tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post6726087288147432499..comments2022-11-14T10:36:20.805+00:00Comments on BilloTheWisp: Dead Germans Don't CountBilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-49277716587199186382014-02-06T18:06:22.568+00:002014-02-06T18:06:22.568+00:00An interesting exchange on Twitter Hanno. But I...An interesting exchange on Twitter Hanno. But I'll just put up here a link or two to data regarding how regressive this all is.<br /><br />See: Der Speigel here http://bit.ly/1eXSidZ<br /><br />In 2012 alone, 3GW new Lignite was commissioned and there is more in the pipeline. As the Der Speigel article accurately points out the lost nuclear <br />capacity has been made up by coal both brown and hard. The consequence of this is people will die - and your CO2 emissions will go up.<br /><br />One twitterer pointed out that actually I was wrong and that 8GW coal (both hard and lignite) was going to be commissioned not 5.8GW.<br />Link here: http://bit.ly/1g6sNth So maybe my figure is too low.<br /><br />However you seem to be pedantically obsessed with the 5.8GW I quoted. True I said it was lignite. You seemed to assert that it would hard coal instead. That hardly makes it all better does it? The difference is Lignite kills 32 people per TW/hr whereas hard coal kills 26. I hope you do not find that minor difference acceptable. I still think your wrong but 26 dead and several thousand sick from per TW/hr is more than enough for me anyway.<br /><br />I was a little alarmed by your twitter phraseology as suggesting that the two highly regarded peer reviewed papers I quote above were actually not so. That seemed a little like a political ploy to suggest that the whole of this data was wrong because my 5.8GW was itself not actually "peer reviewed" <br />Of course it was not! This is blog not a peer reviewed paper! Even so the figure is about right. I got the figure off the web, but as you fully know it IS roughly correct.<br /> <br />But whether it is 4GW or 8GW is immaterial. Thousands of people have been condemned to an ugly death by closing down the German Nuclear plant. Many more (10,000's) will suffer years of ill-health. Quibbling about whether its brown coal or hard coal or whether my figure is marginally incorrect smacks of defending your agenda much in the same way the tobacco and asbestos companies once did.<br /><br />If you can see any serious flaws in my calculation, or if you can prove your lignite burning plant is somehow miraculously non-polluting please enlighten me. <br /><br />Otherwise I suggest you analyse your motives for denying the science and condemning thousands to an early grave. BilloTheWisphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-88616857963552346942014-02-06T12:57:15.300+00:002014-02-06T12:57:15.300+00:00Already answered you on twitter, but some more det...Already answered you on twitter, but some more details here:<br /><br />You write: "Then we found out that their grand plan involved building 5800 MW of Lignite burning coal plant."<br /><br />That's just plain wrong in many ways.<br /><br />Here are the facts:<br />* There were 10 coal plants built in the past years or are still in construction, but none of them in response to the post-fukushima nuclear phaseout. Power plants don't get build overnight. These are old plans.<br />* After the 2011 nuclear phaseout decision not a single new coal plant construction was started.<br />* From those 10 plants, only 2 are lignite. The rest is hard coal.<br /><br />That said: I think a lot is going in the wrong direction with the german "Energiewende" and especially the role of coal. The construction of these coal plants was a mistake. And hard coal is only slightly better than lignite.<br /><br />But discussing that makes a lot more sense if you get the basic facts correct.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00857218075990031511noreply@blogger.com