Germany to Close All 84 Coal-fired power plants, rely primarily on Renewable energy

[Crick]

The conclusions of scientific studies are not OPINIONS.

 

[skookerasbil]

The conclusions of scientific studies are not OPINIONS.

But policy makers see them as opinions. And that's what matters. If public policy makers took the scientific studies seriously, then the President is talking about climate change last night. But not a word.....because it is a peripheral concern to most. "Most" means majority btw.

Let's face it.....sure the science is there and everybody knows about it. They're just not nearly as impressed with it as you are.

 

[Unkotare]

A Big/significant Move.
GAME CHANGER.
Doesn't mean they won't be using NatGas though.

Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely primarily on renewable energy
By ERIK KIRSCHBAUM
JAN 26, 2019 - LA Times
Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely primarily on renewable energy

Germany, one of the world’s biggest consumers of coal, will shut down all 84 of its coal-fired power plants over the next 19 years to meet its international commitments in the fight against climate change, a government commission said Saturday.

The announcement marked a significant shift for Europe’s largest country — a nation that had long been a leader on cutting CO2 emissions before turning into a laggard in recent years and badly missing its reduction targets. Coal plants account for 40% of Germany’s electricity, itself a reduction from recent years when coal dominated power production.

“This is an historic accomplishment,” said Ronald Pofalla, chairman of the 28-member govt commission, at a news conference in Berlin following a marathon 21-hour negotiating session that concluded at 6 a.m. Saturday. The breakthrough ended seven months of wrangling...
[.....]​

up TROLL SkookersASS, people DO care.
`

And with that, Germany becomes ever more Russia’s bitch.

 

[skookerasbil]

A Big/significant Move.
GAME CHANGER.
Doesn't mean they won't be using NatGas though.

Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely primarily on renewable energy
By ERIK KIRSCHBAUM
JAN 26, 2019 - LA Times
Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely primarily on renewable energy

Germany, one of the world’s biggest consumers of coal, will shut down all 84 of its coal-fired power plants over the next 19 years to meet its international commitments in the fight against climate change, a government commission said Saturday.

The announcement marked a significant shift for Europe’s largest country — a nation that had long been a leader on cutting CO2 emissions before turning into a laggard in recent years and badly missing its reduction targets. Coal plants account for 40% of Germany’s electricity, itself a reduction from recent years when coal dominated power production.

“This is an historic accomplishment,” said Ronald Pofalla, chairman of the 28-member govt commission, at a news conference in Berlin following a marathon 21-hour negotiating session that concluded at 6 a.m. Saturday. The breakthrough ended seven months of wrangling...
[.....]​

up TROLL SkookersASS, people DO care.
`

And with that, Germany becomes ever more Russia’s bitch.

Indeed

One thing I gotta say reading the posts of the climate crusaders in here. They are most definitely hyper- idealistic....I'll give them that. How they sustain it, I have no idea? On a Bell Curve however, it's way right or way left. Not sure which one!

 

[Crick]

And with that, Germany becomes ever more Russia’s bitch.

Why?

 

[polarbear]

And with that, Germany becomes ever more Russia’s bitch.

Why?

Why because the first thing Putin`s bitch did was to make Germany TOTALLY DEPENDENT on Russia`s Gazprom while selling the illusion that "green energy" can make up for the energy sectors she systematically sabotaged ever since communist bitches like her were integrated into a unified Germany.

 

[polarbear]

The conclusions of scientific studies are not OPINIONS.

Just how do opinions that incorporate wording like may-might-likely-could etc get to be a "scientific conclusion"? Everybody I know would walk away from a service garage that diagnosed their car like that or refuse to fly with an airline that makes such "conclusions". Would you drive a fully loaded truck over a bridge that "may-might-could or is likely" to be ok in the opinion of the people who got the contract to build it? Sure as hell not if the contractor was government funded (like climate "science")unless you are a total retard!!!!

 

[Crick]

The conclusions of scientific studies are not OPINIONS.

Just how do opinions that incorporate wording like may-might-likely-could etc get to be a "scientific conclusion"? Everybody I know would walk away from a service garage that diagnosed their car like that or refuse to fly with an airline that makes such "conclusions". Would you drive a fully loaded truck over a bridge that "may-might-could or is likely" to be ok in the opinion of the people who got the contract to build it? Sure as hell not if the contractor was government funded (like climate "science")unless you are a total retard!!!!

You are again demonstrating your infamiliarity with the scientific method and the natural sciences. This also fits in quite neatly with the DK effect, but I will not go there. There are no proofs in the natural sciences thus there are no absolute conclusions. Scientists are TRAINED to use phrases such as those you denigrate. Studies examine evidence, not proofs. Evidence does not provide absolute conclusions. It provides weight to push one towards one hypothesis or another.

Speaking of good science, did you have a look yet at the reviews provided to the study of Dr Heinz Hug to which you indirectly linked? Dr Hug did a laboratory experiment on which he concluded that the CO2 doubling value should be reduced by a factor of 80. The reviews - all of them - disagreed.

 

[polarbear]

The conclusions of scientific studies are not OPINIONS.

Just how do opinions that incorporate wording like may-might-likely-could etc get to be a "scientific conclusion"? Everybody I know would walk away from a service garage that diagnosed their car like that or refuse to fly with an airline that makes such "conclusions". Would you drive a fully loaded truck over a bridge that "may-might-could or is likely" to be ok in the opinion of the people who got the contract to build it? Sure as hell not if the contractor was government funded (like climate "science")unless you are a total retard!!!!

You are again demonstrating your infamiliarity with the scientific method and the natural sciences. This also fits in quite neatly with the DK effect, but I will not go there. There are no proofs in the natural sciences thus there are no absolute conclusions. Scientists are TRAINED to use phrases such as those you denigrate. Studies examine evidence, not proofs. Evidence does not provide absolute conclusions. It provides weight to push one towards one hypothesis or another.

Speaking of good science, did you have a look yet at the reviews provided to the study of Dr Heinz Hug to which you indirectly linked? Dr Hug did a laboratory experiment on which he concluded that the CO2 doubling value should be reduced by a factor of 80. The reviews - all of them - disagreed.

Hahaha of course they would disagree with him even though none of them had any concrete EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE to substantiate their vitriolic attacks on him which included trying to trash his reputation& job.
"Scientists are trained to use such phrases".???? What hard science uses may-might-could speculation?
These terms are indicative of so called soft science that reach "conclusions" by consensus but none of them attack and smear anyone who does a critical analysis as it is routine procedure in climate "science" when somebody steps on the eggs chicken little laid.

 

[Crick]

Maybe it's time to admit that what you do not know you do not know.

 

[polarbear]

Maybe it's time to admit that what you do not know you do not know.

Speak for yourself. I know what I know and what I have done, which is a far cry from what you ever did. You would not know where to begin if somebody put you in a lab and do a trace analysis of anything. What is it you do again ? Go out on a boat and take selfies being some sort of algae or bug counting "scientist" with a wikipedia degree in physics and math that goes poof as soon as the WiFi goes down.

 

[Crick]

Did you read those reviews of your Dr Hug?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Did you read those reviews of your Dr Hug?

The Shills for green energy bull shit? The problem with most of the rebuttals is they are predicated on failed modeling. They simply can not discern fiction from fact

I'm glad Germans with brains are putting the kibosh on you're green suicide pact..

Official: Germany Could Slow Phase-Out of Coal

 

[Billy_Bob]

I have to disagree. Her belief was based on ignorance and unsupportable. My belief is based on solid physics and is supported by thousands of published studies and the opinions of almost every scientist in the field world wide.

There is your mistake. You conflate "solid physics" with the OPINIONS of so called scientists in a field that`s not really a science. As if the crap M.Mann published which is the under pinning of all the rest of this ridiculous crap has anything to do with science.

Crick is easily fooled by lying scum. The worst part is he cant see the grim reaper coming for him first just as he has done for every other useful idiot of the left.

Physics is a game to him and the need for empirical proof is non-existent. He simply 'believes'...

 

[Crick]

I have to disagree. Her belief was based on ignorance and unsupportable. My belief is based on solid physics and is supported by thousands of published studies and the opinions of almost every scientist in the field world wide.

There is your mistake. You conflate "solid physics" with the OPINIONS of so called scientists in a field that`s not really a science. As if the crap M.Mann published which is the under pinning of all the rest of this ridiculous crap has anything to do with science.

English lesson: The conjunction "and" is used to connect two words with different meanings: "bread and butter", "studies and opinions". And you skipped past the thousands of peer reviewed studies published in refereed science journals whose results form the conclusions of the IPCC's assessment reports. Michael Mann's published studies are, in fact, real science.

Crick is easily fooled by lying scum.

Are you suggesting you believe 98% of the world's climate scientists to be "lying scum"? And yet you've been accepted into a doctoral study of a climate science program - or so you claim. Or is it the authors of 7th grade Physical Science textbooks that earn your ire; those that teach us about gravity and magnetic fields and photons energy and matter and the other utter science basics with which you seem to have problems?

The worst part is he cant see the grim reaper coming for him first just as he has done for every other useful idiot of the left.

What the fuck is this? Surely you're aware that Rule #3 under USMB Rules and Guidelines reads:

• No Direct or implied threats of violence/harm towards another member, or members family and/or threats with the intent of interfering in or disrupting a member's life. Moderation may act on obvious Stalking and Harassment of members on the forums.

Physics is a game to him and the need for empirical proof is non-existent. He simply 'believes'...

Again (and again and again and again and again) there are no proofs in the natural sciences. For that matter, there is no such thing as "empirical proof" There is only empirical evidence and there are mountains of that: air, water and ground temperature data, atmospheric chemistry data, ice and snowfall data, TSI data, satellite data, spectral data, etc, etc, etc. And every bit of it that isn't a fooking projection is EMPIRICAL.

 

[xband]

There could be coal miners on this board but nobody knows about BTU's.except for xband let alone latent heat.

 

[Crick]

I think several people here are familiar with BTUs and latent heat.

 

[abu afak]

Maybe it's time to admit that what you do not know you do not know.

Agreed.
Elektra just bumped up a 3.5 yr OLD thread that no longer applies.
The world is going renewable.

 

[fncceo]

Germany ... thrown into economic chaos by a ridiculous politically motivated decision?

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Mindful]

And with that, Germany becomes ever more Russia’s bitch.

Why?

Why because the first thing Putin`s bitch did was to make Germany TOTALLY DEPENDENT on Russia`s Gazprom while selling the illusion that "green energy" can make up for the energy sectors she systematically sabotaged ever since communist bitches like her were integrated into a unified Germany.

Trace Gazprom back to Gerard Schröder, who serves as the chairman of Russian energy company Rosneft, ruined Germany with Hartz lV.

Not only that, Schröder (as lawyer) helped Horst Mahler, a founding member of the Baader-Meinhof terrorist group, to secure both an early release from prison and permission to practice law again in Germany.(wiki)