A little excursion: When I was a university student in the mid-1980s, on one of our bike tours along Germany's North Sea coast, we encountered the fabled "Growian", Germany's first large-scale wind turbine, for a time the world's largest - an experiment that failed spectacularly.
Growian (Große Windenergieanlage, Large Wind Energy Facility) was built for 3 MW. The generator in 100m height weighed 340 tons, the two rotor blades together almost 50 tons. Mistakes made in design and material meant it rarely was operational, and widely considered a failure.
I remember that at the time, many saw it as proof that wind energy is an illusion, a pipe dream. But of course the project suffered from all the hallmarks of big projects: centralised, unimaginative, power plays. The whole process did not find solutions to problems plaguing it.
But possibly that was part of the plan: some claim (there are contemporary quotes that suggest as much) that it was a deliberate and targeted attempt to disqualify renewable energy while seeming to be engaged, i.a. to boost nuclear power against the environmental movement.
Wind breakthrough came just a few years later, when private initiatives and groups started building smaller projects that actually worked, produced electricity and made money. I remember the huge enthusiasm at the time. It was all very green. Then ... the big companies came in.
Supported by politics, they took control, squeezed most of the early initiatives and entrepreneurs out, and control the field to this very day. But I still remember small wind cooperatives negotiating with farmers and funders for projects in the early 90ies! And seeing "Growian".
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/n To conclude from the 🇩🇪 CO2 budget analysis & programmes of political parties that "1.5 is lost" is not a correct conclusion. Globally, 1.5 is still feasible, the world would have to be neutral by about 2050. It just means that Germany is lagging in its contribution.
2/n That is: lagging IF one measures the German contribution by population share. Some specialists question whether this is helpful, whether high-emitting nations should be held to such a standard when what really counts is the global outcome, to be fought for internationally.
3/n So the renewed discussion on a 🇩🇪 CO2 budget ceiling & what it means has elicited various responses & I'd like to particularly thank @CarlSchleussner for very good discussions. Carl is one of Germany's best experts not just on CO2 and rad. forcing but also on climate policy.
"Which CO2 budget do the party programmes correspond to?" Grey bars: CO2 budgets for 1.5 degrees with 50% and 67% likelihood, for equal emission rights per capita, from 2022. Purple: left party, green: green party, red: social democrats, black: conservatives, yellow: liberals.
The populist far-right does not believe climate change is a problem and plans on doing nothing. Budgets are computed from what the parties say - whether that is underpinned by actual measures is another matter. In the end, the only thing that counts is actual emissions avoided.
Three comments on tonights's @ARDKontraste programme (btw, a lot gets filmed - here at least 20 minutes, going into many questions - and one never knows what short sentence ends up being used ...): 1) the team did a great job researching and computing CO2 budget numbers 1/3
2) They never mentioned to me that they'd end up suggesting prolonging nuclear, albeit just a few years. 3) Be aware that this is just what big energy aimed for: delay, cap, stifle renewables, then ask for prolonged operation by projecting shortages. A result of politics. 2/3
I am opposed to nuclear for many reasons, and don't wish to support the games of power companies. Note it can be repeated with coal, too. It's not decided, but being pushed. The next government will have to answer. 👉 CO2 budgets matter. And so much time was lost by delaying. 3/3
@NeueOekonomie has published an analysis of the CO2 budgets implied by the platforms of German parties for the Sept. 26 general election, a decisive election for climate, and compared them with the budgets we advised the government on at @Umweltrat. 1/5 👉 konzeptwerk-neue-oekonomie.org/eine-wahlprogr…
Some comments: From my first reading, this is well done and well argued. The budget numbers are based on IPCC SR15. Updated to the new AR6, they would be slightly larger, particularly the 1.5/67% number: ~1.8 GtCO2. But that doesn't change the picture, the conclusions a lot. 2/5
The reason for the larger change for 1.5/67% is the reduced uncertainty of climate sensitivity in the AR6, which narrows the corridor, moving the 67% value closer to the 50% value. The 50% values are only slightly higher in AR6 than in SR15. 3/5
Often heard: "Wind turbines are ugly in the landscape, solar panels deface buildings." But people casually accept roads everywhere, cutting through landscapes, millions living with daily noise, pollution - because mobility is important. But isn't energy even more? Isn't climate?!
Of course wind and solar power have to be planned smartly - which means not leaving that to big companies coming in from the outside, just in it for the money. Control and benefit need to be local. Also something that often seems to be beyond political imagination. Why?
I hope that in a few decades wind turbines can be dismantled when no longer needed. And that solar power gets sochisticated, integrated into a lot of surfaces. In the end we will use the gradients present everywhere - if only we could tap and collect them (life works that way).