Germany demonstrates far greater will than Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      When German chancellor Angela Merkel declared in 2011 that her country would phase out nuclear power, it sent a scare throughout the industry.

      The announcement came less than three months after the Fukushima power-plant catastrophe, which spewed cancer-causing radioactive particles over Japan and across the Pacific Ocean.

      Merkel, who has a PhD in physics, said at the time that Germany would be free of nuclear power by 2022.

      But some wondered what impact this would have on Germany's solid record in addressing greenhouse-gas emissions.

      It stands in stark contrast to Canada's woeful performance.

      Two years after Merkel's announcement, it appears that her country is seriously ramping up its research into renewable energy. 

      A new article in Nature highlights how Germany is investing $4.5 million in a power-to-gas pilot plant, which could offset the unreliability of solar and wind power.

      "During sunny or breezy days, excess electricity can be used to make methane, which can be stored and then burned to generate power when the winds fail or the days turn dark," writes Nature's Quirin Schiermeier.

      It's part of a legislated plan to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. The total cost, according to Nature, is estimated to be over $1.5 trillion.

      This massive national effort is called the Energiewende, and it's the world's largest push to switch from carbon-based energy to wind and solar power.

      Concerns about climate change are motivating these massive capital expenditure.

      Before Merkel visited Canada last August, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's media supporters tried to make hay out of the economic problems in the Eurozone. It was their way of diminishing Merkel.

      But when it comes to clean energy, Merkel has left our politicians, and especially Harper, looking like a bunch of dinosaurs.

      Comments

      4 Comments

      Lee L.

      Apr 10, 2013 at 11:07pm

      Big deal. Canada is irrelevant wrt CO2 emissions.
      Utterly irrelevant. ALL the cars in Metro Vancouver, for example, could be permanently removed forever and only offset HALF OF ONE coal fired electric plant, of which the world is building 1200. China alone brings a coal plant onstream every 5 days and wont stop until they have 350 plus according to the Guardian. India plans 450 of them.

      Germany is building coal plants to run when their wind and solar are dead in the water. They plan to close their nuke plants, so they need to build coal plants.

      The scale of all this is well beyond what an enormous tiny nation like Canada has any influence on.

      Charlie Smith, of course, left out mentioning the coal fired electric plants that Germany is building anew not to RESEARCH backup for wind and solar, but to actually compensate in practice for its dismal reliability.

      Heather Black

      Apr 11, 2013 at 4:56am

      Methane production from surplus electricity is still in research and 10yrs from reality (if ever - remember hydrogen fuel cells?). In the now, Germany is building coal plants to back up renewables. Solar is 15% efficient so you need power plants to back up the 85% not being produced. The idiocy of writing misinformation has to stop. It's just hurting the ignorant who believe the lies.

      Heather

      Mike

      Apr 11, 2013 at 10:16am

      Sorry, but Fukishima did not "spew cancer-causing radioactive particles over Japan and across the ocean". The IAEA would be all over this if it weere true. Stop using sensationalism to float your agenda.

      Martin Dunphy

      Apr 11, 2013 at 11:05am

      Mike:

      In essence, the IAEA is a lobby group for nuclear-power producers and is committed to fostering the spread of nuclear power worldwide.
      Even the WHO defers to its agenda.
      As for your first sentence, where to start...?