Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
How to decrease European dependence on Russian energy?
Comments
-
…the fellow seemed to be fairly clued in, so yes, I had reason t believe him.
What's the source for his figure?The French have most of the answers.
Can the French model be scaled up to incorporate the whole of Europe? Will the cost be reasonable? Can it be done in a reasonable time frame? Is there enough Uranium to go ‘round?
I suspect the answer to at least one of those questions is ‘no’. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.Perhaps, but a lot of it is not.0 -
Because he happens to present something that happens to support your argument?Can the French model be scaled up to incorporate the whole of Europe? Is there enough Uranium to go ‘round?Will the cost be reasonable? Can it be done in a reasonable time frame?
As to the second question, it is a common complaint by the environmental movement that nuclear "can't be done in time." Hypothetically speaking, lets say commissioning a nuke takes 10 years. "But that's not 'in-time' to avoid climate catastrophe, we need something NOW."
The problem is that they say that all the time, and will probably continue to say the same thing 10 years from now, 20 years from now, indeed for the entirety of our lifetimes and beyond.A lot of gas isn’t either. In fact, the Russian-influenced share of the world’s gas production is smaller than their share of the world’s uranium production. Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan and Ukraine produce almost half of the world's uranium.0 -
Yes, provided the French model is copied exactly. That would include no limitations on Uranium exploration, and a system of fuel recycling.Yes to the first question, France has a robust, clean, cost-effective and reliable energy system that is >90% non-fossil and its energy costs are among the lowest in Europe.
But anyway, you didn’t answer my question – can the French model be scaled up? On the face of it, I would say no, because the French generation system is far too rigid to incorporate large amounts of renewable generation.
The world is moving away from centralised generation, for a variety of reasons, towards a more distributed system and it’s difficult to see how large-scale nuclear is compatible with this model:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/natural-gas-sets-off-a-distributedenergy-boom
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/ges-distributed-power-station-delivery-goes-from-months-to-weeks
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/who-pays-for-grid-expansions-when-homeowners-generate-their-electricity
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/the-rise-of-the-personal-power-plantEven if we had to rely on Russia and its satellites for Uranium (unlikely seeing as Canada, Australia and Africa are the main supplier-regions)if for whatever reason we could no longer import from Russia et. al. and relied on their supply, we would have time - up to a year at minimum, more if we hoarded - to figure out how to react. With gas, if Russia turns off the tap, or something goes wrong with the pipeline, the lights go out within a day or so.
Secondly, their isn’t just one single pipeline delivering gas from Russia to Europe, there are 12. So if there is a problem with one line, it is unlikely to result in “the lights going out”. As for turning off the taps, it’s just not going to happen. Russia is far, far too dependent on the income from gas sales to Europe.0 -
In other words, you’re assuming the existence of undiscovered, high-grade uranium deposits?But not the lowest? According to your logic, shouldn’t everyone be
copying whoever has the lowest price for electricity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing
Besides, you know you're doing something badly wrong when your energy prices are comparable to remote island nations (Germany is 10th most expensive in the world, Denmark 7th, and they're surrounded on that table by island nations like Niue, American Samoa and Tuvalu.But anyway, you didn’t answer my question – can the French model be scaled up?On the face of it, I would say no, because the French generation system is far too rigid to incorporate large amounts of renewable generation.
The world is moving away from centralised generation, for a variety of
reasons, towards a more distributed system and it’s difficult to see how
large-scale nuclear is compatible with this model:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/natural-gas-sets-off-a-distributedenergy-boomNatural gas is feed stock for production of numerous chemicals - including fertilizer. Stupid, wasteful uses of NG - e.g., electricity - eventually will result in higher prices for food, medicines, plastics and many other things that define our "modern" lives.To make all that happen, engineers there are preparing to aggressively deploy an array of advanced energy technologies, including combined-cycle gas turbinesNo they’re not – Kazakhstan is by far the largest producer of uranium in the world, producing far more than Canada and Australia combined.First of all, you’re assuming we’d be able to hoard – if the world went nuclear, why would suppliers flood the market with cheap uranium that others could store for future use? Surely the suppliers would hoard their valuable asset that is only going to appreciate in value?Russia is far, far too dependent on the income from gas sales to Europe.0 -
No, I'm assuming reprocessing. The Unites States is the largest producer of nuclear energy, larger than France, but it wastes fuel by refusing to reprocess fuel, thanks to a bunch of left-wing presidents from Jimmy Carter right on through to Barack Hussein Obama. If that changes, and the Uranium price goes up, that policy could be reversed and a very large volume of so-called "waste" could be recycled and re-used.There isn't much difference, those with cheaper costs are either countries with lots of geothermal power and fjords, or they're Eastern European countries where things are supposed to be cheaper anyway. Excluding those factors France is the cheapest.Yes, but some fundamental decisions would have to be made.Only they're not decentralising the grid, they're just destabilising it. Because you still need the power plants, the transmission infrastructure, the residential and business connections, only the amount of flexibility demanded from the generators is increased exponentially.OMG more wasted gas.Besides hoarding by entities other than consumers tends to cause bubbles that might eventually come back to bite the suppliers in the backside.Until they decide to go and invade another country…0
-
But reprocessing is already standard practice in the rest of the world?You’re pinning all your hopes on the US getting on board with
reprocessing?So in other words, you’ve decided, based on an entirely arbitrary set of criteria, that France’s electricity system is the cheapest and the best in the world?- Cost
- Carbon emissions
- Ability to control (in the right circumstances)
- Energy independence (in the right circumstances)
- The avoidance of "opportunity cost" (defined below)
If we’re “wasting” gas by using it for electricity production, then aren’t we “wasting” uranium by using it as nuclear fuel?
Gas is a demon for this because it has so many other uses that it should be saved for - chemical feedstock, heating, transport and so on.
Uranium does not present this problem because there's sod all else you can do with it, ok there are some nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, but that's about it. You're not going to put Uranium in your car or cook a meal with it, at least not directly. So you might as well use it for electricity.Hoarding is hoarding. It’s all speculation at the end of the day, regardless of who’s doing the hoarding.Annexing Crimea has made Russia less dependent on income from gas exports to Europe?0 -
There are only a few places that do it.In a Western European context, it is, but the set of criteria is not arbitrary:
CostCarbon emissionsAbility to control (in the right circumstances)Energy independence (in the right circumstances)Gas is a demon for this because it has so many other uses that it should be saved for - chemical feedstock, heating, transport and so on.No, but the Russians knew they would get away with it because all Western Europe could do is issue a few strongly worded statements. Not something I want to repeat.0 -
...thanks to a bunch of left-wing presidents from Jimmy Carter right on through to Barack Hussein Obama.
...including, presumably, such noted pinkos as Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush?
I'm curious as to why the current president warranted a middle name check, while James Earl Carter didn't.0 -
China, Germany, France, UK, India, Pakistan, Japan and Russia all reprocess nuclear fuel.Including subsidies?Including those associated with uranium ore mining and refinement?
Well, OK, nuclear, wind, solar, etc do not have primary CO2 costs, but all have a secondary, from the full life-cycle. There are a number of studies but so far as I am aware most/all of them agree that nuclear is far better than any fossil fuel type including >5 times more CO2 efficient than gas.
If one really believes we're on the verge of climate catastrophe, these gains cannot logically be ignored.I’m not sure what you mean by this? You don’t have a whole lot of control with nuclear – you’re pretty much stuck with a set level of generation.France has substantial uranium deposits?But methane is semi-renewable? Uranium isn’t.Whereas Western Europe would go to war with Russia were it not for the gas supply?0 -
Advertisement
-
Pretty sure the UK does not, since they closed Sellafield.Don't know if the French subsidise their nukes or not, though I don't think they need to. Even if they did, money well spent IMO.
Did you know that the cost of decommissioning Sellafield is expected to exceed £70 billion?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/01/sellafield-nuclear-clean-up-cost-risesWell, OK, nuclear, wind, solar, etc do not have primary CO2 costs, but all have a secondary, from the full life-cycle. There are a number of studies but so far as I am aware most/all of them agree that nuclear is far better than any fossil fuel type including >5 times more CO2 efficient than gas.If one really believes we're on the verge of climate catastrophe…They get theirs from Africa I think, where they have links with former colonies.No, there are some methane recovery programs and by doing things like metabolising landfills or putting gas masks on cows or something really weird we could get enough methane to make replace feedstocks in chemical processes, but for energy? As Tony Soprano would say "Fughettaboutit"
http://www.biogas.org/edcom/webfvb.nsf/id/DE_Branchenzahlen/$file/13-11-11_Biogas%20Branchenzahlen_2013-2014.pdfNot war, no, but we would be able to do something a bit stronger than sanction a few lousy banks and issue some strongly worded statements (i.e. huff and puff, hot air).0 -
You're all ignoring research into advanced energy sources for some reason.0
-
THORP is still reprocessing fuel.
So you’ve no idea how much nuclear power is costing French taxpayers, but you’re still insisting they’re getting good value?Did you know that the cost of decommissioning Sellafield is expected to exceed £70 billion?I’m guessing you don’t.So they’re not “energy independent” then.There are thousands of biogas production facilities throughout Europe and a large number of them are used for power generation. For example, Germany is projected to be producing just under 4 GW of electricity from biogas by the end of this year:- Biogas generally involves growing energy crops to digest in a bio-reactor. That carries with it, the opportunity cost of using land for energy farming, the chemical fertiliser and pesticide inputs. Corn, a.k.a. maize, is the worst for this.
Say you're given X number of thousand acres of land and a mandate to produce Y amount of power. The choice is between wallpapering the land with wind turbines, energy crops and a gas burners. The other choice is to build a nuke in the corner of the plot and commit the rest to a fallow nature reserve. Which is 'greener?' I should think it's obvious. - Having made the gas, there is the opportunity cost of wasting it in a power plant vs using it for heating/cooking/transport.
Such as?0 - Biogas generally involves growing energy crops to digest in a bio-reactor. That carries with it, the opportunity cost of using land for energy farming, the chemical fertiliser and pesticide inputs. Corn, a.k.a. maize, is the worst for this.
-
If there are any subsidies, I am not aware of them.
France charges a decommissioning levy on nuclear energy sales.Biogas generally involves growing energy crops to digest in a bio-reactor.0 -
Bit of a contradiction there?Biogas generally involves processing waste, such as sewage, manure and, in the UK in particular, landfill gas. Sometimes “energy crops” are mixed in, in Germany in particular, where the mix is about 50-50, I believe. However, legislation was introduced in 2012 to shift the balance back toward waste products.0
-
No. It's a cost, built into the sales of the particular type of electricity correlating to a cost associated with that particular type of electricity…Is there enough waste products to make biogas to displace Russian imports?0
-
Advertisement
-
You’ll have to excuse my scepticism, given the deal that was done with EDF for Hinckley Point. Government financial support has also been provided for new reactors in the US, through Federal loan guarantees.I never said there was. I was just countering your claim that biogas couldn’t possibly be used for energy production.
Remember it's Russian gas imports that I have an issue with in the context of this thread, and the current policy continues to be shown to be insolvent:
http://news.yahoo.com/eus-united-front-russia-falling-amid-gas-needs-093909049--finance.html
I'm in favour of alternatives to this.0 -
Both are money well spent IMO...Perhaps it can, but on a vast scale, enough to displace Russian gas, and without incurring massive "opportunity costs" by energy farming?Remember it's Russian gas imports that I have an issue with in the context of this thread...
So, two great big questions remain, which you have consistently avoided:- Is Europe-wide, large-scale adoption of nuclear a cost-effective option? Please note that simply pointing out that France has relatively cheap electricity is not an answer.
- Is there enough uranium to go around, especially if you’re going to avoid Russian-influenced production? Known global reserves, at present rates of consumption, will run out in about 80 years.
0 -
Is Europe-wide, large-scale adoption of nuclear a cost-effective option? Please note that simply pointing out that France has relatively cheap electricity is not an answer.Is there enough uranium to go around, especially if you’re going to avoid Russian-influenced production? Known global reserves, at present rates of consumption, will run out in about 80 years.
Stuff to be avoided includes this kind of carry on. I am sure you would agree that it would be hypocritical to claim there is not enough Uranium while objecting to exploration to same?Once again, I never said it could, at least not in the short term.
See here: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/eus-united-front-russia-falling-093929674.html
So even if nothing else goes wrong (e.g. we don't run out of money) at minimum we have no voice when Russia does something vile. Which has now been proven.0 -
Why not? Clearly they're doing something right!
If nuclear is so wonderfully cheap, then explain to me why Hinkley Point, to be built by the nuclear poster boys, the French, is so massively expensive and needs to be so heavily subsidised? Why does the world’s largest producer of electricity (ÉDF) need a guaranteed price per kWh produced if nuclear is the sure bet you claim it to be?Provided that Uranium is used efficiently, (i.e. no more "once through" nonsense like the U.S. and exploration is not prevented, there should not be a problem.I am sure you would agree that it would be hypocritical to claim there is not enough Uranium while objecting to exploration to same?Well, that's the fundamental problem.0 -
Just found and read through this thread.If there are any subsidies, I am not aware of them.
OK, but I get the feeling it's more a case that you regard the huge number of subsidies received by all of the energy industries, in particular nuclear generation, as an inconvenience and then proceed to ignore them.
You said you have an open mind but should you genuenly choose to remove the blinkers, suggest reading this for a start, just one of many similar studies.
Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies.
OK. It's based on the nuclear generation industry in the US, but not a million miles from your beloved froggie system.“Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”
0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually, I am soft on the idea of using nuclear power for the purpose of getting Europe away from Russian gas, primarily because it would take too damn long and I would prefer something faster.
Because we can now add the blood of the 299 people on MH-17 - many of them Western European citizens (the Netherlands suffered proportionally more than the US did on 9/11 in that atrocity) - to the price to be paid for Russian gas.
Coal, much as I despise it for environmental and other reasons, could be expanded massively now to be producing in about a year. Frankly the German love-affair with the stuff doesn't seem like so bad an idea in the current context, where the people we're buying gas from to back up these useless windmills have basically shown themselves to be imperialist thugs of the worst order.0 -
True.... Relative merits matter little when alternatives are needed now.
That some countries allowed themselves become so dependant on a single supplier is bad.
Its sad that inertia still seems to grip Europe.0
Advertisement