Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Germany went "green"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Germany went &quot;green&quot;

    Girls girls you're both pretty. Can we stop the cat fight?

    VOLAND: Back to the topic: What do you think about my last post to you? The pebble beds.

    ?


    • #17
      Re: Germany went &amp;quot;green&amp;quot;

      Originally posted by reality View Post
      Girls girls you're both pretty. Can we stop the cat fight?

      VOLAND: Back to the topic: What do you think about my last post to you? The pebble beds.

      The pebble beds ? Well, Germany has operated pebble bed reactors since the 1960s and up until 2008 (Jlich plant, Cologne region), you dont think they may have have a bit of experience ? Pebble bed most of all doesnt solve a problem that may not be as important in a country with the size and the geography (plenty of wide open space) of the US, for Germany it is however : Final storage. Even people unsuspicious of being idelogically prejudiced against nuclear energy are now openly discussing wether it is even possible in Germany, due to geological as well as demographical reasons (proximity to populated areas, ground water, agriculture etc.). Fact is, Germany has been working on safe final storage for the last four/five decades. And it is most certainly not due to a lack of efforts or scientific incompetence in principle that a solution has not been found. The existing facilities, all once claimed to be safe ( also by a certain Angela Merkel, who was environmental minister during the late 90s), are leaking like sponges (which is a documentable fact) and the new governement has just once again kicked off a new search. As long as a source of energy produces dangerous trash tough to handle for generations it is a bit daring to call it "safe" or "clean", right ?
      The pebble bed reactor at Jlich was notorious for a long list of accidents and barely averted accidents, often hidden by the operators as long as possible, over decades. And the pebble-bed reactor at Hamm-Uentrop (northern Rhineland-Westphalia) even needed to be shut down after a barely averted explosion due to jammed pebbles ( a week after Chernobyl !).
      The site at Jlich, that was till 2008 used for research even after the reactor was taken off the commercial grid is according to german governement one of the most contaminated of its kind in western Europe ( confirmed again in 2010) and dismantling the bloody thing as well as de-contaminating the zone will take like a century (according to estimations by the governement, not Greenpeace).
      German energy corporations decided to scrap the pebble bed concept thus for practical reasons.

      1.Does not solve nuclear trash problem. (and it is the companies that ultimately pay for their trash)

      2. Eliminating safety concerns would have required heavy investions unlikely to pay off (if at all) in a reasonable timeframe.

      3. Little public acceptance.


      Additionally the german governement was moving towards de-centralizing and diversifying energy supply ( and breaking the power of the big corporations) already before 2011. That means the "big four" of the german energy market considered it to be wiser to adapt to the regulatory environment and to focus on regaining market shares by investing in "green" technology research instead of nuclear themselves. Which was precisely the desired effect :


      U.S. Energy Policy Should Take a Lesson From Germany

      Germany's commitment to renewables has helped create jobs and drive economic opportunities. Since 2004, clean energy investments grew by 122 percent. Jobs in the renewable energy sector have more than doubled to around 380,000 jobs in the same timeframe.....Germany's success points the way to a very different future. The country's energy transformation can be traced back to 1991, with its first feed-in-tariff -- a policy that supports renewable energy investment by offering long-term contracts to energy producers. In 2000, Germany expanded this policy into the more comprehensive Renewable Energy Act . For homeowners, farmers and businesses, this policy meant that they could invest in a wind turbine or buy solar panels confident that they would get a steady return on their investment..............Germany’s experiences provide valuable lessons and insights, including for U.S. policymakers states. Three principles stand out:

      First, Germany has a national vision and commitment to renewable energy. Over the past decade, Germany's political leaders -- backed by strong popular support -- have made renewable generation the cornerstone of its energy future. Successive governments have used stable and long-term policies to turn this into a reality. This has created an atmosphere in which renewable energy investment is considered a safe choice, not a risky one.

      Second, Germany's policies are consistent, but still flexible. The government has set targets; policies are adjusted as markets develop and technologies evolve. For example, while Germany has maintained its feed-in tariff for two decades, it has gradually adjusted the rate as necessary to track falling costs. Support rates for solar photovoltaic (PV) projects are now adjusted every month. For small rooftop solar installations, the rate today is 58 percent below where it stood five years ago, saving money and pointing a way towards competitiveness with fossil fuels.

      Third, Germany is showing that transforming the electricity system can be done economically and affordably. Despite economic uncertainty around the globe, Germany's economy remains strong. The shift to renewables requires upfront investments, but these investments will have payoffs. By 2015, the cost of electricity from a system consisting of wind and solar PV, with backup storage, is expected to be about the same as that of natural gas and coal. From that point on, power customers will save significant amounts of money, as renewable energy costs continue to fall and those of fossil fuels rise..
      Last edited by Voland; 01-25-2014, 05:04 AM.

      ?


      • #18
        Re: Germany went &quot;green&quot;

        Voland: you can export the storage friend. Plenty of 3rd world nations would literally kill to take your money.

        Encasing the pebbles in lead when youre done with them also neatly solves your problem except for the dust in the reactor itself which is covered by the non radioconductive helium.

        The reactors y'all had a problem with weren't used correctly. This objection is why I linked not just to the article but to the concerns/criticism section. Read the story and you find that just like Fukushima they didn't do it right.
        You make a point. Y'all have been using 50yr old tech. Build new ones. Don't use ammonia with the helium etc. Don't try to dislodge the pebble with a stick. Etc.

        ?


        • #19
          Re: Germany went &quot;green&quot;

          The Scandinavian countries are also having problems with nuke waste. Using water to cool & store the waste, while at the same time depending on clean water for much of their domestic food supply. Lead containers sound like another contamination problem waiting to happen.

          Of course, nuclear reactions might well produce energy and are worth lots of R&D investment. But waste containment and disposal have to be figured into the life-cycle costs of any energy source.

          ?


          • #20
            Re: Germany went &quot;green&quot;

            Originally posted by reality View Post
            Voland: you can export the storage friend. Plenty of 3rd world nations would literally kill to take your money.

            Encasing the pebbles in lead when youre done with them also neatly solves your problem except for the dust in the reactor itself which is covered by the non radioconductive helium.

            The reactors y'all had a problem with weren't used correctly. This objection is why I linked not just to the article but to the concerns/criticism section. Read the story and you find that just like Fukushima they didn't do it right.
            You make a point. Y'all have been using 50yr old tech. Build new ones. Don't use ammonia with the helium etc. Don't try to dislodge the pebble with a stick. Etc.

            Germany is a -state of the art- hightech economy, dude. Fifty years old nuke tech equipment may be used in some corners of eastern Europe still, in Germany or other parts of central Europe most certainly not.
            Saddling third world nations with our poisonous trash, especially if taking advantage of local corruption, isnt an energy policy, it is a crime. And having to saddle future generations with the cleanup and vast costs ( safe long term storage) is neither very "clean" nor very cost-efficient. Nor very responsible ( dealing with your own trash ?). Also uranium is a 100 % imported ressource by the way ( Brazil, Australia, China), whose price and supply depends on market movements.
            That the pebble bed concept does NOT solve the nuclear trash problem is also acknowledged by your own link :

            Pebble-bed reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

            Current US legislation requires all waste to be safely contained, therefore pebble-bed reactors would increase existing storage problems. Defects in the production of pebbles may also cause problems. The radioactive waste must either be safely stored for many human generations, typically in a deep geological repository, reprocessed, transmuted in a different type of reactor, or disposed of by some other alternative method yet to be devised. The graphite pebbles are more difficult to reprocess due to their construction,[citation needed] which is not true of the fuel from other types of reactors.


            The german energy corporations have buried the pebble-bed concept years before the nuclear-phase out by the way (in 2008). They said it wouldnt keep what it once promised, regarding trash, safety and commercial exploitation compared to "normal reactors". Currently China is the only nation that actually builds pebble bed reactors.

            While Germany has embarked on its own course, and the nuclear phase out is now law. There is a national plan/effort (linked more than once on here now), that all major partys (and around 90 % of the population, according to the latest poll) support at least in principle ( adjustment in response to new developments is possible, on the goals and on the broad course to get there is agreement, that means also changes in governement wont mean major changes of course) and that rests on three pillars, so to say, on nuclear phase-out, boosting renewables use and R&D (currently around 25 %, tendency sharply rising), and boosting energy efficiency ( in construction, in production, manufacturing etc. Energy you dont consume, due to better management, use of ressources, materials is energy you dont need to produce/buy/pay, right ?).
            The goals are nothing more and nothing less than energy security and energy independence ( from fossiles, imports, global market disruptions etc.) And to put german companies in the global drivers seat on green tech (Greentech is a multiple billions market and employs hundreds of thousands of people in this country). That means, besides solving its energy issues, Germany seeks to run the energy transformation as an innovation and R&D engine for greentech companies and establishing itself as a hub (which it already is actually). Of course the "Energiewende" is a gamble and requires long term horizons and long term investions ( that may need adjustment now and then). And most contemporary taxpayers dont need to lectured that they much rather invest for the coming generation than themselves. But that should also explain why it makes little sense to take stories or soundbits out of context while not looking at the whole effort.

            There is another factor that usually gets less attention in the US press than the "lunacy" of quitting nuclear energy (probably because the role of the big corporations is still pretty much unquestioned on the US energy market, right ?). Democratization and regionalization of the energy supply :


            German Law Gave Citizens a Stake in Clean Energy Switch - Bloomberg

            But the real key to getting the German public to embrace the Energiewende was based less on what was in people's hearts and more on what was in their wallets. This was accomplished by giving every German the legal right to generate power and sell it to the grid, through a provision known as the Feed-in Tariff, or FiT.

            The FiT helped decentralize power generation by setting a guaranteed premium price paid to anyone—individual homeowners, groups of neighbors or large companies—who produces energy for the grid using renewable sources. Farmers were among the first to take advantage of this new right. Because wind turbines leave relatively small footprints on large fields, they gained a lucrative new source of income while maintaining the old one.

            The government sets the amount of the renewable bonus, but it doesn't fund it. Ratepayers do, as part of a monthly surcharge that shows up on their utility bills. The average German household pays around $108 a month for electricity, with the renewable energy surcharge accounting for $11.50 of that amount. (By comparison, an equivalent U.S. household pays $110 per month for electricity.)

            The FiT works better than direct government subsidies or tax credits, supporters say. Subsidies can soar or plunge after each election, so they often fail to provide the stability that businesses need. But the FiT largely protects investments in renewable energy from politics by giving producers a 20-year guarantee on the amount they'll receive for the electricity they generate. The size of this renewable energy bonus shrinks every year, adding incentive to get solar panels and other renewable power plants up and running as soon as possible....Unlike in the United States, where most people get their electricity from a single utility, Germans are free to choose from more than 800 electric companies. The success of her co-op shows that Germans are willing to pay more for renewable power, Sladek once told a German reporter, adding, "People aren't as dumb as politicians and energy providers think."
            Last edited by Voland; 01-27-2014, 03:29 AM.

            ?


            • #21
              Re: Germany went &quot;green&quot;

              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              The Scandinavian countries are also having problems with nuke waste. Using water to cool & store the waste, while at the same time depending on clean water for much of their domestic food supply. Lead containers sound like another contamination problem waiting to happen.

              Of course, nuclear reactions might well produce energy and are worth lots of R&D investment. But waste containment and disposal have to be figured into the life-cycle costs of any energy source.
              Shield the pebble with lead. Then shield the lead shielded pebble in another layer of ceramic. FIFY

              ?


              • #22
                Re: Germany went &quot;green&quot;

                Originally posted by Voland View Post
                Germany is a -state of the art- hightech economy, dude. Fifty years old nuke tech equipment may be used in some corners of eastern Europe still, in Germany or other parts of central Europe most certainly not.
                Saddling third world nations with our poisonous trash, especially if taking advantage of local corruption, isnt an energy policy, it is a crime. And having to saddle future generations with the cleanup and vast costs ( safe long term storage) is neither very "clean" nor very cost-efficient. Nor very responsible ( dealing with your own trash ?). Also uranium is a 100 % imported ressource by the way ( Brazil, Australia, China), whose price and supply depends on market movements.
                That the pebble bed concept does NOT solve the nuclear trash problem is also acknowledged by your own link :

                Pebble-bed reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                Current US legislation requires all waste to be safely contained, therefore pebble-bed reactors would increase existing storage problems. Defects in the production of pebbles may also cause problems. The radioactive waste must either be safely stored for many human generations, typically in a deep geological repository, reprocessed, transmuted in a different type of reactor, or disposed of by some other alternative method yet to be devised. The graphite pebbles are more difficult to reprocess due to their construction,[citation needed] which is not true of the fuel from other types of reactors.


                The german energy corporations have buried the pebble-bed concept years before the nuclear-phase out by the way (in 2008). They said it wouldnt keep what it once promised, regarding trash, safety and commercial exploitation compared to "normal reactors". Currently China is the only nation that actually builds pebble bed reactors.

                While Germany has embarked on its own course, and the nuclear phase out is now law. There is a national plan/effort (linked more than once on here now), that all major partys (and around 90 % of the population, according to the latest poll) support at least in principle ( adjustment in response to new developments is possible, on the goals and on the broad course to get there is agreement, that means also changes in governement wont mean major changes of course) and that rests on three pillars, so to say, on nuclear phase-out, boosting renewables use and R&D (currently around 25 %, tendency sharply rising), and boosting energy efficiency ( in construction, in production, manufacturing etc. Energy you dont consume, due to better management, use of ressources, materials is energy you dont need to produce/buy/pay, right ?).
                The goals are nothing more and nothing less than energy security and energy independence ( from fossiles, imports, global market disruptions etc.) And to put german companies in the global drivers seat on green tech (Greentech is a multiple billions market and employs hundreds of thousands of people in this country). That means, besides solving its energy issues, Germany seeks to run the energy transformation as an innovation and R&D engine for greentech companies and establishing itself as a hub (which it already is actually). Of course the "Energiewende" is a gamble and requires long term horizons and long term investions ( that may need adjustment now and then). And most contemporary taxpayers dont need to lectured that they much rather invest for the coming generation than themselves. But that should also explain why it makes little sense to take stories or soundbits out of context while not looking at the whole effort.

                There is another factor that usually gets less attention in the US press than the "lunacy" of quitting nuclear energy (probably because the role of the big corporations is still pretty much unquestioned on the US energy market, right ?). Democratization and regionalization of the energy supply :


                German Law Gave Citizens a Stake in Clean Energy Switch - Bloomberg

                But the real key to getting the German public to embrace the Energiewende was based less on what was in people's hearts and more on what was in their wallets. This was accomplished by giving every German the legal right to generate power and sell it to the grid, through a provision known as the Feed-in Tariff, or FiT.

                The FiT helped decentralize power generation by setting a guaranteed premium price paid to anyone—individual homeowners, groups of neighbors or large companies—who produces energy for the grid using renewable sources. Farmers were among the first to take advantage of this new right. Because wind turbines leave relatively small footprints on large fields, they gained a lucrative new source of income while maintaining the old one.

                The government sets the amount of the renewable bonus, but it doesn't fund it. Ratepayers do, as part of a monthly surcharge that shows up on their utility bills. The average German household pays around $108 a month for electricity, with the renewable energy surcharge accounting for $11.50 of that amount. (By comparison, an equivalent U.S. household pays $110 per month for electricity.)

                The FiT works better than direct government subsidies or tax credits, supporters say. Subsidies can soar or plunge after each election, so they often fail to provide the stability that businesses need. But the FiT largely protects investments in renewable energy from politics by giving producers a 20-year guarantee on the amount they'll receive for the electricity they generate. The size of this renewable energy bonus shrinks every year, adding incentive to get solar panels and other renewable power plants up and running as soon as possible....Unlike in the United States, where most people get their electricity from a single utility, Germans are free to choose from more than 800 electric companies. The success of her co-op shows that Germans are willing to pay more for renewable power, Sladek once told a German reporter, adding, "People aren't as dumb as politicians and energy providers think."
                Read the article. The reactors yall used, that had a problem, were PROTOTYPES made long long ago. Yall ARE high tech, but yall weren't USING high tech in that instance.
                Its ok, we're pretty high tech and we don't either. Again, I'm not throwing stones, (at least not any I wouldn't hurl at my own house) just having a discussion.

                Shielded pebbles don't leak. Rads don't escape lead and lead doesn't escape ceramic. That is hardly irresponsible.
                As to your article: yeah that's pretty nifty. Except for the problems that current solar and wind power have with the environment. Apparently there are new solar cells in the works that use table salt instead of heavy metals. But they won't be out for some time and there is no indication they will work like they are planned. Interesting stuff though.

                As to "one utility" IDK about new york or any of those urban shit holes but here in the burbs I've got 17 energy companies to pick from last I checked. And that's in my little rural area. I'm also apprently 10 bucks below average on my bill must be all that competition driving the market price down

                ?


                • #23
                  Re: Germany went &quot;green&quot;

                  Ok, fuck it... I'll say it. Germany will be green the moment they successfully invade France, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway.

                  ?


                  • #24
                    Re: Germany went &quot;green&quot;

                    Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                    Ok, fuck it... I'll say it. Germany will be green the moment they successfully invade France, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway.
                    Its never a good idea to invade switzerland. NEVER EVER.

                    ?


                    • #25
                      Re: Germany went &quot;green&quot;

                      Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                      Ok, fuck it... I'll say it. Germany will be green the moment they successfully invade France, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway.
                      I don't know, if you invade France, the yellow may rub off.

                      ?


                      • #26
                        Re: Germany went &quot;green&quot;

                        Originally posted by reality View Post
                        Read the article. The reactors yall used, that had a problem, were PROTOTYPES made long long ago. Yall ARE high tech, but yall weren't USING high tech in that instance.
                        Its ok, we're pretty high tech and we don't either. Again, I'm not throwing stones, (at least not any I wouldn't hurl at my own house) just having a discussion.

                        Shielded pebbles don't leak. Rads don't escape lead and lead doesn't escape ceramic. That is hardly irresponsible.
                        As to your article: yeah that's pretty nifty. Except for the problems that current solar and wind power have with the environment. Apparently there are new solar cells in the works that use table salt instead of heavy metals. But they won't be out for some time and there is no indication they will work like they are planned. Interesting stuff though.
                        As to "one utility" IDK about new york or any of those urban shit holes but here in the burbs I've got 17 energy companies to pick from last I checked. And that's in my little rural area. I'm also apprently 10 bucks below average on my bill must be all that competition driving the market price down



                        YOUR link says that pebble bed reactors would INCREASE existing nuclear storage problems, even for the US (and I quoted the relevant part above, in post Nr. 20). And for Germany, with its much higher population density, the lack of suitable final storage sites and vast, uninhibited space, nuclear power was reaching the limits of ecological reason (ground water, agriculture ?), even without a national renewable energy plan/policy anyway. Nuke tech is thus, if you calculate the entire chain, including the point about burdening future generations, neither very clean, nor very safe, nor very cheap.
                        And I trust "big electro" as far I can throw them, but I trust that they wouldnt have dropped a sound technology, if they had seen a base to exploit it commercially. Your link is basically in line with the german research that I am aware of (that was running until five/six, not fifty years ago). At the very least "solving the existing problems, such as waste (which is not so much a statement about the technology as such, but about dealing with its leftovers) and safety would require another incalculable and open ended period of R&D and huge investments" or so the statement on shutting down the Jlich reactor finally said. These were their words, not mine. But there must be a reason why only the Chinese are currently continuing to build it, right ?
                        Anyway, most of the apokalyptic claims regarding Germanys nuclear phase out ("lunacy"/"the Economist", "madness"/"New York Times") have quite evidently not materialized, mostly because journalists were too lazy (or monolingual) to do proper research. That starts with the fact that not just Germany, but also Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland are in the process of phasing out nuclear power.
                        Germany has remained a huge net energy exporter (and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future), in spite of shutting down eight nuclear plants ( and the rest by 2022). Boosting renewables has neither led to unemployment (rather the contrary) nor to power shortages (Germanys grid is regularly rated as one of the most reliable ones in Europe). It has not led to companys leaving the country in masses nor to crushing energy costs for private consumers.
                        That is not to say that the "Energiewende" would be easy, a free ride or a done deal. Not at all. But ( largely predictable) problems arent evidence that the course as such is misguided ( as the US press sometimes tries to paint it).
                        Americans too often think in 100 % polarized /either-or scenarios ( that makes it difficult to find pragmatic and consensual solutions and especially for various political camps to seal societal compromises). While Germans are more accepting that noone will get 100 % (also not of renewables) and problems have to solved along the way, once agreement on the course is established ( like doubts about non environmentally friendly components in older and chinese-made solar cells, or a TEMPORARY rise in carbon emissions f.e.). Germans on the other hand seek to plan, prepare, organize, and assess everything. Which can be a virtue, but they can also terribly overdo it. Like drowning even worthwhile projects in a bureaucratic mess. Or stumbling over unexpected things that dont go according to plan. It is f.e. not quite clear what happens to the energy goals if the economic environment turns out to be less rosy in a couple of years. Or to put it very sober : The scaremongerers have largely been discredited, which doesnt mean that everything is as smooth and rosy as the Greenpeace corner claims. It is a challenge. And yes, these are personal opinions.
                        Each of our nations will have no choice but to adapt its energy structures, its power utilities, its incentives and grid structure to the globalized age anyway. And also efficiency of energy consumption and sustainability of supply ( trash !) will be factors. The Germans have developed an ambitious national plan with roles and incentives for governement, companies, society and customers over a generation that may once pass as an example of far-sighted policies or as a big gamble. Yet noone has a crystal ball. But noone will be able to avoid these questions as well. Since they will greatly determine the standing of our economies in the new century.
                        Last edited by Voland; 01-28-2014, 02:24 AM.

                        ?


                        • #27
                          Re: Germany went &quot;green&quot;

                          Originally posted by Voland View Post
                          YOUR link says that pebble bed reactors would INCREASE existing nuclear storage problems, even for the US (and I quoted the relevant part above, in post Nr. 20). And for Germany, with its much higher population density, the lack of suitable final storage sites and vast, uninhibited space, nuclear power was reaching the limits of ecological reason (ground water, agriculture ?), even without a national renewable energy plan/policy anyway. Nuke tech is thus, if you calculate the entire chain, including the point about burdening future generations, neither very clean, nor very safe, nor very cheap.
                          And I trust "big electro" as far I can throw them, but I trust that they wouldnt have dropped a sound technology, if they had seen a base to exploit it commercially. Your link is basically in line with the german research that I am aware of (that was running until five/six, not fifty years ago). At the very least "solving the existing problems, such as waste (which is not so much a statement about the technology as such, but about dealing with its leftovers) and safety would require another incalculable and open ended period of R&D and huge investments" or so the statement on shutting down the Jlich reactor finally said. These were their words, not mine. But there must be a reason why only the Chinese are currently continuing to build it, right ?
                          Anyway, most of the apokalyptic claims regarding Germanys nuclear phase out ("lunacy"/"the Economist", "madness"/"New York Times") have quite evidently not materialized, mostly because journalists were too lazy (or monolingual) to do proper research. That starts with the fact that not just Germany, but also Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland are in the process of phasing out nuclear power.
                          Germany has remained a huge net energy exporter (and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future), in spite of shutting down eight nuclear plants ( and the rest by 2022). Boosting renewables has neither led to unemployment (rather the contrary) nor to power shortages (Germanys grid is regularly rated as one of the most reliable ones in Europe). It has not led to companys leaving the country in masses nor to crushing energy costs for private consumers.
                          That is not to say that the "Energiewende" would be easy, a free ride or a done deal. Not at all. But ( largely predictable) problems arent evidence that the course as such is misguided ( as the US press sometimes tries to paint it).
                          Americans too often think in 100 % polarized /either-or scenarios ( that makes it difficult to find pragmatic and consensual solutions and especially for various political camps to seal societal compromises). While Germans are more accepting that noone will get 100 % (also not of renewables) and problems have to solved along the way, once agreement on the course is established ( like doubts about non environmentally friendly components in older and chinese-made solar cells, or a TEMPORARY rise in carbon emissions f.e.). Germans on the other hand seek to plan, prepare, organize, and assess everything. Which can be a virtue, but they can also terribly overdo it. Like drowning even worthwhile projects in a bureaucratic mess. Or stumbling over unexpected things that dont go according to plan. It is f.e. not quite clear what happens to the energy goals if the economic environment turns out to be less rosy in a couple of years. Or to put it very sober : The scaremongerers have largely been discredited, which doesnt mean that everything is as smooth and rosy as the Greenpeace corner claims. It is a challenge. And yes, these are personal opinions.
                          Each of our nations will have no choice but to adapt its energy structures, its power utilities, its incentives and grid structure to the globalized age anyway. And also efficiency of energy consumption and sustainability of supply ( trash !) will be factors. The Germans have developed an ambitious national plan with roles and incentives for governement, companies, society and customers over a generation that may once pass as an example of far-sighted policies or as a big gamble. Yet noone has a crystal ball. But noone will be able to avoid these questions as well. Since they will greatly determine the standing of our economies in the new century.
                          And again YES it ran until 08 but WHEN WAS IT BUILT or UPDATED? Read the article again cause you're MISSING important facts.

                          Their words were driven by politics. They fucked up their reactor and poisoned the ground water and then LIED about it. Read the article.

                          Why? because the chinese don't let their sheep run the farmhouse. Again, Read the Article. Its all there quite plainly. The reactors closed caving to political pressures that those reactors weren't safe A) because they didn't run their reactors right (see article for details) adn b) because after learning about their own fuckup they LIED about it making the problem exponentially worse.

                          Adapt our structures to the globalization scheme: You mean like exporting your lead sealed then ceramic sealed used pebbles to say the sahara desert or a 3rd world country? That sort of globalization?

                          ?


                          • #28
                            Re: Germany went &quot;green&quot;

                            Originally posted by reality View Post
                            And again YES it ran until 08 but WHEN WAS IT BUILT or UPDATED? Read the article again cause you're MISSING important facts.

                            Their words were driven by politics. They fucked up their reactor and poisoned the ground water and then LIED about it. Read the article.

                            Why? because the chinese don't let their sheep run the farmhouse. Again, Read the Article. Its all there quite plainly. The reactors closed caving to political pressures that those reactors weren't safe A) because they didn't run their reactors right (see article for details) adn b) because after learning about their own fuckup they LIED about it making the problem exponentially worse.

                            Adapt our structures to the globalization scheme: You mean like exporting your lead sealed then ceramic sealed used pebbles to say the sahara desert or a 3rd world country? That sort of globalization?
                            Once again : You have linked to a Wikipedia article that confirms almost none of that, dear (actually it says the opposite, f.e. on the trash security). It is furthermore not my job to search for evidence supporting YOUR claims :

                            Pebble-bed reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                            It has been sufficiently pointed out by now, why Germany made the decision to phase out nuclear energy as such, and even prior to that the pebble bed reactors. Not due to political pressure by the way, since the governement couldnt have done that (actually Angela Merkel was quite late to the party). That the first steps were taken in the nineties ( that means we are talking about quite a long time) and that there are economical as well as political as well as security reasons.
                            It is furthermore not quite clear to me what exactly you are arguing here. That nuclear was clean, safe, cheap ? It has also been pointed out more than once on here why THAT is a (costly) illusion. And why different countries may have different problems with that type of energy (f.e. related to geography, population density and storage opportunities/geology ?).
                            That nuclear was somehow necessary for Germany ? You do understand that Germany EXPORTS energy ( f.e. to "nuclear" France) and not the other way round ? That economic indicators are all pointing upwards ? That "greentech" companies and policies have created hundreds of thousands of jobs ?
                            Bitching about others efforts isnt the same as proposing a viable alternative. Just as exporting your poisonous trash to the third-world and giving them a few dollars isnt an energy policy, dear. Try again.

                            ?


                            • #29
                              Re: Germany went &quot;green&quot;

                              Originally posted by Voland View Post
                              Once again : You have linked to a Wikipedia article that confirms almost none of that, dear (actually it says the opposite, f.e. on the trash security). It is furthermore not my job to search for evidence supporting YOUR claims :

                              Pebble-bed reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                              It has been sufficiently pointed out by now, why Germany made the decision to phase out nuclear energy as such, and even prior to that the pebble bed reactors. Not due to political pressure by the way, since the governement couldnt have done that (actually Angela Merkel was quite late to the party). That the first steps were taken in the nineties ( that means we are talking about quite a long time) and that there are economical as well as political as well as security reasons.
                              It is furthermore not quite clear to me what exactly you are arguing here. That nuclear was clean, safe, cheap ? It has also been pointed out more than once on here why THAT is a (costly) illusion. And why different countries may have different problems with that type of energy (f.e. related to geography, population density and storage opportunities/geology ?).
                              That nuclear was somehow necessary for Germany ? You do understand that Germany EXPORTS energy ( f.e. to "nuclear" France) and not the other way round ? That economic indicators are all pointing upwards ? That "greentech" companies and policies have created hundreds of thousands of jobs ?
                              Bitching about others efforts isnt the same as proposing a viable alternative. Just as exporting your poisonous trash to the third-world and giving them a few dollars isnt an energy policy, dear. Try again.
                              Again if you'd read the article you'd know the reactors yall used were NOT state of the art and were actually quite old prototypes that were also not upkept properly and used mixed in ammonia (which is corrosive). Far be it from me to force you to read though. Dear.

                              Politcal pressure: use your context clues on my comments about china and their sheep. PEOPLE can push political pressure all by their lonesome. HINT: they discovered their problem after CHERNOBYL, blamed their problem on CHERNOBYL and it wasn't for years that an isotope only found in pebble beds was found proving their statements to be lies.
                              Again. From the article.

                              So rads leak out of lead now? Gosh when did that happen? ANd lead comes out of a ceramic shell? Gosh when did that happen? NOTE: the process I suggest IS NOT the process they use.

                              France isn't a real great example voland. Their policy isn't any better than my own nation's.

                              I'm not "bitching" i'm simply pointing things out. This isn't an adversarial discussion, its simply a discussion.

                              ?


                              • #30
                                Re: Germany went &amp;quot;green&amp;quot;

                                Originally posted by reality View Post
                                Again if you'd read the article you'd know the reactors yall used were NOT state of the art and were actually quite old prototypes that were also not upkept properly and used mixed in ammonia (which is corrosive). Far be it from me to force you to read though. Dear.

                                Politcal pressure: use your context clues on my comments about china and their sheep. PEOPLE can push political pressure all by their lonesome. HINT: they discovered their problem after CHERNOBYL, blamed their problem on CHERNOBYL and it wasn't for years that an isotope only found in pebble beds was found proving their statements to be lies.
                                Again. From the article.

                                So rads leak out of lead now? Gosh when did that happen? ANd lead comes out of a ceramic shell? Gosh when did that happen? NOTE: the process I suggest IS NOT the process they use.

                                France isn't a real great example voland. Their policy isn't any better than my own nation's.

                                I'm not "bitching" i'm simply pointing things out. This isn't an adversarial discussion, its simply a discussion.


                                I did read your Wikipedia article dude. Several times, since you insisted I also quoted from it, as you can see in post 20. That is also why I am confidently saying that it backs up very few of the things that you are claiming. Which is not an adversarial comment, just a statement of fact. And everyone who might be interested can check out by him/herself. That is why Id suggest, we leave it at that and move to the important point :
                                We are actually talking about two decisions. One was the decision by the industry to drop the pebble-bed concept, which was a business decision. The second was the decision to quit nuclear power AS SUCH, which was a political and economical decision. It is true that the nuclear lobby has lost a lot of credibility in Germany through lying about accidents and security problems. Yet kicking nuclear (that Germans across party lines do NOT see as clean energy, since Chernobyl didnt only happen in their papers, but also in their garden) is only one out of many goals. And Germany, as one of the leading car and technology makers in the world, is neither a nation run by tree huggers nor by environmentalist moral crusaders. In fact profit is one of the main motives behind the energy transformation, and there is nothing wrong with that. Companies are hoping to mightily cash in on energy savings as well as selling "green" technology at home and worldwide as well as lucrative orders ( f.e. modernization of the grid, building new power lines, fuel efficient cars as well or energy efficient houses etc.) and have huge vested economic interests in a success of the project. Farmers, villages, quarters, neighborhoods, even homeowners are putting solar cells on their roofs or wind turbines on their land not out of naive fantasy, but because they see the difference in their wallets. Saving on energy bills as well as making money by selling the rest to utilities. To give few examples.
                                The "Energiewende" will deeply affect ( or is in the process to) construction, public transport, infrastructure planning, tech industries, agriculture, lifestyle, education etc. etc.
                                If it works as planned, Germany will have achieved energy security ( from market shakeups, finite fossiles, nuclear dangers and storage problems etc.)., and tremendously improve its quality of life ( cleaner air, water....), energy costs will be neglicible and german companies will lead the world in green tech innovation (which they in many fields already do, together with Scandinavians, Swiss or Dutch). If it fails, than other nations can at least take valuable lessons. But it is most certainly a serious, societal effort. If you wish to discuss Germanys energy transformation, than it makes little sense to fight over a particular nuke design that was buried years ago (unless you were claiming that the country had some particular problems that could only be solved by nuke power) . The "Energiewende" however is a much broader topic...



                                What Americans Don


                                Today the transition has broad popular support – up to 93 percent according to a December 2012 poll – and powerful industrial, political, and environmental lobbies. Moreover, the lion’s share of investment in solar PV modules, wind turbines, and bioenergy plants has come from homeowners, farmers, local collectives, and small-to-medium size businesses – and relatively little from large corporations (and nothing from the government). By turning over a million property owners and entrepreneurs into energy producers Germany has increased its supply of renewably generated electricity from 4 percent to 23 percent in just 13 years’ time.

                                Although there were initially modest subsidy programs, the mechanism responsible for the renewables boom is an incentive (called the feed-in tariff) that energy consumers end up paying in their utility bills. It costs the average family of four roughly $150 a year. The state actually profits enormously from the taxable revenue of the booming renewable energy industry, which has an annual turnover of €8.7 billion ($11.6 billion). The dynamic that was set in motion over the last two decades was greatly accelerated by public policies, but the Energiewende is a sweeping, societal project that cannot simply be “cut” by Chancellor Merkel or anyone else.



                                http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...f-hamburg.html


                                The success of the Hamburg model can be seen throughout Germany. According to transportation writer Eric Jaffe, 88 percent of Germans live within a kilometer (a bit over a half mile) of public transportation. The comparable figure for Americans is just 43 percent. In urban centers, writes Jaffe, Germans use public transport at nearly six times the rate of Americans. In small-to-medium-sized towns, Germans use public transportation at a rate 18 times that in similar-sized American cities.

                                My destination on May Day was Jenischpark, 110 acres of beautifully landscaped hills created in the late 1700s. Nine minutes after boarding the subway, the cars pulled into my first transfer point—Landungsbrcken station on the banks of the river Elbe. A quick walk from the station over a pedestrian bridge and down a flight of stairs and I was ready to catch my next ride: a two-deck ferry. My Hamburg Transport Association day-pass, which cost about $5, bought me unlimited travel on subways, light rail, commuter trains, buses and ferries. The "one ticket, one fare" concept, which links all forms of public transportation into a single network to prevent long waits between transfers, originated in Hamburg in 1965. Up river was an even more remarkable sight: Europe's largest—and greenest—inner-city development, called HafenCity. Planners say this $10 billion project along Hamburg's abandoned old harbor will nearly double the city's urban-core area, add 45,000 permanent jobs and do it in a way that is low-energy, sustainable and beautiful.

                                Some of HafenCity's most important features include:

                                Sustainable urban structure—Mixed-use plans incorporate housing, office and commercial spaces, schools and recreational areas.
                                Sustainable heat—Homes and businesses are kept warm by a combination of solar thermal panels, centralized advanced wood combustion boilers and other low-carbon sources.
                                Sustainable mobility—HafenCity's design encourages pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and discourages auto traffic. Some of Hamburg's hydrogen-powered buses will serve HafenCity. Europe's largest hydrogen filling station recently opened here, and dozens of charging units for electric cars will soon join the 100 public charging stations already in service across Hamburg.
                                My reverie was interrupted by the arrival of the Wolfgang Borchert, a bright yellow ferry that pulled up to the pier six minutes ahead of schedule, bringing cheers from the crowd and obvious relief to the guard who smiled as she hurried to unhook the gangway chain and allow more than 100 of us to scramble aboard.

                                Standing at the back of the open-air top deck as the ferry pulled out from the dock, I had an even better view of HafenCity. Just as Berlin's Reichstag was built as a harbinger of the Energiewende, Hamburg's new development contains a striking building that advances the German energy revolution. The seven-story glass and steel Unilever headquarters rises from the riverbank, the shape and size of a docked ship. The building relies mostly on the natural light streaming through windows and pouring into a central atrium. Its light bulbs are LED, which are 70 percent more efficient than conventional bulbs. With its green roof, automated blinds that block direct sunlight in the summer and a host of other features, the Unilever headquarters consumes just a quarter of the energy per square foot used by traditional office buildings........There were nearly as many bikes as cars on the avenue. Germans are 10 times more likely to travel by bicycle than are Americans, and far less likely to travel by car than by other means. This is in part because so many clean, modern and affordable alternatives are available. But it's also because Germany, like other European countries, uses economic disincentives—primarily in the form of taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel—to decrease congestion, discourage wasteful fuel consumption and spur automakers to design more efficient cars.

                                [/FONT]
                                Last edited by Voland; 01-29-2014, 03:06 AM.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X