|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 28 2016 21:39 Silvanel wrote:The problem is that in general there are only three energy sources able to support large industrial areas: a)fossil fuels b)nuclear c)hydropower (which is heavily constricted in terms of goegraphy). So when You close nuclearpower plant it is replaced by coal plant not "green" sources like some daydreamers imagine. And thats why the number of coalpowered blocks isnt falling in Europe, the climate for nuclear is bad and solar/wind isnt enough to replace them. So You really dont have an alternative in places like Silesia for example. And i am not talking bullshit. Acording to wiki ALL Solar Thermal Power Plants in the World have combined output of 4776MW this LOWER then ONE coal powered plant (bigest in Europe but still only one plant) ==> Bełchatów Coal Power Plant have 5420MW. It is around 20% of total Poland power output. To put it into perspective. ALL Solar power plants in the World (existing +planned) couldnt supply even medium sized country like Poland. Green energy isnt and in forseeable future will not be alternative to coal. Only nuclear and hydro can give output similiar to fossil fuel plant. So whenever You close nuclear plant do not decive Yourself, its not Green thats taking its place its coal (or natural gas). Links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bełchatów_Power_Stationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_thermal_power_stationsList of coal powered power stations with output greater than 2000MW for comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal_power_stationsand nuclear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stationsPS. This is even touching the issue of changing output during the day and year given changing winds/sun position and storing surplus energy for future. PS2.IMHO this should be the question: Do You want to pay for disopasal of nuclear waste or Do You want to inhale cheap coal ash?".
Most of your points are all valid, however I'd like to add some comments:
-I am under the impression thar (here in germany at least) solar power is commonly associated with photovoltaic solar power, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_stations . According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany , germany (as a whole country ofc) produces an amount of solar power that far exceeds the power station you mentioned, while we apparently dont have any noteworthy "solar thermal" power stations here.
-I am general in favor of not leaving problems to be solved by future generations in general. In this sense, yes, I prefer to inhale coal than having my grandgrandgrandgrandchildren pay for controlling nuclear waste from which I am benefitting, but they wont. However, if we use the limited coal supplies of the world, it isnt fair either.
-I believe that nucler power still has some inherent risks: Mainly because of the human factor involved. Recently, there was some news here in germany that some security-relevant control procedures have been faked in a nuclear power station. Such things will always happen, and I dont think the risk of having a fukushima/chernobyl in a densely popluated area is worth paying 10€ less on power per month.
|
The thing iswe should concentrate on powerplants. While many people include PV panels owned by individuals and/or companies that do not produce power as their business, its a mistake. We dont include privately owned boilers/ovens (fossil fuel powered) in total output of fossil fuels then why should we do that for systems of similiar scale for solar energy?
To clarify:
1)I have no major issues with small (or even big) scale solar (or wind) systems as long as their advantages and disadvantages are clearly discussed and acounted for. They have their use and we should totally explore this area.
2) I will however fight the notion that those small scale systems can replace big nuclear/coal powerplants. They cant. And theres plenty reasons for it.
3)I like nuclear power. Its in my opinion only alterantaive to fossil fuel plants. And statisticly speaking nuclear power is vary safe. More people die every year in coal mining industry than in all nuclear powerplants disasters ever. Also fossil fuels pollute slowly everyday even without industrial catastrophe.
4)But of course we should strive for more efficient and safer reactors and close old dangerous ones.
|
The problem with anti nuclears is they are hypocrites.The idea that not using nuclear in itself is good is just laughable. Nuclear just reduce the amount of CO2 produced : do you think not doing anything in regards to global warming is not "leaving problems to be solved by future generations" ?
A non hypocrite anti nuclear position would be to ask for three things : reduce nuclear power production, increase green energy whatever its form, reduce energy consumption because no matter what we cannot continue consuming that much without nuclear energy (due to the result it would have on carbon dioxide emissions obviously). Germany, the biggest hypocrite of them all (in almost all european subjects, funnily enough) throwed its nuclear energy production out of the windows, yet barely did anything about its overall consumption. At first they compensated by buying energy in other countries (effectively rising energy prices) now they compensated with a little renewables, but mostly coal, oil and gas. Result is they now produce ten metric ton of carbon dioxide per capita a year (France is a little above 6 a year per capita). Success.
To get the metaphore, it's similar to those northern parlementaries that are against foie gras (because you know it's inhumane) but argue that intensive animal farming is the future (because putting a thousand cow or pig in a closed building, chained to the floor and forced to eat is not inhumane but progress).
|
There's nothing hypocritical about being anti nuclear as long as long as youa re happy about fossil fuels. Isn't the main problem with nuclear power is the cost over it's lifetime? Nuclear power has never been cheap and in fact many governments only have nuclear power plants as a way to produce the fissile materials for nuclear warheads.
|
On April 29 2016 06:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's nothing hypocritical about being anti nuclear as long as long as youa re happy about fossil fuels. Isn't the main problem with nuclear power is the cost over it's lifetime? Nuclear power has never been cheap and in fact many governments only have nuclear power plants as a way to produce the fissile materials for nuclear warheads.
You're right, at current consumption levels, fossil fuels have no over a lifetime costs.
|
Also nuclear energy would get a lot more expensive if everybody would ramp it up to the degree that France does. iirc consumption levels have been outpacing production even at the current level for quite a while. We should just replace coal with renewables much faster.
|
On April 29 2016 07:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Also nuclear energy would get a lot more expensive if everybody would ramp it up to the degree that France does. iirc consumption levels have been outpacing production even at the current level for quite a while. We should just replace coal with renewables much faster.
Irrelevant to the core problem : increase in energy cost would effectively reduce energy consumption which is good to me (or make renewable more cost efficient relative to nuclear, enforcing its use, which is also good). As we should all know of, there is sufficient fossil fuel in the earth to actually sustain our current consumption for a long time, but to have a real effect on global warming we would need to let a big part of those stock deep in the earth, untouched.
The core point is exactly that renewable, at current level of technology, cannot sustain our consumption. And due to the important amount of fossil fuel in the earth, and the inefficience of market (that does not take into account the negative effect fossil fuels have on the environment, making their price lower than it should), it will continue to be cost effective to use fossil fuel vs renewable for a long time.
In this complicated situation, for the mean time, only an energy mix with some nuclear power can actually permit us to both continue our current consumption of energy and reduce our CO2 production - but, of course, such solution has heavy problems (in regards to nuclear waste).
Reducing our nuclear production only to replace it with fossil fuel or coal is not a progress in my point of view. To say it in another way, if you want to face global warming, the solution is not to remplace nuclear by renewable/fossil, it is either an energy mix with some nuclear, or a policy that aim at reducing our consumption of energy.
|
Rapid increase in renewables isn't utopian though, I think the German government aims for 80% renewables 2050 and we're currently ahead of schedule. Nuclear energy for countries that don't have already existing infrastructure is simply very,very expensive. Also fossil fuel use here has steadily gone down, and I think overall Europe has not increased energy consumption for quite some years as well. The situation isn't that gloomy.
|
On April 29 2016 09:44 Nyxisto wrote:
Rapid increase in renewables isn't utopian though, I think the German government aims for 80% renewables 2050 and we're currently ahead of schedule. Nuclear energy for countries that don't have already existing infrastructure is simply very,very expensive. Also fossil fuel use here has steadily gone down, and I think overall Europe has not increased energy consumption for quite some years as well. The situation isn't that gloomy.
I never said the situation was "gloomy" in regards to europe.
I don't see the point of your post in regard to the situation. Renewable energy as it exist right now can't sustain 80 % of any country's energy need, and not only it can't but renewabe can't produce regularly...
There are facts, and there's politics - in 30 years you will have 80 % renewable (sure) ; but as of right now you're producing way more CO2 than your neighbor, and it has a lot to do with the fact that you decided to throw nuclear out of the windows without even thinking about your energy consumption.
And europe energy consumption is not rising much, true. It's not declining (declining per capita sure), and our current energy consumption is also lessen due to the crisis. More than 10 % people being unemployed in europe really help in this regard.
|
I dunno given the big picture I really don't think it is that relevant how Europe gets to renewables as long we're doing it over the next few decades, the average European carbon footprint is already considerably lower compared to say the US. The much bigger problem globally are the developing countries. India and China will soon dwarf Europe so I don't really think it even makes a lot of difference if the coal heavy countries in Europe decide to intermediately switch to nuclear or something like that.
|
A minor notice regarding Wind power. Denmark for example produces over 40% of their power requirements using it. That is a larger portion than hydro can do in a lot of countries. It is a rare time that doesn't produce any wind power.
A minor point regarding solar power. We are far from the most efficient panels as things are. We will be getting more power out of them in the future for the same surface area. There are improvements on current technology and suggestions to use thin nano coatings on current panels to improve them or make them entirely in different ways (none of which are as good, yet).
Wave power is also a huge deal that needs to be solved and can generate a lot of power. It allows you to use wind power even when it isn't blowing (for a while at least).
|
Yeah we should look for developing better green technology (wind, tidal, solar etc.). But we should base our policy on facts not wishful thinking. Assuming that solar panels will have some X efficiency in 20 years isnt really solid basis for policymaking.
I actually agree with WhiteDog on this issue.
|
To the gentlemen propagating nuclear power:
a) How do you propose to solve the waste problem? Each nuclear plant produces waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years, with the potential to make entire countries barren should it ever get into the air or into the ground water. Can't happen you say? Lol. I invite you to visit the Asse or Schacht Konrad, which happen to be right close to where I live, and which are Germany's nuclear toilet. They were supposed to be totally secure, and now, just ~40 years after they can't prevent water leaking in. So you tell me it's gonna be safe for the next thousands of years? Yeah, right.
b) Ever seen pictures of Tschernobyl? Won't happen in Western Europe? Yeah right, a Frenchman could never make a human error. Lol again. Also, we can totally be sure no terrorist would ever target a nuclear plant, cause they have honor and stuff.
c) If the actual cost of nuclear energy was factored into the per kWh cost, or even close to it, you couldn't pay for it - because all the long term costs of it are socialized and the state (read: the little tax payer) will have to pay for it. The energy company selling you the "cheap" power doesn't have to factor those costs into their price. That's btw not only the undeterminable cost of having to safeguard all the waste for thousands of years, but also deconstructing the power plants themselves once they go out of business.
Oh, what giant hypocrites you are. Seriously.
|
On April 29 2016 19:40 ACrow wrote:
To the gentlemen propagating nuclear power:
a) How do you propose to solve the waste problem? Each nuclear plant produces waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years, with the potential to make entire countries barren should it ever get into the air or into the ground water. Can't happen you say? Lol. I invite you to visit the Asse or Schacht Konrad, which happen to be right close to where I live, and which are Germany's nuclear toilet. They were supposed to be totally secure, and now, just ~40 years after they can't prevent water leaking in. So you tell me it's gonna be safe for the next thousands of years? Yeah, right.
b) Ever seen pictures of Tschernobyl? Won't happen in Western Europe? Yeah right, a Frenchman could never make a human error. Lol again. Also, we can totally be sure no terrorist would ever target a nuclear plant, cause they have honor and stuff.
c) If the actual cost of nuclear energy was factored into the per kWh cost, or even close to it, you couldn't pay for it - because all the long term costs of it are socialized and the state (read: the little tax payer) will have to pay for it. The energy company selling you the "cheap" power doesn't have to factor those costs into their price. That's btw not only the undeterminable cost of having to safeguard all the waste for thousands of years, but also deconstructing the power plants themselves once they go out of business.
Oh, what giant hypocrites you are. Seriously.
Take tchernobyl, take fukushima, everything relative to nuclear power and tell me : how many death ? Now can you prove me that coal and fossil fuels killed less ? Have less impact on the environment ? How many death due to coal in China ?
I don't think you understand my point - I'm for a complete change in environmental policy. I'm for the end of nuclear power AND a change in our consumption practice aimed at reducing our overall consumption. It just happen that people who are against nuclear power, like yourself, but who don't see the obvious (that nuclear power overall is not more costly than fossil fuel and coal) are joking themselves.
In economy we like to envision risk statistically. Nuclear power has fat tail risks : it's difficult to statistically envision the risk of a tchernobyl like scenario, but it is not zero (uncertain) and it has HUGE COST. Fossil fuels and coal have small cost, but so probable that we can even predict the cost of fossil fuels consumption on the environment and our society - we take more seriously tail risk than statiscally probable risks because they usually refer to huge events (an economic crisis would be a fat tailed risk for exemple) while probable risks are impossible to completly avoid. It's similar to plane and cars ; planes are overall way safer, but when an accident happen everybody dies (almost), so much that it always create a legitimate comotion.
As for nuclear wastes, are they more costly than what is happening due to the CO2 ? Not sure, the effect of global warming might be disastrous above a certain level.
If the actual cost of nuclear energy was factored into the per kWh cost, or even close to it, you couldn't pay for it - because all the long term costs of it are socialized and the state (read: the little tax payer) will have to pay for it.
And fossil fuel is underevaluated because you don't take into account the effect of that consumption in disease such as lung disease or even death. There are evaluation of the cost of fossil fuels and coal consumption on societies, look it up, evaluated in billions each years.
|
Overcoming years of poor health and crisis, the euro zone economy grew at its fastest pace in five years in the first quarter, driven by unlikely stars such as France and Spain.
It now stands larger that in did at its peak before the financial crisis, albeit having taken eight years to recover. The bloc also slipped back into deflation in April.
Blowing past both the U.S. and British economies, the latter weighed down by uncertainty over possibly leaving the Europe Union, euro zone growth doubled from the previous quarter, beating even the most optimistic expectations on healthy household consumption and a rebound in investments.
But the surge, a welcome relief less than a year after Greece was nearly ejected from the bloc, may be just a blip; Europe is still weighed down by high debt, weak bank profits, high unemployment and vast excess capacity in the economy.
Nonetheless, growth among the 19 countries sharing the euro jumped 0.6 percent on the quarter, well past expectations for 0.4 percent and ahead of Britain's 0.4 percent.
The U.S. economy grew 0.5 percent on an annualised basis in the first quarter, implying only slightly more than 0.12 percent for the three months.
Annual euro zone growth held steady at 1.6 percent, more than three times the U.S. rate in the same period.
The numbers defied expectations for a slowdown and were as improved sentiment, plunging energy costs and a slow but steady fall in unemployment and buoyed spending.
"The first months of the year were tumultuous with large stock market declines, growth concerns in the US, China and many emerging markets and plummeting confidence among businesses and consumers," ING economist Bert Colijn said in a note.
"Clearly, businesses and consumers have not acted on their gut feelings," Colijn said. "Domestic strength in the Eurozone economy is key to current economic growth. This is mostly because of improvements in the job market."
Indeed, unemployment in the euro zone, though still high, fell to 10.2 percent in March from 10.4 percent a month earlier, its lowest in over four years, with Spain among the most improved.
uk.reuters.com
Inflation going into negative territory though with -0,2%.
|
France and Spain are "stars" in this article, with respectively 10 % and 20 % unemployment... lolz
|
On April 29 2016 19:40 ACrow wrote:
To the gentlemen propagating nuclear power:
a) How do you propose to solve the waste problem? Each nuclear plant produces waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years, with the potential to make entire countries barren should it ever get into the air or into the ground water. Can't happen you say? Lol. I invite you to visit the Asse or Schacht Konrad, which happen to be right close to where I live, and which are Germany's nuclear toilet. They were supposed to be totally secure, and now, just ~40 years after they can't prevent water leaking in. So you tell me it's gonna be safe for the next thousands of years? Yeah, right.
b) Ever seen pictures of Tschernobyl? Won't happen in Western Europe? Yeah right, a Frenchman could never make a human error. Lol again. Also, we can totally be sure no terrorist would ever target a nuclear plant, cause they have honor and stuff.
c) If the actual cost of nuclear energy was factored into the per kWh cost, or even close to it, you couldn't pay for it - because all the long term costs of it are socialized and the state (read: the little tax payer) will have to pay for it. The energy company selling you the "cheap" power doesn't have to factor those costs into their price. That's btw not only the undeterminable cost of having to safeguard all the waste for thousands of years, but also deconstructing the power plants themselves once they go out of business.
Oh, what giant hypocrites you are. Seriously.
Before you write such posts you should atleast be able to correctly read and understand his points.
|
On April 29 2016 23:03 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +Overcoming years of poor health and crisis, the euro zone economy grew at its fastest pace in five years in the first quarter, driven by unlikely stars such as France and Spain.
It now stands larger that in did at its peak before the financial crisis, albeit having taken eight years to recover. The bloc also slipped back into deflation in April.
Blowing past both the U.S. and British economies, the latter weighed down by uncertainty over possibly leaving the Europe Union, euro zone growth doubled from the previous quarter, beating even the most optimistic expectations on healthy household consumption and a rebound in investments.
But the surge, a welcome relief less than a year after Greece was nearly ejected from the bloc, may be just a blip; Europe is still weighed down by high debt, weak bank profits, high unemployment and vast excess capacity in the economy.
Nonetheless, growth among the 19 countries sharing the euro jumped 0.6 percent on the quarter, well past expectations for 0.4 percent and ahead of Britain's 0.4 percent.
The U.S. economy grew 0.5 percent on an annualised basis in the first quarter, implying only slightly more than 0.12 percent for the three months.
Annual euro zone growth held steady at 1.6 percent, more than three times the U.S. rate in the same period.
The numbers defied expectations for a slowdown and were as improved sentiment, plunging energy costs and a slow but steady fall in unemployment and buoyed spending.
"The first months of the year were tumultuous with large stock market declines, growth concerns in the US, China and many emerging markets and plummeting confidence among businesses and consumers," ING economist Bert Colijn said in a note.
"Clearly, businesses and consumers have not acted on their gut feelings," Colijn said. "Domestic strength in the Eurozone economy is key to current economic growth. This is mostly because of improvements in the job market."
Indeed, unemployment in the euro zone, though still high, fell to 10.2 percent in March from 10.4 percent a month earlier, its lowest in over four years, with Spain among the most improved. uk.reuters.comInflation going into negative territory though with -0,2%.
I am pretty sure the rich are already shaking in their boots because they fear deflation. I mean where would we hamsters end up in our treadmills if our stuff isn't worth a bit less every year.
|
Europe and especially US really have to learn how to pollute less. One Chinese citizen on average puts half dirt in the atmosphere compared to your average US citizen. Renewable energy can replace the fossil fuels with current technology, no problem. Just build huge power lines around the globe, and put some solar farms in the deserts. It's just that you have no chance in convincing the society to accept the costs for such things now.
I think some money put in educating people from developed countries on how to reduce consumption would be well spent. Everybody can follow some simple rules like:
Replace all you lights at home with good quality LED.
Turn off electronics when you don't use it. Especially that air conditioning, when nobody's at home.
If you have a job using a computer, make that small effort every evening to actually shut down your computer before going home.
Use public transportation/bike whenever possible/doable.
Reduce shopping of non-necessary things. Always prefer buying few more expensive things versus many cheap.
If people would follow such simple rules, and be educated to associate them with being more responsible towards environment, we could be much better of dealing with these problems.
|
most effective and uncomplicated thing will be to drastically reduce meat consumption, agriculture is the biggest producer of greenhouse emissions already for this reason, but good luck convincing anybody to turn this into policies
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
