Slashdot Mirror
Switzerland Votes To Abandon Nuclear Power In Favor of Renewables (bbc.com)
Slashdot reader bsolar writes: Swiss voters approved a new energy strategy proposed by the government. Under this new policy no new nuclear power plant will be built and the five existing nuclear power plants will continue operating and will be shut down at the end of their operating life (expected to last about 20-30 years). The plan is to offset the missing nuclear energy production by renewables and lower energy consumption.
Though one-third of the country's power comes from nuclear energy, the BBC reports that more than 58% of the voters "backed the move towards greener power sources." One Swiss news site notes that "regions where the country's five nuclear reactors are situated rejected the reform with clear majorities."
Though one-third of the country's power comes from nuclear energy, the BBC reports that more than 58% of the voters "backed the move towards greener power sources." One Swiss news site notes that "regions where the country's five nuclear reactors are situated rejected the reform with clear majorities."
That's the plain and simple truth. Nuclear Fission only looks like it works if it is cross-funded by obscene truckloads of taxpayers money and nobody looks too hard at centralized power cartels (funded by said taxpayers money), reactor runtimes and maintenance costs (also paid by taxpayers mones). Factor in waste handling, storage and the risks of nuclear disasters and the balance sheet goes really deep-red.
The numbers don't add up and the whole concept simply doesn't work. Even the conservatives in Germany have noticed this. Replenishing Plant Wackersdorf - a multi-billion dollar project for the treatment and replenishing of nuclear waste - wasn't closed down by left-wing hippie protesters raising a stink of the better part of a decade, it was closed down by southern Germany state officials doing the math. Some backroom clerk adding up the numbers and seeing in awe and amazement that it wouldn't work, even with the best predictions. Same goes for the most advanced fast breeder at Kalkar - a building estimated more expensive than the Pyramids of Gizeh, inflation factored in.
Now Germany is moving out of nuclear alltogether and for once we're actually ahead of schedule - even with all the fuss about the new powerlines crossing the republic. AFAI understand we've simply decided to front a few extra billion and move those underground, so nobody can complain of them blocking their view. We crossed the 80% renewables a few weeks ago. If Germany can do this - really not a country known for it's sunny days - the rest of the world can do it too.
People have to see the light: Nuclear Fission as we know it is a 60ies techno-romatic pipe-dream. And a dangerous one at that, with a 200 000 year waste problem attached.
IMHO the world should move to decommission classic nuclear fission ASAP. I'm glad the swiss voted in favor of this. I personally don't want to many chernobyls and fukushimas happening before the world finally catches on.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
So what is going to cover base load? Is geothermal and (ironically not very green) biomass enough to cover it in Switzerland?
I can't believe this gets voted on by the common man in the street, who will be swayed by whatever the media has been reporting. Shouldn't this sort of thing be looked at by people that understand costs, risks and benefits of the current and near future technologies?
I for one will be laughing when they end up importing coal/gas power from neighbouring countries.
Proof that democracy doesn't always work. People are morons. There are no "greener sources" than nuclear if you want a decent electricity grid with a reliable base load. All that will happen is what's happened elsewhere - wind, solar, and coal/gas to cover the inevitable large shortfalls as they fluctuate like hell (not to mention their massively lower energy density).
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
While I agree with a stop to build new ones, it's insane to turn off the ones that are still running reliably. Because whether you turn them off now or at their end of life, the building along with everything inside is radioactive waste you have to take care of. The damage is already done, the nuclear waste already created. You can as well reap the few benefits you gain out of it before throwing it away.
Or rather, driving it around Europe hoping to find some place to stow it. Maybe Moldova will allow you to dump it there if you throw enough money at them, they sure need it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
didnt realise the swiss were stupid.
Yeah, letting people vote is always a bad idea. Democracy is for dummies.
They should be busy bringing back coal, like the more advanced nations are doing.
No sig today...
not this again.
http://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210
I agree to an extent. Slowly phasing out existing plants where the financial investment was already made could be smarter than simply turning them off and building intermediary coal plants to buffer the transition.
However, there is one thing to observe: Transition, where it is taken on, is happening at rate faster than anyone predicted, simply because setting up a windmill or a solar array is so much less hassle than building an nuclear fission cycle that follows all the required regulations. So we'd have to look very carefull if even existing nuclear cycles are cost effective vis-a-vis contemporary alternatives. Modern day stuff like Elon Musks solar roof and the powerwall basically pay for itself with current energy costs. No need to lug nuclear fuel and waste about anymore. The only infrastucture needed for larger off-shore windparks and desert-bound solar-arrays that isn't in existance are powerlines. And even those are cheaper and less fuss than NF, even if you put them into the ground.
If we de-throne the power cartels and allow for decentralised power we'd see all nuclear plants put into hybernation-mode faster than expected, simply because it's too much hassle to maintain them for regular throughput. I'd expect nuclear plants to simply be repurposed as storage facilities for their own waste.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Oh, stop that BS. Germany's power grid is going into a shithole and they're propping it with hastily expanding coal and natgas generation. That 2020 targets for CO2 emissions? Who cares about them!
Greeny idiots keep parading the peak numbers for renewable generation (now 100500% of the consumption!) but they conveniently forget to mention troughs. For example, this January the renewable production was 10% of the normal due to unusually cold weather with little wind. For about 2 weeks. Had Germany relied only on renewables they would have had thousands people dead from hypothermia.
Not to worry, 20-30 years from now we'll finally have Fusion power. And Half Life 3!
Well, one of the two at least.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
What do you mean with "obscene truckloads of taxpayers money"? You mean more than the €40.1 billion Energy tax and the €6.6 billion Electricity tax that taxpayers had to pay in 2016 alone to fund alternative and green energies in Germany?
If Switzerland power is nearly all nuclear then going to renewables makes sense. If there are still existing coal or other fossils fuel plants. There could be a risk. If their is a delay in renewable energy deployment, fossel fuel plans are much easier to start up and build.
Nuclear sucks, but carbon pollution is currently the ecological problem that is much higher than what nuclear has.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
https://www.technologyreview.c...
"After years of declines, Germanyâ(TM)s carbon emissions rose slightly in 2015, largely because the country produces much more electricity than it needs. Thatâ(TM)s happening because even if there are times when renewables can supply nearly all of the electricity on the grid, the variability of those sources forces Germany to keep other power plants running. And in Germany, which is phasing out its nuclear plants, those other plants primarily burn dirty coal."
The whole nuclear debate shows that the left can be just as "anti-science" as the right. Because of scaremongering, nuclear power plant construction and development has been hamstrung for decades. It produces less radiation than coal and scales a lot better than solar or wind. For all the money and jobs in solar it still produces a small percentage of power, even in places like Germany (less than 8%). Wind and solar combined only produce only 22% of energy in Germany.
If you believe that global warming is about to end the human race, we should be increasing all our options for non-CO2 polluting energy. Especially if you anticipate a huge need in energy as we shift cars from petrol to electric.
Abandoning nuclear is right when we need it the most is just stupid.
Yes, take the Germans as an example. It's not like they're still massively reliant on coal, phasing out nuclear in favor of importing power from France (guess how they produce it?), and are really unlikely to hit their 2022 phase out goal. Germany shows that a hard turn towards renewables is not effective or realistic.
That's right, and let me quote the President of the United States of America in further support of nuclear:
Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.
Wise words, from the president of the most advanced nation on earth! We need nuclear!
Pretty much says it all.
Yes, just change the need for natural gas turbines from 'base load' to 'peak load'. What a joke.
BS. German built -4 new coal power stations. In other words, they built some new ones but closed more older ones.
Anyway, you are pre-judging their effort. They are due to finish around 2024, when the last nuclear reactors are decommissioned. Until then it's still the transition phase and not indicative of the final outcome. Wait until the full renewable and storage capacity is there, and then compare some temporarily elevated CO2 emissions to permanently lower ones.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
German power grid is fine, thank you very much. It is one of most advanced in the world, a (small, for now) part of it even uses high temperature superconductors. Neither natural gas nor coal are expanding, matter of fact one of fairly recently built natural gas power plants was closed only a few years after it went online (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irsching_Power_Station) and there is only one new coal power station planned to be built, in Stade, I think so it can reuse parts of the former infrastructure of a shut down nuclear power plant. Also there are two new blocks planned as extensions for existing coal power plants (Niederaussem, Datteln) but that is it, and even these were meant as a more efficient replacement for older coal power stations that will be shut down en masse this and next year. How can you call it "hastely expanding" with a straight face? The 2020 target is a problem because German cars became a lot larger and heavier in the past 15 years, not because of coal power plants.
By the way, 100500 is a very Russian meme. I do get it, but I think "OVER 9000" is probably more understandable in the rest of the world.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
We don't have coal plants. We do import power from Germany and France, though, so we will continue to use nuclear and coal power in the future to pad our production holes a bit.
Theresa May is planning to reopen the coalmines in the UK.
Thatcher closed them so she wants to do it too.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Not primarily. First, the municipalities the plants pay taxes in obviously like the low tax footprint.
And second we've gotten used to the plants. Simple as that.
Personally, I have wanted current reactors shut down for a long time to be replaced by new, modern ones. Since that had not even a snowball's chance in hell, I still want these old things shut down so here we are.
In my opinion, what closed the deal on this vote wasn't Fukushima.
We are currently close to shutting one of the five down due to age anyway. I believe it's one of the oldest reactor types in service currently (and I'm talking worldwide). Suddenly the company operating it says "Uh, no, we haven't prepared any funds for decommissioning the plant. That's your job!"
So not only is this whole thing a bit questionable security-wise, unless done absolutely right, it just goes to show that the private entities operating these things do not want or are not able to handle the responsibility involved. So after paying them for power for decades, now we're gonna have to foot the bill for cleaning them up, too.
And THAT pissed a lot of people off, I'm sure.
While I am pro modern nukes, I don't think they make sense in private hands and anyway, I find decentralized power generation to be much more secure in a variety of ways.
Reading that broke the part of my brain that deals with language comprehension.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
wind and solar energy are cheaper than other sources of energy (even without subsisdies),
If this is true why is the electricity price in green renewables Germany twice as high as their neighbour France which relies on nuclear power for nearly all of its electricity generation?
It's really weird since Germany actually generates most of its electricity from brown coal and Russian gas which is dirt-cheap.
The headline lied again. The proposition to abandon nuclear power following German policy was voted on last last November, and it went down hard. The current proposition was to not build any new reactors after the current generation ages out after about 2030. The general attitude (I have relatives there) is that given such a comfortably far off year, why not make a symbolic gesture of support for hoping the German program will eventually produce enough clean energy to run the economy?
Before 1970, Switzerland's power mix was 90% hydro; because of nuclear, that fraction has dropped to 56% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Switzerland). So whereas Germany has to produce its baseload by opening new coal plants, Switzerland has all that hydro to fall back on.
Switzerland values the beauty of its countryside, which is exactly why it started building nuclear plants in the lowland rather than new mountain dams in the first place. Switzerland doesn't have any expense of offshore mudflats, and there is no sentiment for festooning the Alps with wind turbines. My personal guess is that by 2030 Switzerland's new renewable energy will be entirely in the form of solar roofing, and that the aged-out nukes will be replaced by new factory-built modular reactors from China.
It's a shame that politics have to enter every decision made.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
It's true enough, the measure passed (FWIW, I voted against it). It's a stupid, knee-jerk reaction, still a follow-on from Fukushima.
However, in the current European political climate, constructing new nuclear reactors isn't possible anyway. People are too risk averse, there's far too much NIMBY-ness, we *still* don't have a proper solution for long-term waste storage (more NIMBY-ness), fuel-reprocessing barely exists - the whole situation is just impossible. The UK claims they're going to build some new nuclear plants: buy your popcorn now, because it's going to be long show, and most likely they will never happen.
So forbidding new plants from being built here doesn't really matter. And anyway, the law can just as easily be changed back, should the political climate for nuclear improve.
No, the biggest problem with the vote that happened yesterday are subsidies: More subsidies for renewables, more subsidies for renovating old buildings, replacing heating systems, etc.. These subsidies totally distort the market, and there are already people speculating on them, because apparently they will be retroactive. Also, it's kind of hilarious: some of the subsidies are to correct the damage done by previous subsidies. When the nuclear plants were originally built, the government subsidized electrical (resistance) heating systems, because electricity was going to be so cheap. Now, it will pay you to get rid of your electrical heating system and put in something else. And in 20 or 30 years, it will be something else again. Stupid.
The worst aspect of these subsidies is: they are, in the end, just income redistribution. Why does Hans get money from Fred, just because Fred has a new house and Hans bought an old one? Or because Fred invested in a good heating system, and Hans bought a crappy one that he now wants to replace?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
The majority of people/voters inside and outside Switzerland are misinformed on both risk from nuclear and of the costs of the alternatives. Most could not accurately describe any of the important facts. This is a populist decision on how to deal with a technical problem.
The author of that study, Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, is a known anti-nuclear figurehead. The study you cite has been widely panned by scientists, as can be seen with even just a cursory look at Wikipedia.
How expensive do you think is laying conventional lines in a German city? Hint: a lot of money because cables are generally laid underground and Germany is very densely settled. Matter of fact, the current price is ~10 millions for 1 km. See why that superconducting cable suddenly makes sense?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I know that "but Germany and its coal!" is a common battle cry in the community, albeit a quite unfounded one.
So based on a single paper using their computer model, in Australia if they reduce the energy consumption to a bare minimum, increase the energy efficiency of houses and appliances, and they invest about $22 billion every year until 2030 the 100% renewable energy option will be "just" $7-10 billion more expensive that the fossil fuel one. Sounds good to me.
The there would never be a valid excuse for turning off a working nuclear plant.
The incredibly small risk of running the plant would be nothing in the face of the dire risk being claimed for climate change.
Climate change alarmists call out the precautionary principle all the time. What if, what if, what if. To be true to the precautionary principle, the only course of action that should be supported is keeping zero emission plants running.
Just for the record, that speech was in Sun City, South Carolina, on July 21. It resembles Groucho Marx on acid.
Just think Europe, he's coming there after Israel. That'll learn ya to inflict all this global warming on the planet. Please...puuleeaase have a head of state tell him the trick is to bang the rocks together. He won't get the joke but you'll be treated to another incoherent monologue on how no one, no one can bang rocks together like he can, he's that smart.
Meanwhile, India plans to build 10 new reactors;
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/India_to_build_10_domestic_nuclear_power_reactors_999.html
Lignite, or brown coal, is the worst - well, maybe oil sands and shale are worse fossil fuels, but for power generation, brown coal has to be the most dirty form of energy around.
So it's 17% black coal, 25% much-worse-than-coal, 9% gas and 54% sane.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
I remember the day after this speech came out. All the news was about those poor translators who had to try and either look incompetent or break their ethical responsibility to translate faithfully and make the president make sense.
Production was only 85% momentarily, on a Sunday morning with exceptionally low demand and high wind conditions. Meanwhile, it was also shown how wind and solar production drops to below 4% quite often still. The problem is many talk about 'renewables' and fail to mention that it include burning biomass and hydro, but the only sources that can be added with any significance are the intermittent wind and solar sources. Wind and Solar only generated about 20% of German power in 2016, and they are already running into limits of what the grid can handle without significantly larger investments in transmission systems than what they've already had to do to get to this point.
Pleas read the article again. Only 15% of the fuel is produced in Switzerland not the electricity. We don't have uranium mines and the like here.
This statistics include not only electricity but also fuel for cars and machines - we don't have any oil!
From the same page for a study from 2009:
The study also showed that the production in Switzerland (64.6 TWh) is similar to the amount of electricity consumed in the country (63.7 TWh).[12] Overall, Switzerland export 7.6 TWh and import 6.8 TWh; but, in terms of emissions of carbon dioxide, Switzerland export "clean" electricity causing emissions of 0.1 millions of tonnes of CO2 and import "dirty" electricity causing emissions of 5 millions of tonnes of CO2.[12]
That's right, and let me quote the President of the United States of America in further support of nuclear
Link for anyone who wonders if that's more comprehensible when spoken, or mis-transcribed to make it less coherent. (Spoiler: No, and no).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
That's the plain and simple truth. Nuclear Fission only looks like it works if it is cross-funded by obscene truckloads of taxpayers money
That's true now. It wasn't true forty years ago. Oh, nuclear fission was never the "too cheap to meter" dream originally touted, but it actually was extremely economical for a couple of decades. If you'd like to understand what changed, read this.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Which part of "for nearly all" did you miss?
France burns very little coal through the year to generate electricity, unlike its neighbour Germany which burns over 170 milion tonnes of mostly brown coal each year.
As for hydro yes France also gets a chunk of its electricity supply from that source, mostly from the French Pyrenees, assuming it's been raining or snowing sufficiently. They also have a small tidal barrage power station as well as some grid solar in the south of the country and some wind farms.
Right now, as I type this France's electricity demand is about 50GW. Of that 40GW is supplied by nuclear power and about 8GW comes from hydro. They are getting a grand total of 350MW from coal right now, 3GW from gas and 4.1GW from solar plus some power from other generating sources such as biomass and wind.
http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk...
Yes that does add up to more than 50GW. France is exporting 3.5GW to Spain, 2.5GW to Italy, 2GW to Britain and 350MW to Switzerland while importing about 1GW from Germany. It almost always exports more electricity than it imports by a significant amount because it doesn't cost any more to keep the reactors running at full power since the fuel is cheap. Saying that they tend to refuel their reactors during the summer on a staggered basis as demand reduces so some of their nuclear capacity drops out at that time.
France has a higher demand per capita for electricity than most other European countries since their nuclear-generated electricity is cheap and so they use it for heating homes and other buildings and for industrial processes rather than burning lots of imported gas. That's why their carbon load per capita is way lower than virtually any other comparable European nation.
The headline didn't lie: two votes are actually 2 completely separate issues:
The vote from November was about a popular initiative of hard exit from nuclear energy: it was not initiated by the government but by Swiss citizens, which means it was actually an amendment of the Swiss Constitution, including the hard prohibition to use nuclear power plants and hard deadlines about which existing plant had to be decommissioned, some of them as soon as 1 year after th vote. It was quick, simple (complete amended text in german here) but in my opinion pretty wrong as approach. It was rejected.
The vote from last November was about a referendum of parliament legislation. The legislation was proposed by the government, voted by the parliament and had to be voted by Swiss citizens, so not an amendment of the Swiss Constitution but standard legislation. This second vote was about a much broader energy policy, still including a phase-out of nuclear energy but without any hard deadline of nuclear power plant decommissioning and with actually a long term plan about what to do to cover the missing energy production. It was approved.
It genuinely is a big improvement to go from baseload to peakload.
Peak load generation only runs occasionally and it matters a lot less if it's not very efficient, you want low capital costs.
Also, if it rarely runs you can stockpile biofuels for it from stuff like food waste or sewage.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Wow, you're so fucking wrong that you aren't even in the same time zone as right. Here's the relevant chart, in case you fail at clicking provided links as bad as you fail at using Google:
Energy Source - Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – global average - 100,000 (41% global electricity)
Coal – China - 170,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. - 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity)
Oil - 36,000 (33% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas - 4,000 (22% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass - 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) - 440 ( 1% global electricity)
Wind - 150 (2% global electricity)
Hydro – global average - 1,400 (16% global electricity)
Hydro – U.S. - 5 (6% U.S. electricity)
Nuclear – global average - 90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
Nuclear – U.S. - 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity)
Would have loved to format that better, but apparently the lameness filter thinks it's too much whitespace.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Pretty much says it all.
Uh ... no. That paragraph says nothing meaningful. Blaming everything on a vast media conspiracy is the second refuge of the scoundrel. The linked article is informative, but it would have been better without the persecution theory.
Funny how normally - the rightwingers make the exact OPPOSITE argument.
I actually agree that, generally, government should not be a la carte - you pay your taxes, you pay for the whole deal.
But I also understand that there are edge cases. Some things clearly people who don't like it just have to put up with. I want ZERO of my tax dollars to EVER go to the military - but I cannot demand that. A lot of rightwingers don't want any of their taxes going to rehab programs (or food stamps or whatever their issue is this week) - but they can't demand that either.
All we can both do is try to sway the government to our way of thinking through who we vote for every few years.
But then, some things are contentious edge cases - where there is genuine reason to believe that a large portion of the public want something different - why NOT ask the public then ?
This falls into that category. You could argue the people are not educated enough to have a say - you've presented NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to back that up, and in fact the evidence suggests otherwise since the previous citizen-version in November failed (the public, correctly, determined that it was too ambitious and thus likely to cause problems).
This has big knock-on effects, it's not just about providing power - it's about a thousand other things the people have a legitimate interest in: their famous countryside (one of their biggest revenue sources) staying reasonably unspoilt for example.
The people did not write this bill or this plan - when an ordinary citizen tried that it was shot down, this is a plan - prepared by the very same government experts you're so fond of and deemed, by them, to be viable. It's not IDENTICAL to the alternative, but it's viable - and they have different pros and cons. Not on the main topic - energy but on all the knock-on stuff.
Why NOT let the people choose between equivalent solutions that have different side effects and select the side effects the people are most happy to live with ?
Sweden didn't let the man in the street write their power designs - they offered the man in the street a viable alternative power design and asked them if they wanted it. That's a VERY different thing - arguably the sanest idea I have ever heard in fact.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Keep reading...
Under transparent assumptions, we found that the total annualised cost (including capital, operation, maintenance and fuel where relevant) of the least-cost renewable energy system is $7-10 billion per year higher than that of the âoeefficientâ fossil scenario. For comparison, the subsidies to the production and use of all fossil fuels in Australia are at least $10 billion per year. So, if governments shifted the fossil subsidies to renewable electricity, we could easily pay for the latterâ(TM)s additional costs.
If only you had just got to that last paragraph. Oh well.
So they are saying that if Australia went all-out, they could reach a point where a 100% renewable system costs the same as the current fossil fuel one for a continual investment of about $20bn/year. Of course, that's an extreme example, no-one is suggesting that kind of aggressive timetable and total conversion.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Actually no, that's not the only point. To achieve a decent efficiency using normal wires the voltage has to be much higher (100 kV instead of 10 kV), that means larger and more expensive transformers. Since 10 kV is the standard voltage of the medium voltage network, the high voltage transformers between the two points aren't needed anymore - that means free space for something else in a densely populated town like Essen. Also the insulation of high voltage wires is very thick and usually several of them are used for this kind of installation, meaning that the cable itself needs much less space, even with all the thermoinsulation that a cryogenically cooled cable needs. Thinner cables are easier and cheaper to lay underground, especially in a city where digging is problematic.
Even discounting all of this, according to RWE the closed loop cable insulation is working so well that the cooling losses are very small.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
India will invest more in solar than nuclear and already has more solar capacity than nuclear. The new nuclear plants are in danger of not being built due to the high cost, GE pulling out of the bidding and Westinghouse going bankrupt.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indi...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
The coal miners in Appalachia are using their vast wealth and influence to oppress the poor who just want to power their Tesla's with their solar rooftops.
Another greenie BS. Some old plants were decommissioned but new plants were also built and existing plants were expanded. In 2011 the brown coal was at 19.85GWt and now it's at 20.90GWt, hard coal was at 25.72GWt and now it's at 28.32GWt, natgas was at 27.25GWt and now it's at 29.89GWt (source: https://www.energy-charts.de/p...). Victory for the environment!
Several new coal power plants are planned and are being constructed: https://www.bdew.de/internet.n...
First, prices in Germany are not twice as high as in France (though they are significantly higher).
EdF tariffs for 2017 are 15.6 euro cents/kWh (there's a standing charge for connection). Off-peak night-time electricity is 12.7 euro cents/kWh. German electricity costs for 2017 are 28.8 euro cents/kWh (I don't know if there are any off-peak rates but given that solar renewable inputs to the grid disappear at night I doubt it).
I'd say that's close to double the French cost. It's also why Germans burn a lot of Russian gas to heat their homes while the French use nuclear non-carbon electrical heating. Sadly the cheap electricity means they tend not to insulate their homes very well since it is less cost-effective to spend the money to do so. On the upside I'd expect the French to have a faster takeup of electric cars than Germany since it will be significantly cheaper to charge them overnight using the low off-peak tariffs.
Duh. You forgot to mention that the total net amount of power production in 2011 was also quite a bit smaller.
Besides, that doesn't mean there are more coal power plants now than there have been in 2011, it just means that several old inefficient power plants were replaced with a smaller amount of more efficient power plants that produce more power from less coal.
Moreover, look at the government numbers:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Zah...
You clearly see that the amount of actually produced (not the total installed capacity) electric power from both lignite and black coal goes down, not up, every single year, and not just in absolute numbers, but also as the percentage of total power production. The only fossil power source that actually goes up is natural gas, because it is used by peaking power plants that have to be used more often than in the past.
As to your list, here is some explanation
Datteln block 4: a more efficient replacement for 3 old blocks.
Stade: planning stage, no permit yet.
BoAplus Niederaussen: planning finished, no permit yet and the chances that it happens are pretty slim.
That is it, only three planned power plants, of which only one is actually a new power plant, not just a new block for an existing one, and only one of these three has an actual permit. Three is a very low amount of "several", and given that only one is allowed to be built, it is not even that.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap