Environment Technology

Environment Technology

Germans pay the price for renewable energy

Posted by admin on December 29, 2012 in Renewable Energy with 25 Comments


It has been over a year since German Chancellor Angela Merkel set the goal of a nuclear-free future for Germany by 2022. The widespread adoption of Renewable Energy, however, has left consumers bearing the burden of the changes. Some bills in Germany could even go up by 47 percent. Al Jazeera’s Nick Spicer reports from Berlin.

Duration : 0:1:49


« previous post

Global Warming Global WARNIN...

Global Warming and Climate Change are in progress and well established. Both are driven b...

next post »

Clean Nation by Stream Energy

Through Clean Nation by Stream Energy, you have a very simple and easy way to pitch in and...

  1. SickSchizophrenicDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #1

    I’ll look into that …
    I’ll look into that, thanks.

  2. astud10101December 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #2

    There is no current …
    There is no current way of safely storing the nuclear waste. I personally know someone high up at the DOE and he said that almost every dump site is leaking radioactive waste into the ground and there is nothing they can do. Also, there isn’t even enough uranium/plutonium on this plant. If we scale up to projected needs, we will run out by 2050 from internal estimates.

  3. pjtDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #3

    If burning 20 tuns …
    If burning 20 tuns of radioactive waist down a hole saves Millions of tons of other pollutants and without having to save energy then I’m all for it. I give it 5 years before Germany begins reconsidering its green energy stance and resorts once more to nuclear and fossil fuel sources. What needs to happen is new types of reactors need to be developed but just as in important are new ways of dilvering it. A rethinking of the grids themselves.

  4. bky1701December 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #4

    Reprocessing and …
    Reprocessing and breeding.

  5. Wellington210sDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #5

    ah-ha! Didn’t catch …
    ah-ha! Didn’t catch that bit! Thank you for explaining!

  6. andrewsheldonreevesDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #6

    by plants? you …
    by plants? you know the carbon cycle or have you bought the programming? A life giving gas is not poision. During the cretatious perious (the era of the bronchiasourus) co2 levels were many times higher and the entire earth was a tropical peradice. More food led to bigger creatures. Think giant cows… mmmmmm

  7. SickSchizophrenicDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #7

    I’d be pro-nuclear …
    I’d be pro-nuclear too I guess if only I knew where we could dump the radioactive nuclear waste that replaces the carbon emissions..

  8. bosshoggettDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #8


    Envirofundamenalism you can blame the ecologists of the 1950 for believing in a environmental equilibriums which was proven as a falsehood in the 70s, but the legacy has lived on Politically.

  9. mrjesusthedestroyerDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #9

    Any price is better …
    Any price is better than buying terrorist oil!

  10. speak2samDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #10

    I totally agree …
    I totally agree with you. All things considered, nuclear energy is a excellent source of energy. It results in zero emission of green house gases. However renewable energy is million times better than power plants that use hydrocarbons like coal and oil.

  11. politicalchanelDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #11

    well the CO2 should …
    well the CO2 should also be scrubbed

  12. politicalchanelDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #12

    that’s terrible; …
    that’s terrible; that’s protectionism and it’s stupid; if someone company doesn’t perform well in the modern world you don’t change the world to suit the company; those people should just make companies in another field; powering Europe with the hydroenergy of Norway and the geothermal energy of Iceland would really be a step in the right direction not this nuclear energy hysteria;

  13. politicalchanelDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #13

    no one said …
    no one said anything doubt oil in this video; this was about nuclear energy; green versus nuclear not fossil versus green; yes, fossil fuels should be given up but not nuclear energy; they way i see it is not green versus nuclear but nuclear+green versus fossil

  14. politicalchanelDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #14

    hit it;

    radiation …
    hit it;

    radiation is one environmental concern but so is the amount of space required for human activities; the more land we need for people the less there is for nature; the space/capita for nuclear energy is amazingly low while that for renewables is huge

  15. politicalchanelDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #15

    bullshit; nuclear …
    bullshit; nuclear energy is incredibly environmental; all energy sources have a cost-benefit issue and so do renewables; a mix of nuclear and renewable is far better than just renewables; sure, nuclear nervy carries the risk of radiation, but in modern plants that risk is low because of the high degree of technology involved, including the highly resistant sarcophagi they have their reactors enveloped in; Fukushima was a freak occurrence that only happened after both a megaquake and a tsunami

  16. politicalchanelDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #16

    there’s nothing …
    there’s nothing retarded about harizotoh’s comment, in fact it’s one of the few comment i’ve seen on youtube which show the person commenting actually knows the subject and not just repeating some kind of ideological nonsense;

    because it is an ideology to move to completely renewable sources; it’s not science and it doesn’t actually achieve the goal of being more environmental;

  17. politicalchanelDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #17

    wind and solar …
    wind and solar energy varies too much in output and batteries don’t work good enough! there is no type of battery currently in existence that is good enough for storing energy, for use when output drops, on an industrial scale; all batteries loose charge over time and barely enough charge to begin with; they also require expensive materials; for use on a national industrial scale they would have to be enormous; all in all they don’t make much economic sense;

  18. politicalchanelDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #18

    THANK YOU! a …
    THANK YOU! a rational person on youtube, excellent; i am glad we are not all extinct; yes, fears about nuclear energy are not just overblown, they are WAAAY overblown

  19. politicalchanelDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #19

    no energy source is …
    no energy source is perfect they all have their shortcomings; switching completely to renewables will bring many problems and it is not worth it! it is really isn’t, because of the fact that, like i said, there are no natural disasters that can cause damage; sure, there is a risk of radiation but it is a small risk compared to the benefits; what makes you think France will give up nuclear energy? they won’t because the french are surprisingly being smarter than the germans on this subject;

  20. politicalchanelDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #20

    nuclear energy is …
    nuclear energy is incredible and should be celebrated: it requires so very little space/capita for the same amount of energy; a big enough plant can power an entire country; that is 1 single plant! versus covering all of Germany in solar panels? where are the trees going to get sun light from?

    this move is absurd and i used to look up to germans but not since this; why are you people behaving so hysterically? Germany does not have tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes etc. NONE OF THOSE THINGS!

  21. politicalchanelDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #21

    Nuclear energy …
    Nuclear energy should NOT be abandoned; this is definitely not a step in the right direction; fossil fuels should be given up yes, but nuclear no; nuclear is in some ways more environmental than some renewables, like solar power, which require large parts of land to be covered in solar panels; human activities, especially in developed nations, already require huge space per capita; think of for example all the forests that are cut down to make room for agricultural fields

  22. odysseylifepathDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #22

    you have a very …
    you have a very narrow and selfish view of the world. i hope the other comments here will enlighten you.

  23. Killercat7December 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #23

    Oh common Al …
    Oh common Al Jazeera, put some more information in here. First the renewable energys decreased the price this year, but the price increased again, because the’ve put the renewable energy tax from high energy companys to the private consumers. RWE and co. get Billions of Euro for keeping some not needed power plants online, the new power grid will be able to handle all coal and wind power plants at the same time, that RWE and co. can export their energy even then. Look what these companys earn !

  24. xLycheeZxDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #24

    I am from Germany …
    I am from Germany and what is spoken in the report is German.

  25. StickyVEN0MDecember 29, 2012 - 4:36 pm #25

    Sweet Dashie and I …
    Sweet Dashie and I agree with those sentiments.

Leave a Reply

No trackbacks yet.

No post with similar tags yet.

Posts in similar categories
Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE