Two countries, two paths, one lesson learnt

This is an amended version of the video I did for BraveNewClimate - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuRk-J1PuUo.
In the 1970s, two countries took two different paths in energy policy. Denmark pursued wind power, but failed to replace its fossil fuel power plants. It has among the highest carbon emissions per capita in Europe. France pursued nuclear power, and now has among the lowest carbon emissions of any OECD country. Lesson learned. Nuclear power mitigates carbon emissions and fights climate change. Renewable energy, by itself, is inadequate. If you want real climate action, you must support both nuclear energy and renewables. It's the only way to solve the climate problem, fully, and in time to make a real difference.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Two
• countries
• two
• paths
• lesson
• France
• Denmark
• renewable
• energy
• nuclear
• power
• fossil
• fuels
• greenday
• good
• riddance
• climate
• environment
• generator
• global warming
• green day

[Gabb0123]

I think it's 9 Billion litres of radioactive tailings in the tailings dams at Olympic Dam uranium mine in Roxby Downs. I think it's a few million litres of that a year seeping into the ground.

BHP has special laws that nullify all environmental protection laws for it that would otherwise deem the mine illegal.

Why don't they talk about how much un-storeable nuclear waste is created per kWh? Or is it just easier to make the whole thing shallow and one-sided for propaganda purposes?

[Myliberationbaby]

@GCarty80

Thanks for those figures GCarty80.

[DogCognition]

@purplespulmer

I can see how you might believe that - it's simplistically true. But you can only believe that if you're ignorant of facts such as wind power producing less CO2 per kWh and being much quicker and more reliable to deploy.

Your 'logic' rests on believing what happened 30 or 40 years ago is still true today. It's not.

Renewable energy offers the best chance to decarbonise - and that is already happening. Renewables are being rapidly deployed, nukes are in decline.

[SunBakedRooster]

@purplespulmer

Um, yeah - 8 is higher than 6. Well done.

The entire point - already clearly stated - is that the trend for Denmark is down while France has been stagnant for 20+ years.

Nukes are a massively inefficient means of generating electricity and the huge quantities of heat wasted is poured in to the environment because nukes cannot be built close enough to residential areas to employ CHP.

But this has all been explained already....

[SunBakedRooster]

This video is full of fail.

Grams CO2 / kWh: Denmark = 308; France = 83. (IEA CO2 EMISSIONS FROM FUEL COMBUSTION, 2010) - not 650 and 90.

But citing that number is highly misleading because it tells us nothing about how energy is used or how much electricity is consumed or what the *trend* is.

Tons CO2 / per capita: Denmark = 8 (and falling as they continue to deploy renewables); France = 6 (and stagnant for 20 years).

France are now making massive investments in renewables. Who failed?

[GCarty80]

@Myliberationbaby

Good point - I calculated (from your CO2 figures, + CIA World Factbook GDP and electricity generation figures) the equivalent figures when only CO2 from electricity generation is counted:

France is 22.5 g CO2/$

Denmark is 125 CO2/$

I read somewhere that France is one of Europe's more car-dependent countries -- perhaps that explains it.

[Myliberationbaby]

@GCarty80

No, no flaw. I'm comparing emissions from electricity generation not total CO2 emissions. Total CO2 emissions include such things as oil for transport or gas for heating, industrial furnaces etc. I believe France is still quite profligate (relative to Denmark) in it's use of fossil fuels in other areas of energy use.

[Myliberationbaby]

@GCarty80 I often wonder what Denmark could achieve if it combined it's excellent energy efficiency and conservation measures with nuclear power. It frustrates me that a country, otherwise so dedicated to reducing it's emissions, would struggle along with a coal/gas/wind mix. Replace the fossil fuels with nuclear power and they could be generating zero emissions electricity and possibly end up with the lowest total emissions per capita of any developed nation.

[GCarty80]

@GCarty80

The number aren't actually that far apart -- using US dollars rather than euros (as GDP figures are more likely to use them), then France is 189 g CO2/$ while Denmark is 197 g CO2/$. This suggests that Denmark is much better than France at conserving energy, even though France is better at producing CO2-free energy.

[GCarty80]

@Myliberationbaby Thanks for the information (and the site, which could be useful for plenty of other stuff).

However, I've noticed another flaw in your video -- measuring CO2 emissions per kWh would not account for the benefits of energy efficiency. Measuring CO2 emissions per euro of GDP would be better in my view.