Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 133 posts

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#61

Post by mc32 »

maze-le wrote: post #11
roenxi wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impressive, aren't they? The industrial muscle keeping people warm and happy. I assume Germany has a modern program of mine rehabilitation, so you're only able to see the parts that are currently part of the active mine. The historic mine footprint of an old mine is probably twice or thrice what is visible; much larger but invisible from satellite because it has been rehabilitated. Eg, the area just north-west of Tag…

Yes, there is such a program. There is a region in eastern Germany, that was known as the 'death triangle' during the DDR -- the region between Bitterfeld, Halle and Borna ( https://www.google.com/maps/@51.364936,12.2644447,63124m/dat... ). The region was dominated by coal mining and chemical industry -- greyish-black snows and acid rains were not uncommon. If you look at the map today, there are lots of lakes where…

That has echoes of the “Siberian Maldives” [1]. An ash lake that has turquoise waters, due to toxic pollutants, where lots of people go to take selfies ignoring the warning signs posted to not go in the lake... but people still do.

[1]https://time.com/5623538/toxic-waste-dump-selfies/

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#62

Post by anoncake »

namibj wrote: post #43
Kliment wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany is actually an excellent candidate for solar (though not nearly as much as places like Spain). It has an enormous solar installed base that produces a sizeable amount of energy, and had the buildout incentives not been cut a couple years back solar would be the second biggest electrical energy component today. Meanwhile coal is still heavily subsidized, to the tune of 4 billion euros yearly.

Also you can easily put solar over e.g. car parks, in which case you don't even need a proper roof if you funnel water from the panels towards the gutters without splashing the users walking to the cars. The cost should be within 30% of the panel price itself for a decent-size parking lot, less if you can get economies of scale through standardized modules that are placed next to each other to form rows for the cars.…

> You already can't use the land for plants/nature

You can put plants on rooftops, we just don't.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#63

Post by athenot »

jfk13 wrote: post #2

The scale of the scars on the earth here is pretty staggering: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Hambach+Forest/@50.89999...

That reminds me of the "mountain top removal" going on in the Appalachians.

Bring up google maps for West Virginia, zoom out so that the entire state is visible in the browser window, and you can see all the scars.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/West+Virginia/@38.1864602,...

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#64

Post by raxxorrax »

ntzm wrote: post #7

[flagged]

Capitalism is the best solution to manage our greed without killing ourselves while preserving our freedom.

I don't like it either, but I never trust anyone who says he had no self-interest.

And the current growth fetish isn't innate to capitalism.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#65

Post by turbinerneiter »

freeflight wrote: post #51
DocTomoe wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are forgetting the part where RWE is also paying the income of a whole lot of miners, who would suddenly be without a job if the mines where to be closed. In all fairness, Germany lost about four times as many jobs when we destroyed our solar industry.

The only thing I'm aware off is that the Groko has been giving out way fewer licenses for PV installations, which has lead to a considerable slow-down in building out PV capabilities. But afaik we didn't really destroy the industry, we just lost our edge [0], which has in part to do with industrial espionage [1], and in other parts with China simply out manufacturing anybody else as soon as they get the gist of build…

They ruined the home market, while China heavily subsidized theirs. It was a failure of politics.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#66

Post by twic »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #13

For someone who has been to Germany the scale and number of windturbines is amazing. It seems odd that they only account for 14% of their electricity production. By comparison I can't remember seeing any solar power infrastructure and yet that accounts for 7%.

Probably because wind turbines are much taller than solar panels.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#67

Post by adrianN »

Grue3 wrote: post #54
ntzm wrote: post #7

[flagged]

In case of Germany, it's anti-science anti-nuclear "environmentalists" that are destroying it. Energy is needed regardless of the economic structure of society. Now which kind of energy will it be? Germany chose coal and now they're reaping the consequences.

Nuclear was always less than 15% of Germany's primary power consumption. Renewables something like 5%. We need to get to 100% carbon neutral. Whether we have to replace 80 or 100% with wind and solar shouldn't make that much of a difference.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#68

Post by adrianN »

golergka wrote: post #32

> "It's heavy to see how your home just gets destroyed," says Omo. "The treehouse that you built and where you lived and where you spent so much time. And then you see hundreds and hundreds of cops running through your home. It's a heavy thing to see." I'm astonished by this hypocrisy. Not only have they squatted on someone else's property, they did it not just to live in a forest, they did it as activists: with the…

I think the main purpose of building those houses was making it impossible to fell the trees around them.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#69

Post by VBprogrammer »

twic wrote: post #66
VBprogrammer wrote: post #13

For someone who has been to Germany the scale and number of windturbines is amazing. It seems odd that they only account for 14% of their electricity production. By comparison I can't remember seeing any solar power infrastructure and yet that accounts for 7%.

Probably because wind turbines are much taller than solar panels.

Sure. I mean that is pretty obvious. But I think what I was surprised by is that solar is generating half as much energy while being below the 'noise floor' in terms of visual impact, such that I have no recollection of seeing any large solar installations.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#70

Post by fzort »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #31
bubblewrap wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They believe in a fairy tale of green energy without any side effects. I don't think they have a clear concept of a viable solution. The irony is that they blame their parents, whose generation protested against nuclear power. Presumably the only alternative that would have stood a chance to reduce climate change.

> I don't think they have a clear concept of a viable solution. Do you have a clear concept of a viable solution? (Hint: Killing the ecosystem that sustains humans is not it.)

> Do you have a clear concept of a viable solution?

Nuclear. Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear to produce the same amount of energy (source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08...)

Post reply on HN