German Bavarian Broadcasting, Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR), has a report on wind energy in the southeastern state that is famous for its Oktoberfest, dirndls and lederhosen. It appears the brakes have been effectively applied to the scenery pollution industry.
Eyesores no longer welcome in Germany. Photo: wind park in Lower Saxony, for illustration only,
Bavaria is also home to some of the country’s most idyllic landscapes. But unfortunately Germany’s “Greens” have been pushing hard to industrialize this precious natural treasure – all with the aim of saving the planet. They have proposed the construction of dozens of wind parks of 200-meter tall turbines across the country side.
In the early days wind turbines were viewed as sort of a novelty and many communities even lobbied to get them. However, as wind parks sprouted across the country, people woke up to the natural destruction and overall inefficiency the wind energy has wreaked. Today, the BR report tells us that the tipping point has been reached: wind parks are no longer welcome; They’re too ugly, noisy, inefficient and only a very few profit from them at the expense of the many.
The BR report features one Bavarian village, Obbach, where a wind park with five 200-meter tall turbines was installed just 800 hundred meters away. Unfortunately for the village the park had been approved before Germany’s 10-H rule was enacted, and so construction went ahead much to the dissatisfaction of the village residents. The 10-H rule stipulates that no turbine may be closer to a living area than 10 times its height. Had the rule been enacted sooner, it would not have been possible to put up the park and the Obbach’s residents would have been spared the eyesore and noise.
Resident Andrea Lettowsky tells BR:
For me I keep thinking about how this used to be a beautiful landscape with open fields, and now it’s an industrial zone.”
That’s pretty much the sentiment that has spread across Germany, and with the 10-H rule Bavaria is leading the way in the country’s growing resistance to landscape spoilage by inefficient wind power. Already over 300 citizens initiatives have formed to resist the construction of new parks across the country. Moreover, recent reports tell us the German government is poised to scale back on renewable energies, aiming to cap it at 40 – 45% of total energy supply by 2025, according to the Berliner Zeitung.
The BR reports that although it is too late for Obbach, the new 10H rule is welcome and now gives communities the power to stop wind park projects that are aggressively pushed by deep-pocketed outside investors. Though it’s regrettable the park could not be stopped, Lettowsky is optimistic that other projects will be stopped elsewhere. The BR report concludes:
The fact is that the 10-H rule and the resistance from the citizens have pretty much put the brakes on further wind park construction in Bavaria.”
Indeed, thanks to forward looking states like Bavaria, the renewable energy tide is changing for the better.
Should be a 50-H rule !!!
Nah, 1.000.000-H would be much better..
Sorry greenies, peak wind will come way before peak oil, and the entirely natural and sustainable processes of rusting and metal fatigue will soon remove the eyesores from the landscape.
They should add a maximum height rule of 2m.
Windenergy produces only a very small amount of the totale energy consumtion. There is no energy if there is no wind, storage of energy is very costly, so are windturbines. Moreover there are a lot of disadvantages, the giant windmills are not accepten by inhabitants.
The best solution for the future is clean, safe, CO2-zero, sustainable Thorium MSR energy.
THORIUM SHMORIUM
See here…
http://www.laka.org/info/publicaties/2008-thorium.pdf
“On proliferation: though it is important to note that a thorium reactor doesn’t produce any weapons-grade plutonium, one needs to mention at the same time that the reactor does produce weapons-grade uranium-233. In fact uranium-233 is even a more effective fissile material than uranium-235. It has the same significant quantity (SQ) as plutonium-239: an amount of 8 kg is sufficient to make a nuclear bomb. Therefore the waste from thorium reactors is still a security risk”
That, and the long lived highly radioactive byproducts seriously complicate the issue.
And? Energy density is energy density. The key advantage of a Molten Salt Thorium reactor as invented by Weinberg who ALSO invented the LWR but recommended the former for civilian use is that there is no high pressure steam that can escape explosively. Ooooh, someone could build a Dirty Bomb! Well that would actually be so useless that no military of the world has ever deployed one.
Proliferation = a nation different from the US could do what the US does for 70 years now. SCARY!
“Energy density is energy density.” – DirkH
But accessing it safely, easily and efficiently differs from material to material. Hydrogen fusion comes to mind.
A few more gazillion box tops and I’ll be able to send to Battle Creek, MI for one of these.
http://www.ipp.cas.cz/miranda2/export/sitesavcr/ufp/sys/galerie-obrazky/view_white.png
…unless you get the kinks out of your “Mr. Fusion” first. 😉
See also here on why Thorium isn’t the miracle substance it’s being sold as.
http://helian.net/blog/2010/01/07/worldview/thorium-wired-magazine-muddies-the-water/
(also see my other post when it gets out of holding for approval)
We may get it to work, as India seems almost ready to do.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/fast-breeder-reactor-awaits-aerb-clearance-for-sodium-loading-116032600534_1.html
But since they have been “on the verge” of starting that reactor for almost a half a decade, I find it prudent to await an evaluation of it’s performance prior to celebrating.
Windenergy produces only a very small amount of the total energy consumtion. There is no energy if there is no wind, storage of energy is very costly, so are windturbines. Moreover there are a lot of disadvantages, the giant windmills are not accepted by inhabitants.
The best solution for the future is clean, safe, CO2-zero, sustainable Thorium MSR energy.
“Windenergy produces only a very small amount of the total energy consumtion. There is no energy if there is no wind, storage of energy is very costly, so are windturbines. ”
This claim is just plain out wrong.
http://strom-report.de/renewable-energy/
13.3% wind, 14.1% nuclear as part of electricity.
Renewables provided over 30% of electricity in Germany last year.
Renewables are mainstream by now.
“Moreover there are a lot of disadvantages, the giant windmills are not accepted by inhabitants.
The best solution for the future is clean, safe, CO2-zero, sustainable Thorium MSR energy.”
So you think inhabitants dislike wind plants but will love Thorium? Really?
Learn how to read first. Klaas Martens talks about “total energy consumption”. In this diagram the ammount of windenergy is so small, the IEA puts it together with solar and tidal.
http://www.iea.org/Sankey/index.html#?c=Germany&s=Balance
“Learn how to read first. Klaas Martens talks about “total energy consumption”.”
nuclear also becomes a “small” source, if you look at total energy consumption.
But for some weird reason, he thinks that Thorium is great, but wind is not. His argument does not make any sense.
PS: your chart is from 2013. Nice trick. The installed capacity was nearly doubled between 2013 and 2015.
http://strom-report.de/windenergie/
“13.3% wind, 14.1% nuclear as part of electricity.
Renewables provided over 30% of electricity in Germany last year.
Renewables are mainstream by now.”
Sod’s innumeracy again. First of all, hydropower is half of it, it is not subsidized and a hundred years old. Doesn’t stop the subsidy thieves from including it in their number.
Second, sod as usual talks only about electricity which is ONE SEVENTH of our energy consumption.
So obviously this ain’t gonna do anything about the dreaded WARMING. So why do you keep on harping about that seventh of a seventh, the 2%? Bought with 2% of GDP in subsidies?
Solar+Wind in Germany are all fraud, and no use. Subsidy pumps they are, not energy infrastructure.
“Sod’s innumeracy again. First of all, hydropower is half of it, it is not subsidized and a hundred years old. Doesn’t stop the subsidy thieves from including it in their number.”
How about a “sorry, i was wrong”, for once?
I gave you the link. Hydro is 3% of those 30% renewables.
http://strom-report.de/renewable-energy/
And hydro would be in decline, if the “greens” were not pushing hard to expand it.
“I gave you the link. Hydro is 3% of those 30% renewables.”
Well it’s 153 to 20 TWh. so 20/173 total renewables; That’s 11% in my book, not 3%.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung
Ok the 50% is obsolete I grant you that.
“And hydro would be in decline, if the “greens” were not pushing hard to expand it.”
Well that is quite a bold tale. Greens say that hydropower storage lakes emit Methane which warms the planet 21times more than CO2! Per molecule! Greens/progressives are behind dam removal in the USA for this reason. And that’s the reason California does not count Hydropower as renewable in their electricity renewables quota mandate. Otherwise they could simply fill the quota by buying Washington hydro electricity.
The Greens in Germany push only for one form of hydropower: Inefficient small fish mincer turbines. Because there’s subsidies to be stolen.
And WHY would the very successful big hydropower dams be “in decline”? I never heard THAT one. A sudden lack of interest by operators in producing 20 TWh of electricity a year? Pray tell. Where did you get THAT one? I’ve NEVER heard ANY German Green say one positive word about hydropower dams. But then again I mostly hear them talk about Marihuana and Methamphetamine and the many uses of small children anyway so maybe I missed it.
Hydro is certainly not in decline in China. The 3 Gorges Dam power station of 22,000 MW (6*650+26*700) dwarfs other hydro power stations. Chinese have plans to double their hydro -think of the availability in Tibet
“And hydro would be in decline, if the ‘greens’ were not pushing hard to expand it.”
Vendre un canard à moitié? Selling half a duck again?
If I didn’t trust Pierre’s honesty I’d think he impersonates a stereotypical sod puppet to bring up every green canard in existence for general amusement.
“And WHY would the very successful big hydropower dams be “in decline”? I never heard THAT one”
Just look at your own data source:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg
Hydro had some sort of “peak” around 2000 and is in decline since then in Germany.
Now it is revived by green power companies which are forced to invest in new green sources and also invest in hydro.
The new hydro is mostly really green hydro, by the way, small dams and fish stairs to move around the power plant.
@cementafriend 14. April 2016 at 8:11 AM
I saw something about that about a month ago. they plan a lot of dams (at least 6 more), and aren’t concerned about what effects that has on their neighbors.
http://tibet.org/tibet3rdpole.org/?p=548
How much of the renwable part is from biofuels? And don’t forget hydro-electric power. Wind and sun is about 15%, IMO.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung
“How much of the renwable part is from biofuels? And don’t forget hydro-electric power. Wind and sun is about 15%, IMO.”
13.3% wind. 7.7% Biomass. 5.9% solar, 3% hydro. so very close to 20% wind and solar, and with the average growth per year we might actually see above 20% in 2016.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13514497.html
Why do Greens hate nature so much? Is it because they can’t control it?
Well they got their 13% of the vote, are entrenched, and have for years only spoken about the rights of people of rare genders and of a certain Middle Eastern religion. Nature is none of their concern; except in an election campaign where it might come in handy.
“Why do Greens hate nature so much? Is it because they can’t control it?”
Greens do not hate nature. The realm question on this topic is a different one:
There are conservatives with a real concern for the environment. But why are a lot of the rest of them pretending to care about nature in their fight against wind power?
“But why are a lot of the rest of them pretending to care about nature in their fight against wind power?”
That’s projection, sod. Nobody gave you a reason to assume we’re pretending anything. You’re projecting. YOU are the pretender.
Proof that they are pretending? Links?
“Proof that they are pretending? Links?”
People who do not care about a brown coal mine but complain about a wind mill are obviously hypocrite.
But let us do things the other way round. Can you give me any link about your support for birds against other kind of industies?
Wind power is the ONLY industry that invades Nature reserves. Other industries are not allowed to, sod. You should know that. That’s why it was called a Nature reserve before the Greens decided that the term means nothing.
You say the Greens do not hate nature? They fooled us again?
“They fooled us again?” – Colorado Wellington
No. Just sod.
The greens hate nature so much that they destroy it to save the climate.
“The greens hate nature so much that they destroy it to save the climate.”
This is just utter garbage. The thing that was doing real damage to the environment, was burning fossile fuels like coal. The greens saved the environment, by enforcing rules and scrubbers, for example for coal plants.
They did this, against strong opposition of the people who pretend here, that they care about birds (basically only about those killed by wind mills).
sod at his best, off the deep end …
Go easy on him, C.W., the deep end of the wading pool can be pretty terrifying to a toddler.
” The greens saved the environment, by enforcing rules and scrubbers, for example for coal plants. ”
Now you suddenly know what a flue gas scrubber is? After I told you twenty times? And BTW, that was under Helmut Kohl, CDU. Around 1995.
To be precise, that’s when the last coal power plants got them, the old lignite plants in East Germany. Western plants already had them for a long time.
“Now you suddenly know what a flue gas scrubber is? After I told you twenty times? And BTW, that was under Helmut Kohl, CDU. Around 1995.”
I know what a scrubber is. But they do not fix every problem. And they were introduced by green pressure, against the resistance of conservatives!
In the year 2000, “green” Germany basically was the only country which had near 100% scrubbers on coal plants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization#History
In Germany (remember, the world centre of green ideas!), deployment started in 1974 (new hard coal) and had to be refitted to existing plants from 1984 on.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rauchgasentschwefelung#Anwendung
But this did happen under intensive pressure from environmental groups:
Robin Wood was occupying chimneys
https://www.robinwood.de/german/presse/020828.htm
And the greens party were pushing changes with the slogan “entschwefeln statt schwafeln” (desulfurize instead of talking rubbish)
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13514497.html
The title story of that Spiegel (by pure chance, by the way) shows how much pressure was on chancellor Kohl, also because of weak environmental standards in the european union.
Kohl was not pushing green ideas, green ideas were pushing Kohl!
I fear my comment got eaten, so in short:
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13514497.html
Environmental organisations like the green party and robin wood were pushing Kohl to add scrubbers.
But let us get real about this:
For a start, there is a serious attempt to stop this rule:
http://www.welt.de/regionales/bayern/article154231150/Huerden-fuer-Windrad-Bau-werden-zum-Fall-fuers-Gericht.html
(but it will have to pass ultra conservative bavarian judges, so do not hold your breath)
But why stop at wind power?
How big will the 10-H rule be for coal mines? (instead of simply digging away the villages)
How big will it be for nuclear power plant? (Fukushima evacuation circle?)
Let’s take your hyperbole to the obvious extreme:
How big will the 10-H rule be for steam engines (which is all that will be left when you and yours finish with us)?
This newfangled 10-H rule is not supported by Marxist theory and history but in the most socially advanced societies the rule for iron furnaces and steelworks built by the people from ecologically-sourced natural materials has been firmly established not to exceed 2.5 m (ca. 8 ft) in height. They are to be situated as close as possible to villages, communes and labor camps so workers don’t waste time walking idly to and from their assigned workplaces. In the most advanced phase the villages are abandoned and replaced by barracks within the plant which provides even more time for labor and further increases productivity. The same rules apply to power plants.
https://coloradowellington.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/great-leap-forward.jpg
Taller structures have been built during times of revisionist turmoil but these things will naturally be reversed and the perpetrators punished when ideological clarity prevails again as is historically inevitable.
ClimateOtter 13. April 2016 at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Reply
“Let’s take your hyperbole to the obvious extreme:
How big will the 10-H rule be for steam engines (which is all that will be left when you and yours finish with us)?”
Steam engines run on coal so they’re right out. Sod’s goal is to live in a wooden shack in the forest without metal objects. Because he does not tolerate any mining.
“…why are a lot of the rest of them pretending to care about nature in their fight against wind power?” – sod the perpetually obtuse
Why do you pretend you care about nature, when you support activities that cause so much destruction?
Wind farms kill vastly more birds than oil, yet ONLY oil companies are prosecuted.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203706604574376543308399048
Wind power destroys the environment.
http://watchdog.org/198173/environmentalists-destroying-environment/
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/01/wind-farms-vs-wildlife/.
“Wind power destroys the environment.”
“Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately 20,000 birds in the United States in 2009 but nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled power plants more than 14 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to birds and avian wildlife than wind farms and nuclear power plants.”
“The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009 update,” Benjamin K. Sovacool, Renewable Energy, Volume 49, January 2013, Pages 19–24. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857
“Wind farms kill vastly more birds than oil, yet ONLY oil companies are prosecuted.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240529702037066045743765433083”
Your claim is a lie.
In fact, the article says, without a citation
“Altamont’s turbines, located about 30 miles east of Oakland, Calif., kill more than 100 times as many birds as Exxon’s tanks,”
That’s one location. Nationwide?
Number of bird deaths per unit of energy:
https://notrickszone.com/2011/03/24/nuclear-is-the-safest-form-of-energy-opposition-is-a-glaring-denial-of-reality/
See also:
“Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately 20,000 birds in the United States in 2009 but nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled power plants more than 14 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to birds and avian wildlife than wind farms and nuclear power plants.”
“The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009 update,” Benjamin K. Sovacool, Renewable Energy, Volume 49, January 2013, Pages 19–24. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857
Can’t find an update on troubles with Bard 1. Any recent information?
Thank you.
Many greenies are also townies and they don’t want waste incinerators, power plants, fracking etc, close to where they live, so out of sight, (for them), out of mind. NGO’s get good coverage in towns because of more people and thus more subscriptions when any intensive facility to supply their needs is proposed.
I was asked to provide evidence of conservatives only pretending to care for birds. This site did an analysis of coverage for bird killings in extremely conservative media. Coverage is basically 100% only for birds killed by wind plants.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/24/selective-conservationists-right-wing-only-worr/196054
Ouch. Even rainy Britain got more electricity from the sun than from coal over 24 hours last weekend:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/13/solar-power-sets-new-british-record-by-beating-coal-for-a-day
“Even rainy Britain got more electricity from the sun than from coal over 24 hours last weekend:” – sod
So, the sun shone for 24 hours one day in the UK? Fascinating! They must tell the world how they did it.
But seriously, if the plug is pulled on massive subsidies, they just can not compete.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3ff7db4-6d9e-11e5-8171-ba1968cf791a.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/08/solar-installation-in-british-homes-falls-by-three-quarters-after-subsidy-cuts
In context.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
(coal is only about 10%, with Nuke and CCGT at about 70%)
BTW, sod, where does it show how much solar is being generated?
It says here…
http://www.ukpowergeneration.info/
…under “solar notes” that…
” Output Estimate calculation
The output value is calculated from:
Total UK Solar PV Capacity * Annual Average Load factor * Time of year weighting * Percentage sunshine in the hour.”
Nothing is measured, so we really don’t know how much of what the fairy dust snorting estimators calculated actually made it to the grid.
“So, the sun shone for 24 hours one day in the UK? Fascinating! They must tell the world how they did it.”
No. the comparison is between averages. Electricity output in MWh seems to be an extensive variable. So you can compute averages. Or is it not?
“The output value is calculated from:
Total UK Solar PV Capacity * Annual Average Load factor * Time of year weighting * Percentage sunshine in the hour.”
Nothing is measured, so we really don’t know how much of what the fairy dust snorting estimators calculated actually made it to the grid.”
you do understand, that grid stability on every single day depends on this “fairy dust snorting” estimates?
“Electricity output in MWh seems to be an extensive variable. So you can compute averages. Or is it not?” – sod
It Depends.
Ain’t life interesting?!
So it would depend on how the circuitry is connected. And that’s as far as I want to go with that. But it’s sufficient to know that, no, it is unfortunately not as simple a matter as we might wish.
Nice try, though.
“So it would depend on how the circuitry is connected. ”
That is simply false. Your link is talking about voltage, not about MWh.
Your own link lists Joule as an extensive property.
http://everything.explained.today/Intensive_and_extensive_properties/
But MWh is just a derived unit of Joule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour
How often will i have to show you, that you are wrtong before you start admitting it?
@sod the willfully obtuse
When voltage is in parallel it is considered intensive, and when in series extensive. When voltage is intensive, current is extensive. When voltage is extensive, current is considered intensive.
I apologize for mistakenly believing you were able to read and comprehend basic concepts.
Will you believe it if it comes from your precious and hallowed WikiPee? (see under “Limitations”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_and_extensive_properties
I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and you keep proving what a waste of time that is. You really are as dumb as they say.
@sod the shallow
Oh, wait. I see the problem now. An error in the wording of those quotes. Where it says “charge” it means, as it did in the previous part, “charge transferred” which is “ELECTRIC CURRENT.”
“Will you believe it if it comes from your precious and hallowed WikiPee? (see under “Limitations””
You do not understand anything.
Your own link gives Joule as an extensive property:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_and_extensive_properties#.22Specific.22_Properties
(second row of the table)
But MWh basically is another word for Joule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour
Everything that you brought up here has utterly no meaning.
sod: The bird data:
“Avian Mortality by Energy Source,” US News, 8/22/14
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds
Number of bird deaths per unit of energy:
https://notrickszone.com/2011/03/24/nuclear-is-the-safest-form-of-energy-opposition-is-a-glaring-denial-of-reality/
“The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009 update,” Benjamin K. Sovacool, Renewable Energy, Volume 49, January 2013, Pages 19–24. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857
“Ouch. Even rainy Britain got more electricity from the sun than from coal over 24 hours last weekend”
I don’t suppose that would have anything to do with renewables having priority access to the grid? Or that the grid have to pay them whether their output is needed or not?
sod – come back next winter, during a gloomy windless weekend, and tell us how your favourite subsidy generators are doing. Of course, by then, we may not have any (working) coal plants left to keep things going…
Why wouldn’t you give renewables priority on the grid??
Because they show up for work only for a small fraction of the time, being subject to the whims of weather.
Do they? Let’s see your data on wind power + solar power over the course of a year.
What do you do when coal plants are taken down for maintenance (and air pollution declines for awhile….)?
No modern coal fired power station creates any more than a tiny amount of pollution.
Certainly nowhere near the environmental devastation related to wind turbines and solar “farms”
@David Appel
Yes, Daviu, let’s see YOUR data on coal plant air pollution (no “estimates” – only hard data please)
It is very hard to follow this blog without the option of being emailed new comments.
Am I really supposed to keep all these links open and keep refreshing them? In 2016??
Nobody give stuff what you do.. its all meaningless and irrelevant.
You are nothing but a mosquito like annoyance… a yapping Chihuahua.
“It is very hard to follow this blog …”
You don’t anyway, Appell. Your preferred method is drive-by sniping.
[…] Traduction par Contrepoints de Success ! German State Of Bavaria “Puts Brakes On” Wind Energy, Industrialization Of Rural Lands… […]
[…] Traduction par Contrepoints de Success ! German State Of Bavaria “Puts Brakes On” Wind Energy, Industrialization Of Rural Lands… […]
STOP THE POLLUTION!!!
It is forbidden to operate a volcano without proper protection of the environment – until scrubbers are attached, all volcano activity is forbidden.
…didn’t get the memo
http://iceagenow.info/sulfur-bardarbunga-europe/
If you feel offended by a volcano eruption, you are free to sue.
Class action suit of Europe against Iceland?
Ambulance chasing is for amateurs. We have bigger fish to fry. 🙂
The most interesting news in the alternative power sector is the death of coal.
When Greenpeace offerer minus two Billion Euro for the Vattenfall coal business some month ago, people thought it was not a serious offer.
http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/verkauf-der-braunkohle-vattenfall-laesst-greenpeace-abblitzen/12529226.html
Now the coal business was sold, basically for minus two billion euro.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/vattenfall-baggern-fuer-die-kohle-1.2954458
And that is in addition to about 3.4 Billion in equipment, which Greenpeace would have scrapped while the new owners might want to keep it.
Hmm. The death of coal.
The Swedes finally submitted to Angela Merkel’s excellent green energy scheme and sold the business to the Czechs. The coal mining and electricity generation died, says sod. Who would disagree? It’s dead, Jim. And it will die again and be dead in 2017, 2018, 2019, and every year thereafter as the Germans in Lausitz keep mining and burning the coal, and powering the grid. But they’ll be working for the Czechs instead of the Swedes.
And the planet will be saved. Seriously.