Germany going back to heavy coal use

[bluesmoke]

Going back to?
Fossil fuels has always been the primary source of energy in Germany.
Wind and solar has made huge inroads into that but fossil fuels remain the dominate source.

You've no evidence to prove what you say. Hence, your claim is unfounded and dismissed for lack of evidence.

You came of the top of your head with this because a couple minutes of Google would have found yourself refuted.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Germany steps up efforts to cut Russian energy reliance

Germany on Wednesday took more steps to diversify its energy supplies in a bid to cut dependence on key supplier Russia, announcing a 1.5 billion euro order for non-Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) and slowing its exit from coal.

www.reuters.com

Germany May Extend Coal Use to Replace Russian Gas

Germany is getting ready to prolong the use of coal as the country seeks to reduce its reliance on Russian energy in the aftermath of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

www.bloomberg.com

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/german-hard-coal-imports-could-rise-7.7-in-2022-vdki

LOL LMAO ROTFLMAO

These Germans are such idiots. Just goes to show the utter emptiness of Green Party causes and politics.

The post title and OP link don’t match. The idea that “slowing the exit from coal” is “going back to heavy coal use” is not accurate. There was mention of possibly re-activating some (now closed) coal-fired electrical power generation facilities, but that is a back-up plan if more (non-Russian) LNG does not become available.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I guess the decision to not build a LNG terminal is coming back to haunt them.

Yep, but that was before the NS2 pipeline was cancelled.

 

[KingLeo]

You've no evidence to prove what you say. Hence, your claim is unfounded and dismissed for lack of evidence.

You came of the top of your head with this because a couple minutes of Google would have found yourself refuted.

 

[Deuce]

If you read the article you would have seen the part where I made a direct quote from it, so it only proves that you didnt read it. Keep up the bad work.



What a silly, ignorant reply. You have no idea how Germany runs its politics, do you? Google energiewende and educate yourself.

​

I quoted from an article you linked and you started screeching about it.

 

[PoS]

The post title and OP link don’t match. The idea that “slowing the exit from coal” is “going back to heavy coal use” is not accurate. There was mention of possibly re-activating some (now closed) coal-fired electrical power generation facilities, but that is a back-up plan if more (non-Russian) LNG does not become available.

LOL do you realize where Germany gets most of its gas from?

I quoted from an article you linked and you started screeching about it.

And even with that youre still wrong. Try again.

 

[Antiwar]

@PoS

I did a quick search and copy and pasted the headings of a 2017 German Green Party outline of ambitions:

1. To enhance climate protection
2. To promote the e-mobility breakthrough
3. To make agriculture sustainable
4. To bring Europe together
5. To strengthen families
6. To create social security
7. To lead integration to success, to protect refugees
8. To live with equal rights and self-determined
9. To secure freedom
10. To tackle the causes of migration

The German Greens outline an ambitious 10-point plan for the 2017 Bundestag elections

The German Green Party - Bündnis 90/Die Grünen - held its congress in Berlin last weekend, where delegates decided the party's program for the 2017 Bundestag elections

europeangreens.eu

 

[ttwtt78640]

LOL do you realize where Germany gets most of its gas from?

Yes, which is why they are trying to make changes. My point was that their first choice would be to get LNG from other countries to replace the natural gas now being imported from Russia, with using coal (again) as a back-up plan if that LNG can’t be obtained.

 

[Peter]

The UK is going down the path of having an energy mix that consists of
Energy from waste power stations, nuclear, wind and hydro.

Luckily the UK has The North Sea which is shallow and windy so perfect for offshore wind and will be home to the largest offshore windfarms in the world.

They won't be available this winter but they are coming and have been funded.

 

[Deuce]

LOL do you realize where Germany gets most of its gas from?


And even with that youre still wrong. Try again.

So, your claim is that the article is lying? "Slow their exit from coal" is wrong because a one-year increase of 7.7% may happen? That is your claim?

Not even going back to 1990 levels of coal use is "heavy use" to you? Is that your claim?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Fossil fuels are not cost effective any longer...........

Coal Ash is radioactive

Wind, Hydro and Solar = smart choices

Bananas are radioactive too.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I always laugh when someone brings up a silly point like flay ash being radioactive. Sure, it's radioactive. But like I said, so are bananas.

Fly ash is commonly used as an additive to concrete building products, but the radioactivity of typical fly ash is not significantly different from that of more conventional concrete additives or other building materials such as granite or red brick.​

Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash, USGS Factsheet 163-97

pubs.usgs.gov

How do you like that. Not significantly different than granite.

 

[bluesmoke]

So, your claim is that the article is lying? "Slow their exit from coal" is wrong because a one-year increase of 7.7% may happen? That is your claim?

Not even going back to 1990 levels of coal use is "heavy use" to you? Is that your claim?

The PoS claim has already been thoroughly refuted, and the debate need not be extended for no purpose than to be given the runaround on some other falsehood or another, which is this poster's MO. There is nothing honest or forthright about this poster's debate manner and no respect for the debate process.

 

[PoS]

Yes, which is why they are trying to make changes. My point was that their first choice would be to get LNG from other countries to replace the natural gas now being imported from Russia, with using coal (again) as a back-up plan if that LNG can’t be obtained.

LOL their LNG costs are gonna be so high theyll be forced to use even more coal again. Just you watch.

So, your claim is that the article is lying? "Slow their exit from coal" is wrong because a one-year increase of 7.7% may happen? That is your claim?

Not even going back to 1990 levels of coal use is "heavy use" to you? Is that your claim?

LOL the title of the thread says they are going back to heavy coal use. I know reading comprehension is a hard thing for you to figure out, but keep at it, maybe youll get it eventually.

The PoS claim has already been thoroughly refuted, and the debate need not be extended for no purpose than to be given the runaround on some other falsehood or another, which is this poster's MO. There is nothing honest or forthright about this poster's debate manner and no respect for the debate process.

LMAO the only one who has been refuted is you and your lib buddies. Better luck next time.

 

[Deuce]

LOL the title of the thread says they are going back to heavy coal use. I know reading comprehension is a hard thing for you to figure out, but keep at it, maybe youll get it eventually.

I'm aware of what the title says. What your reading comprehension has failed to understand is that the title isn't accurate.

You're so deep in the propaganda you literally forgot you made the thread title up yourself.

That's goddamned amazing.

 

[PoS]

I'm aware of what the title says. What your reading comprehension has failed to understand is that the title isn't accurate.

You're so deep in the propaganda you literally forgot you made the thread title up yourself.

That's goddamned amazing.

Yup, its amazing your reading comprehension is this bad lol.

The OP is accurate since the 3rd link says that Germany is increasing coal use, so once again youve made an epic fail. Keep up the bad work.

 

[Deuce]

Yup, its amazing your reading comprehension is this bad lol.

The OP is accurate since the 3rd link says that Germany is increasing coal use, so once again youve made an epic fail. Keep up the bad work.

Again, a one-year, single-digit increase in a plan that still intends to stop using coal entirely in the long run.

 

[PoS]

Again, a one-year, single-digit increase in a plan that still intends to stop using coal entirely in the long run.

LOL now youre moving the goalposts after youve been proven wrong and exposing your horrid reading comprehension. Keep it up, I could use another laugh!

 

[Deuce]

LOL now youre moving the goalposts after youve been proven wrong and exposing your horrid reading comprehension. Keep it up, I could use another laugh!

Moving goalposts? What are you talking about? What perceived movement do you see? Are you really under the impression I said "coal use is not going to increase at all?" LOL! What was that about reading comprehension?

I want everyone else to see what PoS is describing as a "return to heavy coal use."

That little uptick at the end in black. Still not even half of what it was 20 years ago. "Return to heavy coal use." LOL!

 

[PoS]

Moving goalposts? What are you talking about? What perceived movement do you see? Are you really under the impression I said "coal use is not going to increase at all?" LOL! What was that about reading comprehension?

I want everyone else to see what PoS is describing as a "return to heavy coal use."

That little uptick at the end in black. Still not even half of what it was 20 years ago. "Return to heavy coal use." LOL!

LOL the OP isnt wrong no matter how many times you desperately move the goalposts. First you claimed that Germany wasnt going back to coal, but when I pointed out to you that the news link said just that, now youre flip flopping. Your posts are hilariously stupid!

 

[Deuce]

LOL the OP isnt wrong no matter how many times you desperately move the goalposts. First you claimed that Germany wasnt going back to coal, but when I pointed out to you that the news link said just that, now youre flip flopping. Your posts are hilariously stupid!

That is not what I said.

I said "back to heavy coal use was wrong, and it is. Look at the chart. They're nowhere near what they were burning 20 years ago and this 7.7% increase in imports doesn't change that.

 

[PoS]

That is not what I said.

I said "back to heavy coal use was wrong, and it is. Look at the chart. They're nowhere near what they were burning 20 years ago and this 7.7% increase in imports doesn't change that.

LOL where in the OP does it mention anything about "20 years ago?" Oh, that's right, you just made that lie up! Exposed once again!

 

[Deuce]

LOL where in the OP does it mention anything about "20 years ago?" Oh, that's right, you just made that lie up! Exposed once again!

It doesn't say that, I said that. Is this confusing you? You are not me. I will spell it out, again:

YOU SAID: Germany is going back to heavy coal use.

I have bolded the key phrase I am objecting to.

MY STANCE: Because this is merely a 7.7% increase in imports and doesn't rise anywhere near historical coal usage, "back to heavy coal use" is not accurate. Their coal use will be a little bit higher, temporarily, and then continue to drop.

Is there anything else about MY STANCE you are still confused about? LOL!

 

[PoS]

It doesn't say that, I said that.

So you admit to lying. Good, its about time youve become honest for once, even when it comes to self-ownage.

 

[Deuce]

So you admit to lying. Good, its about time youve become honest for once, even when it comes to self-ownage.

Lying about what? I'm confused. When I said words, did you just assume I was suggesting they were your words? Is that our miscommunication here? You can't tell the difference between your words and my words?