4 ms·

> Ways to cut down a huge part of heating-related needs are known, for example by enhancing thermal isolation or heating buildings in "anti-frost" (no freezing)

> Ways to cut down a huge part of heating-related needs are known, for example by enhancing thermal isolation or heating buildings in "anti-frost" (no freezing) mode while wearing heated clothing. Building standards for new buildings are aleady very strict when it comes to isolation. But I don't think you understand the mentality of most Norwegians on this matter. Norway produces electricity at extremely low prices. This is 110% renewable. Most Norwegians don't feel obligated to reduce their quality of life just ot provide cheaper electricity to Denmark, Germany and the UK. If you take commodities where the price difference is the reverse, like meat, (EDIT:) I expect most Danes would be equally reluctant to pay Norwegian prices for beef and pork. In fact, Norway fully intends for people to INCREASE their electricity consumption, even beyond what we currently export. Much of Norway's greenhouse gas emmisions come from petrol/diesel, but currently 2/3 of new cars are electric. This means that ever more electricity is needed domestically. As long as most European countries use natural gas for heating, or rather, as long as natural gas is a cheaper way to heat buildings in countries like Germany than electricity, I predict that it will be hard to have a common electricity market across the North Sea / Skagerak. If electricity is not used for heating, it is kind of a luxery good. But when all you have for heating is electricity, it becomes a fundamental need, similar to food and water (when it's -40 degrees Celsius outside). Many countries in Eastern Europe have winter temperatures almost similarly low, and for those to use electricity for heating, the price also needs to be at similar levels (or lower, since they have less wealth than Norway). For many of those countries, it's hard replace fossil fuels, and if they cannot use Russian gas, they may have to go back to coal (LNG may be too expensive). Hopefully you're right, and they can get affordable prices by using windmills. But for countries like Hungary and Romania to be able to heat their houses with electricity, prices have to be RADICALLY lower than current prices in Germany or Denmark. Obviously, modern nuclear plants are not cheap enough in all places, either. But even if the effect is just that using Nuclear in place of gas for electricity production, that should ensure that (non-Russian) natural gas remains viable for heating purposes througout Europe for the next generation. Or (admittedly a bit unrealistic), one could revise standards for Nuclear production to lower safety standards (in terms of expected deaths per GWh) to a level more similar to competing energy forms.

natmaka 4y ago
> Building standards for new buildings are aleady very strict when it comes to isolation. Yes, however in many nations there is a huge fleet of old not retrofitted buildings. > Most Norwegians don't feel obligated to reduce their quality of life just ot provide cheaper electricity to Denmark, Germany and the UK. This is perfectly understandable and thinking "let's provide for ourselves first, and then sell our surpluses without any rebate" is welcome. The market will cope. > I doubt most Danes would be equally reluctant to pay Norwegian prices for meat and pork. True, and there may also be some dynamic equilibrium to reach there. > Norway fully intends for people to INCREASE their electricity consumption Nearly all European nation does so, AFAIK, and those who deny it doesn't have any other plan: the most realistic way to replace fossil fuels remains 'electrification', and even with major efforts towards saving energy achieving it implies to produce more electricity. A few years ago some denied it, but nowadays it seems clear(?) > As long as most European countries use natural gas for heating > If electricity is not used for heating, it is kind of a luxery good During a very cold season in the North it may not be as vital as heating but everywhere many households, even out of cold/hot seasons (heating system and air conditioner OFF) just cannot cope without electricity. Many professional setups, especially secondary and even more tertiary sector, just cannot proceed without it. > it's hard replace fossil fuels, and if they cannot use Russian gas, they may have to go back to coal (LNG may be too expensive). > for countries like Hungary and Romania to be able to heat their houses with electricity, prices have to be RADICALLY lower than current prices in Germany Yes, but how would nuclear be a better option, given its upfront costs, high LCOE...? > natural gas remains viable for heating purposes througout Europe for the next generation. Is it compatible with an IPCC scenario? > one could revise standards for Nuclear production to lower safety standards (in terms of expected deaths per GWh) to a level more similar to competing energy forms. It will be known, thus amplifying the NIMBY effect.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > even out of cold/hot seasons (heating system and air conditioner OFF) just cannot cope without electricity 30 degrees C is uncomfortable, -20 is another level. Affluent people will always have air conditioning, as can workplaces, simply based on profit. I think most people in warmer climates still see air conditioning as a kind of a luxery (at least the ones I know), even if it is a very welcome luxery. > Yes, but how would nuclear be a better option, given its upfront costs, high LCOE...? Nuclear would rely on going back to more reasonable prices, partly through a review of regulations, and partly by focusing on efficiency during construction and operation. We know this is all doable, if the will is there. >> natural gas remains viable for heating purposes througout Europe for the next generation. > Is it compatible with an IPCC scenario? Probably not with the most optimistic one.. But better than to continue large scale coal power. > It will be known, thus amplifying the NIMBY effect. This would absolutely require some education/propaganda efforts by governments and other authorities, similar to the kind of education being done for climate change. Starting with thourough documentation of the harm done by coal to lungs in media and schools would be a start. Start adding a tax on coal power (and a smaller one on natural gas), and increase it every year, until both are unprofitable. Then let the market decide how to distribute the replacement between renewables and nuclear.

natmaka 4y ago

> Building standards for new buildings are aleady very strict when it comes to isolation. Yes, however in many nations there is a huge fleet of old not retrofitted buildings. > Most Norwegians don't feel obligated to reduce their quality of life just ot provide cheaper electricity to Denmark, Germany and the UK. This is perfectly understandable and thinking "let's provide for ourselves first, and then sell our surpluses without any rebate" is welcome. The market will cope. > I doubt most Danes would be equally reluctant to pay Norwegian prices for meat and pork. True, and there may also be some dynamic equilibrium to reach there. > Norway fully intends for people to INCREASE their electricity consumption Nearly all European nation does so, AFAIK, and those who deny it doesn't have any other plan: the most realistic way to replace fossil fuels remains 'electrification', and even with major efforts towards saving energy achieving it implies to produce more electricity. A few years ago some denied it, but nowadays it seems clear(?) > As long as most European countries use natural gas for heating > If electricity is not used for heating, it is kind of a luxery good During a very cold season in the North it may not be as vital as heating but everywhere many households, even out of cold/hot seasons (heating system and air conditioner OFF) just cannot cope without electricity. Many professional setups, especially secondary and even more tertiary sector, just cannot proceed without it. > it's hard replace fossil fuels, and if they cannot use Russian gas, they may have to go back to coal (LNG may be too expensive). > for countries like Hungary and Romania to be able to heat their houses with electricity, prices have to be RADICALLY lower than current prices in Germany Yes, but how would nuclear be a better option, given its upfront costs, high LCOE...? > natural gas remains viable for heating purposes througout Europe for the next generation. Is it compatible with an IPCC scenario? > one could revise standards for Nuclear production to lower safety standards (in terms of expected deaths per GWh) to a level more similar to competing energy forms. It will be known, thus amplifying the NIMBY effect.

trashtester 4y ago
> even out of cold/hot seasons (heating system and air conditioner OFF) just cannot cope without electricity 30 degrees C is uncomfortable, -20 is another level. Affluent people will always have air conditioning, as can workplaces, simply based on profit. I think most people in warmer climates still see air conditioning as a kind of a luxery (at least the ones I know), even if it is a very welcome luxery. > Yes, but how would nuclear be a better option, given its upfront costs, high LCOE...? Nuclear would rely on going back to more reasonable prices, partly through a review of regulations, and partly by focusing on efficiency during construction and operation. We know this is all doable, if the will is there. >> natural gas remains viable for heating purposes througout Europe for the next generation. > Is it compatible with an IPCC scenario? Probably not with the most optimistic one.. But better than to continue large scale coal power. > It will be known, thus amplifying the NIMBY effect. This would absolutely require some education/propaganda efforts by governments and other authorities, similar to the kind of education being done for climate change. Starting with thourough documentation of the harm done by coal to lungs in media and schools would be a start. Start adding a tax on coal power (and a smaller one on natural gas), and increase it every year, until both are unprofitable. Then let the market decide how to distribute the replacement between renewables and nuclear.