personally I think nuclear is the way to go too, but let's not forget it is a stop gap, at least with renewables there's an endless supply.

Yes, but nuclear would be virtually endless if the international community weren't so squeamish about plutonium. There's plenty of ways to make more fuel than is consumed in a reactor, but burning plutonium just makes people nervous...

Nuclear does have obscene start-up costs, but with modularization (old reactors are all different, the newer ones are designed to be identical) and more reactors being built at existing plant sites, it's less than all new plants... and operating costs are far cheaper than oil and gas. The fact that so many utilities right now are interested in building new nuclear units after nuclear was pronounced dead after TMI and Chernobyl is a sign that perhaps they're not such a bad idea after all.

 

[Perfection]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6433503.stm



Honestly though does anyone think the US is likely to come on board soon? I mean obviously the republicans are the authority on AGW(anthropogenic Global Warming) So until the scientific fringe can overturn there incontravertable assertion that lalalalalalalalalalalalala it's not happening, does anyone see any chance of the US coming on board? Will a Democrat president push for something or not?

Anyway another question, do you as x citizen think you should be on board?

When it comes to US environmental initiatives it's often the individual states that are the leaders rather then the federal government. For instance, my state (Minnesota) has mandated that electric companies use 25% wind energy by 2025.

 

[Mercenary82]

India and China will never reduce their pollution if Europe and America do this. They will figure since Europe and America have cut back on pollution, we can pollute even more now. It has to be a worldwide agreement for this to work.

 

[Sidhe]

India and China will never reduce their pollution if Europe and America do this. They will figure since Europe and America have cut back on pollution, we can pollute even more now. It has to be a worldwide agreement for this to work.

Oh I get in other words they will act with the same childish idiocy as you(Republican asshats) Do? You may be right?

But dad he's doing it!!!

Moderator Action: Wared - language.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889