17 ms·

Look at the energy sources to understand why. France: Nuclear Norway: Hydro Sweden: Hydro + Nuclear That’s why nuclear in making a comeback in the mind of t

by steeve 6y ago

Look at the energy sources to understand why. France: Nuclear Norway: Hydro Sweden: Hydro + Nuclear That’s why nuclear in making a comeback in the mind of those who care about climate change.

nl 6y ago
South Australia: https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/ https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/ Wind/Solar/Gas, with low emissions intensity and (as of September 2020) the lowest power prices in Australia.
- steeve 6y ago
  And yet the net result super bad: 256g/kWh to 500g/kWh. Gas is absolutely not “low emissions”. It’s actually the second worst offender after coal (400gCO2eq/kWh vs 1000 for coal).
  - nl 6y ago
    > 256g/kWh to 500g/kWh Where are you getting this? It's true the emissions mix is bad at night, but the absolute amount is what counts. Having a bad emission mix when no energy is being used isn't particularly concerning. > 400gCO2eq/kWh vs 1000 for coal That's pre-2014 numbers. Modern gas is better, around 300 gCO2eq/kWh[1]. It's not as good as solar/wind, but the fast startup time means its usage can be minimized and the low cost ($20M for a generator!) means money can be invested in truly environmently friendly sources like wind and solar instead of the money pit of nuclear power. [1] https://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/findata/matmgt/documents/2012/682-2012/682-2012_Appendix_H-WSTP_South_End_Plant_Process_Selection_Report/Appendix%207.pdf https://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/findata/matmgt/documents/201...
    - steeve 6y ago
      Those numbers are from electricityMap for South Australia: 201g right now, and 502g 15 hours ago. During the demand peak, it was 301g. Speaks for itself. About the money pit, Germany spent 500 billion euros on wind and solar. And what does it have to show for it? Right now it’s 10x the CO2/kWh of France at twice the price.
      - nl 6y ago
        What is this 500B euro amount you are talking about?
      - imtringued 6y ago
        If they did nothing they would be the same or worse as poland. If you look closely Germany has 30GW of gas capacity and it's not using it even though it would lower emissions by 50%.
bjelkeman-again 6y ago
It would be useful in these discussions to look at all energy generation, not just electricity. For Sweden [1] for example we can see that oil (transport), biomass (heating) are big contributors. [1] page 5, https://energimyndigheten.a-w2m.se/FolderContents.mvc/Download?ResourceId=168344 https://energimyndigheten.a-w2m.se/FolderContents.mvc/Downlo...

by steeve 6y ago

Look at the energy sources to understand why. France: Nuclear Norway: Hydro Sweden: Hydro + Nuclear That’s why nuclear in making a comeback in the mind of those who care about climate change.

nl 6y ago

South Australia: https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/ https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/ Wind/Solar/Gas, with low emissions intensity and (as of September 2020) the lowest power prices in Australia.

steeve 6y ago
And yet the net result super bad: 256g/kWh to 500g/kWh. Gas is absolutely not “low emissions”. It’s actually the second worst offender after coal (400gCO2eq/kWh vs 1000 for coal).
- nl 6y ago
  > 256g/kWh to 500g/kWh Where are you getting this? It's true the emissions mix is bad at night, but the absolute amount is what counts. Having a bad emission mix when no energy is being used isn't particularly concerning. > 400gCO2eq/kWh vs 1000 for coal That's pre-2014 numbers. Modern gas is better, around 300 gCO2eq/kWh[1]. It's not as good as solar/wind, but the fast startup time means its usage can be minimized and the low cost ($20M for a generator!) means money can be invested in truly environmently friendly sources like wind and solar instead of the money pit of nuclear power. [1] https://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/findata/matmgt/documents/2012/682-2012/682-2012_Appendix_H-WSTP_South_End_Plant_Process_Selection_Report/Appendix%207.pdf https://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/findata/matmgt/documents/201...
  - steeve 6y ago
    Those numbers are from electricityMap for South Australia: 201g right now, and 502g 15 hours ago. During the demand peak, it was 301g. Speaks for itself. About the money pit, Germany spent 500 billion euros on wind and solar. And what does it have to show for it? Right now it’s 10x the CO2/kWh of France at twice the price.
    - nl 6y ago
      What is this 500B euro amount you are talking about?
    - imtringued 6y ago
      If they did nothing they would be the same or worse as poland. If you look closely Germany has 30GW of gas capacity and it's not using it even though it would lower emissions by 50%.

bjelkeman-again 6y ago

It would be useful in these discussions to look at all energy generation, not just electricity. For Sweden [1] for example we can see that oil (transport), biomass (heating) are big contributors. [1] page 5, https://energimyndigheten.a-w2m.se/FolderContents.mvc/Download?ResourceId=168344 https://energimyndigheten.a-w2m.se/FolderContents.mvc/Downlo...