3 ms·

And, if you could, it would still be massively more expensive. For the price you get many times as much renewable generation.

by ncmncm 4y ago

belorn 4y ago
The market is free to make their decisions. With a global ban on fossil fuels in the European grid countries should choose for themselves if they want to build multiple cheaper renewables or build more expensive nuclear. Voters will then say theirs. Countries can always trade with each other so that which ever strategy end up as a winner will spread to the others. Everything is a win-win scenario as long fossil fuels stays in the ground.
- pydry 4y ago
  I think a lot of governments are keen for this not to happen. For nuclear powers, a civilian nuclear industry is a strategic asset that sharply brings down the cost of maintaining nuclear weapons/subs/carriers. This is partly through skills exchange and partly due to the presence of a shared industrial ecosystem. For certain non nuclear powers (sweden, iran, south korea) an overpriced civvie nuclear industry is kind of like buying an option on quickly becoming a nuclear power which theyd like to keep in case of geopolitical emergency. Countries that dont see a necessity for MAD and arent nuclear powers almost universally cant be bothered with the expense and will just build something else. This is why the nuclear industry/the US government are so keen to coopt the green movement to support throwing more subsidies after nuclear plants in the name of solving global warming. Also why theyre so keen to foment a split between the traditionally united antinuclear and green groups.
  - belorn 4y ago
    Well again, countries can choose between the non-fossil fuel options. I strongly doubt that nuclear powers will effect the choice in any major way. The biggest factor will be price. Either renewable + storage will be cheaper, renewables + nuclear power, or renewables and dependency on trade, or renewable + nuclear + storage + trade. Yes, governments are keen for this not to happen. Gas, oil and coal is still much cheaper than any of the alternatives listed above. Energy prices in Europe as can be seen here (https://tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/energy-prices https://tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/energy-prices), are crazy high. It is expected to climb further as gas and oil prices continue to rise. Governments will step in and subsidize whatever they can to prevent a catastrophic collapse of the grid. Gas, oil and coal still need to stay in the ground. The green movement could easily stop being fragmented by joining behind that statement, but for some it is more important to be anti-nuclear than keeping gas, oil and coal from being burned. They can continue to be anti-nuclear for as much I care as long they don't advocate to keep gas, oil and coal power plants operational. Thus we need a law that sets a specific date when gas, oil and coal is no longer allowed in the grid.
    - pydry 4y ago
      >Well again, countries can choose between the non-fossil fuel options. I strongly doubt that nuclear powers will effect the choice in any major way. The media is, in general, oblivious about the connection between civilian nuclear power and military nuclear requirements in the west. They dont explicitly deny it but it would tend to be mentioned in passing in, like, congressional hearings not propaganda targeted at the general public (like the OP's link). However, you might have noticed that when Iran tries to build a nuclear industry for peaceful purposes the propaganda outfits argue vociferously that We Definitely Do Not Believe Them. And of course, they were entirely right. Iran did want a civilian nuclear industry for not entirely peaceful purposes - their economics didnt stack up either. And that is why the cynical attempt to foment a split between anti nuclear campaigners and the green movement goes on. They want greens to be, well, pro nuclear-weapons as a condition of them being seen to be "green". This propaganda attempt has been quite successful. Not a day goes by on hacker news when somebody doesnt take a dump on anti nuclear campaigners/the german green party while Poland's enormous coal industry that isnt going anywhere is ignored by the very same propaganda/people who listen to it.
      - belorn 4y ago
        They don't need to be pro-nuclear in order to be green. They just can't be sitting in political debates being on the side of the table that is arguing to keeping gas, oil and coal power plants. They just need to say: "Lets close this fossil fuel power plant". If people then ask them about nuclear they can be just as anti-nuclear they want. They will get follow up question about what to do when energy demand exceed that of supply, but that is a separate debate between them and those arguing in favor of nuclear. To take a example out of Swedish politics this last winter. The right movement wanted to replace an oil power plant by reopening a closed nuclear generator. The oil power plant is operating in the south of Sweden, and the plant is also the single largest contributor of green house gases in that area. To quote from memory, the green representative said "Oil power plants is a natural part of the reserve energy plan in Sweden, and there is nothing strange that it need to burn oil when demand exceed supply". There is something broken when the highest representatives of the green movement is standing in public debates saying that oil power plants are a natural part of the grid. If that is caused by propaganda then the people who is listening need to stop doing it. They could have said "No, lets replace that oil power plant with a green hydrogen plant". Or they could have said "No, lets replace that oil power plant with a pumped hydro storage". It would make following discussion about costs a bit more difficult, but they would still be the green movement arguing in favor of the environment. Instead they argued in favor of keeping the oil power plant running. It really is as simple as that. No propaganda, no plot by a pro nuclear-weapons organization trying to turn the world MAD. Just politics where everything the other side say must be countered. If pro-nuclear want to close fossil fuel plants and replace them with nuclear then the anti-nuclear people want to keep the fossil fuel plants. Keep the gas, oil and coal in the ground. It used to be slogan of the green movement. It should be again. It is a statement that both pro and anti-nuclear people could agree on if they wanted to.
iso1631 4y ago
We've kicked the can so far down the road that the cost isn't really a factor any more -- both Nuclear and Renewable are less than the cost of doing nothing. The question is what Sadly nobody in charge seems to be bothered. Europe should have been plating the Iberian peninsular in solar for the last 10 years, especially after Crimea. Germany was doing great with solar until about 2015, when it pretty much stopped. From 2009-2014 solar went from 1% of electric consumption to 6%. From 2014-2019 it went from 6% to 8%, not even the same increase let alone continuing on the exponential line. But while the best time to be building out like your civilisation depended on it was 10 years ago, the second best time is now. Especially with Europe's reliance on Gas from Russia, it should be building everything it can, no moaning about planning permission or people complaining about the scenery etc. Every kWh of solar, or wind, generated is 1kWh of gas not used. More high voltage interconnections should be built to shift power everywhere, especially from Southern Spain, Siciliy and the Penlopenese (where solar should be going), and from Denmark/Netherlands for offshore wind, funded from ECB loans. Overproduction is not a problem, it can be dumped into green hydrogen generation if nothing else (although again places like Finland are making strides with hot sand storage).
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Germany seems to have been building out a fair bit of wind. Enough? No, but more than others.
  - iso1631 4y ago
    Germany is big in Solar, but it should have been increasing not decreasing. Denmark is good with wind, but should be generating 150% of its usage from wind over the course of the year by now The biggest thing pro-carbon afficiandos complain about is that renewables require storage. No they don't. If you need to use gas or oil for 30 days a year due to cloudy windless winter days, that's 90% of your energy use with renewable, that's a massive benefit. Until there's a significant problem for a month or two with excess renewable energy in the EU, and the vast majority of home heating system has been converted from gas to electric, and the same with transport (both cars and trains) then there is a demand for increased renewable production even without storage. If renewables in the EU had continued the 2005-2010 growth it would be generating 36% of Europe's electricity by now instead of 22%. That rate should have increased from 2010, not decreased. It should be aiming for well over 100%, with excess dumped into electric cars, green hydrogen generation, hot sand, etc. Renewables need to increase 10-fold across the EU to offset energy imports. But instead short term thinking won out, as it always does in democratic countries.

And, if you could, it would still be massively more expensive. For the price you get many times as much renewable generation.

by ncmncm 4y ago

And, if you could, it would still be massively more expensive. For the price you get many times as much renewable generation.

belorn 4y ago

The market is free to make their decisions. With a global ban on fossil fuels in the European grid countries should choose for themselves if they want to build multiple cheaper renewables or build more expensive nuclear. Voters will then say theirs. Countries can always trade with each other so that which ever strategy end up as a winner will spread to the others. Everything is a win-win scenario as long fossil fuels stays in the ground.

pydry 4y ago
I think a lot of governments are keen for this not to happen. For nuclear powers, a civilian nuclear industry is a strategic asset that sharply brings down the cost of maintaining nuclear weapons/subs/carriers. This is partly through skills exchange and partly due to the presence of a shared industrial ecosystem. For certain non nuclear powers (sweden, iran, south korea) an overpriced civvie nuclear industry is kind of like buying an option on quickly becoming a nuclear power which theyd like to keep in case of geopolitical emergency. Countries that dont see a necessity for MAD and arent nuclear powers almost universally cant be bothered with the expense and will just build something else. This is why the nuclear industry/the US government are so keen to coopt the green movement to support throwing more subsidies after nuclear plants in the name of solving global warming. Also why theyre so keen to foment a split between the traditionally united antinuclear and green groups.
- belorn 4y ago
  Well again, countries can choose between the non-fossil fuel options. I strongly doubt that nuclear powers will effect the choice in any major way. The biggest factor will be price. Either renewable + storage will be cheaper, renewables + nuclear power, or renewables and dependency on trade, or renewable + nuclear + storage + trade. Yes, governments are keen for this not to happen. Gas, oil and coal is still much cheaper than any of the alternatives listed above. Energy prices in Europe as can be seen here (https://tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/energy-prices https://tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/energy-prices), are crazy high. It is expected to climb further as gas and oil prices continue to rise. Governments will step in and subsidize whatever they can to prevent a catastrophic collapse of the grid. Gas, oil and coal still need to stay in the ground. The green movement could easily stop being fragmented by joining behind that statement, but for some it is more important to be anti-nuclear than keeping gas, oil and coal from being burned. They can continue to be anti-nuclear for as much I care as long they don't advocate to keep gas, oil and coal power plants operational. Thus we need a law that sets a specific date when gas, oil and coal is no longer allowed in the grid.
  - pydry 4y ago
    >Well again, countries can choose between the non-fossil fuel options. I strongly doubt that nuclear powers will effect the choice in any major way. The media is, in general, oblivious about the connection between civilian nuclear power and military nuclear requirements in the west. They dont explicitly deny it but it would tend to be mentioned in passing in, like, congressional hearings not propaganda targeted at the general public (like the OP's link). However, you might have noticed that when Iran tries to build a nuclear industry for peaceful purposes the propaganda outfits argue vociferously that We Definitely Do Not Believe Them. And of course, they were entirely right. Iran did want a civilian nuclear industry for not entirely peaceful purposes - their economics didnt stack up either. And that is why the cynical attempt to foment a split between anti nuclear campaigners and the green movement goes on. They want greens to be, well, pro nuclear-weapons as a condition of them being seen to be "green". This propaganda attempt has been quite successful. Not a day goes by on hacker news when somebody doesnt take a dump on anti nuclear campaigners/the german green party while Poland's enormous coal industry that isnt going anywhere is ignored by the very same propaganda/people who listen to it.
    - belorn 4y ago
      They don't need to be pro-nuclear in order to be green. They just can't be sitting in political debates being on the side of the table that is arguing to keeping gas, oil and coal power plants. They just need to say: "Lets close this fossil fuel power plant". If people then ask them about nuclear they can be just as anti-nuclear they want. They will get follow up question about what to do when energy demand exceed that of supply, but that is a separate debate between them and those arguing in favor of nuclear. To take a example out of Swedish politics this last winter. The right movement wanted to replace an oil power plant by reopening a closed nuclear generator. The oil power plant is operating in the south of Sweden, and the plant is also the single largest contributor of green house gases in that area. To quote from memory, the green representative said "Oil power plants is a natural part of the reserve energy plan in Sweden, and there is nothing strange that it need to burn oil when demand exceed supply". There is something broken when the highest representatives of the green movement is standing in public debates saying that oil power plants are a natural part of the grid. If that is caused by propaganda then the people who is listening need to stop doing it. They could have said "No, lets replace that oil power plant with a green hydrogen plant". Or they could have said "No, lets replace that oil power plant with a pumped hydro storage". It would make following discussion about costs a bit more difficult, but they would still be the green movement arguing in favor of the environment. Instead they argued in favor of keeping the oil power plant running. It really is as simple as that. No propaganda, no plot by a pro nuclear-weapons organization trying to turn the world MAD. Just politics where everything the other side say must be countered. If pro-nuclear want to close fossil fuel plants and replace them with nuclear then the anti-nuclear people want to keep the fossil fuel plants. Keep the gas, oil and coal in the ground. It used to be slogan of the green movement. It should be again. It is a statement that both pro and anti-nuclear people could agree on if they wanted to.

iso1631 4y ago

We've kicked the can so far down the road that the cost isn't really a factor any more -- both Nuclear and Renewable are less than the cost of doing nothing. The question is what Sadly nobody in charge seems to be bothered. Europe should have been plating the Iberian peninsular in solar for the last 10 years, especially after Crimea. Germany was doing great with solar until about 2015, when it pretty much stopped. From 2009-2014 solar went from 1% of electric consumption to 6%. From 2014-2019 it went from 6% to 8%, not even the same increase let alone continuing on the exponential line. But while the best time to be building out like your civilisation depended on it was 10 years ago, the second best time is now. Especially with Europe's reliance on Gas from Russia, it should be building everything it can, no moaning about planning permission or people complaining about the scenery etc. Every kWh of solar, or wind, generated is 1kWh of gas not used. More high voltage interconnections should be built to shift power everywhere, especially from Southern Spain, Siciliy and the Penlopenese (where solar should be going), and from Denmark/Netherlands for offshore wind, funded from ECB loans. Overproduction is not a problem, it can be dumped into green hydrogen generation if nothing else (although again places like Finland are making strides with hot sand storage).

ncmncm 4y ago
Germany seems to have been building out a fair bit of wind. Enough? No, but more than others.
- iso1631 4y ago
  Germany is big in Solar, but it should have been increasing not decreasing. Denmark is good with wind, but should be generating 150% of its usage from wind over the course of the year by now The biggest thing pro-carbon afficiandos complain about is that renewables require storage. No they don't. If you need to use gas or oil for 30 days a year due to cloudy windless winter days, that's 90% of your energy use with renewable, that's a massive benefit. Until there's a significant problem for a month or two with excess renewable energy in the EU, and the vast majority of home heating system has been converted from gas to electric, and the same with transport (both cars and trains) then there is a demand for increased renewable production even without storage. If renewables in the EU had continued the 2005-2010 growth it would be generating 36% of Europe's electricity by now instead of 22%. That rate should have increased from 2010, not decreased. It should be aiming for well over 100%, with excess dumped into electric cars, green hydrogen generation, hot sand, etc. Renewables need to increase 10-fold across the EU to offset energy imports. But instead short term thinking won out, as it always does in democratic countries.