Germany begins dismantling wind farm for coal
euobserver.com
euobserver.com
To those concerned about sovereignty, costs and jobs, obviously that's not a concern because the alternative Germany pursued was Nord stream which is less sovereign and probably costs more (albeit the Russian oligarchs probably made the initial down payment) and the talent is Swedish.
Or lease space for factories in Spain/Portugal. Similarly, concerns about sovereignty, costs and jobs are moot because the alternative is to build the plants in Asia and ship the cars over.
Solar panels above about 50°N almost never break even from a carbon budget POV over the lifetime of the panel once you account for mining, smelting, panel production, transportation and end of life processing.
You can fudge it if you have a location that far north with both a high altitude and low annual cloud cover but there aren't very many of them. AFAIK the only place with good annual solar potential at that latitude is in the Amur Oblast of Russia.
.
That said, all of this applies to solar buildouts in the northern and central latitudes of Europe. Building panels in Spain/Italy/Serbia/etc and transmitting power is a wonderful idea that hasn't seen as much uptake as anybody with green ideas would like.
>> Yes - seems like I omitted the part about the leasing of land being in Spain/Portugal accidentally when doing a final edit of my comment!
Doing some sort of 100 year land lease of land in Spain/Italy/Portugal/Serbia for German/French solar farms seems like such a no brainer - at least relative to Nord Stream.
The right moves are to get rid of the polluters, and switch to sustainable energy
And how is this a "right move" exactly?
1. No one wants a nuclear reactor in their back yard
2. Making a safe nuclear reactor takes skilled engineers
3. The only country with those skills in europe are in france (The UK folk have all mostly retired now)
4. Oil companies have been known to fund the likes of Greenpeace and CND to promote fear about nuclear power/weapons
5. Nuclear has a longer ROI than Fossil fuels, but rapidly overtakes the profits when it reaches ROI Investors want to make a quick buck.
6. Investment into safer nuclear reactors has been choked for many of the above reasons
7. Even without reprocessing, nuclear is an order of magnitude less damaging to the environment than Oil/Gas
It would be curious to see if there is a real conspiracy here, namely that green parties are really the creation of fossil fuel companies. Mainly to redirect and block credible environmental movements and replace them with ridiculous fearmongering groups with the goal of making fossil fuels the only option.
Now green is finally in gov again and can only look on the ruins left for them after 16 years of Conservative led power policy.