Slashdot Mirror
Italy Proposes Phasing Out Coal Power Plants By 2025 (reuters.com)
Italy is the next country to phase out coal. According to Reuters, the country has set its sights on phasing out coal power plants by 2025. From the report: Italy's biggest utility Enel has said it will not invest in new coal-fired power plants. The new energy strategy, still under discussion, aims to reach the goal of 27 percent of gross overall energy consumption from renewable sources by 2030, the document showed. The strategy, which should be approved by the government at the beginning of November, is also looking to speed up the introduction of vehicles powered by alternative fuels. It aims to raise the number of electric charging stations to 19,000 by 2020.
Notice that it's 27% from renewables in over a decade from now. It basically means they'll be burning natural gas from North Africa.
If solar and wind are as cheap without subsidies as recent stories claim, why do countries need to set targets like this?
Is it more of a target, or rather more of a simple prediction? Also, phasing out coal in India may very well be simply a matter of internalizing externalities. So it is about price, just not the one the coal plant operators are forced to pay in India.
Ezekiel 23:20
Oh fuck, Italy. I guess it shows that it's 4AM here and that I should go to bed. :-p
Ezekiel 23:20
They are trying to prevent the end of the world. Probably spooked by heat waves this year. Remember that coal has received a lot public funding also.
Who said wind is cheaper? Quote please?
Your post assumes that there is a free market in place. If there is not, and energy is centrally-planned, then any change in the mix would need to come from the central planner rather than the non-existent or limited market.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
We should definitely criticize them for not fighting harder in support of the Nazis. ~
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If solar and wind are as cheap without subsidies as recent stories claim, why do countries need to set targets like this? If renewables are really that cheap, shouldn't the free markets phase out coal power without government regulation? Countries setting targets like this and regulating the sources of energy seems to suggest that the claims made about renewables are false. Why else would the government need to intervene?
a) Depending on circumstances they might not be as cheap, but when you factor in CO2 it's a worthwhile investment.
b) Even if it it's cheaper for new infrastructure it still probably costs more to phase out some old infrastructure.
b) Renewables are cheap enough that initiatives like this are feasible.
I stole this Sig
Italy is weak, and couldn't even take on the British navy in the Mediterranean. Don't see how that contradict's the GP's argument.
I'll go with an attitude of "Ride the existing infrastructure into the ground before spending money to replace what works (no matter the long term costs)" with a dash of "People that sell coal using political donations to extended profits"...
Deadlines make it harder to obfuscate slight of hand and/or laziness.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
So where is the other 73% of their power coming from. Nuclear and natural gas? :Seems like a big amount for those.
Also the article was basically just the summary. No sources or content whatsoever.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Uh, so they have capacity to meet demand as they phase out coal power? Do you also ask why airlines don't hire blind pilots?
How is your free market cult going to stop climate change?
If solar and wind are as cheap without subsidies as recent stories claim, why do countries need to set targets like this?...Why else would the government need to intervene?
In case the Italians vote in a disaster like Trump who starts saying things like "Beieve me, we're going to revive the coal industry like you've never seen!" They will at least have some legal precedent in place to help stave off the lunacy.
Good night, Lucia.
"When you factor in CO2."
WTF does that mean? What is this arbitrary valuation you're placing on CO2 which balances the equation, hmmm?
I have a neighbor who has four pit bulls. Notice I say "has" not "owns". Her adult son, who lives in the same town, is a dog fancier but can't be bothered to feed them, clean up after them, or pay for veterinary care. He just buys dogs and then dumps them on his mom, and comes over to play with them when he feels like.
This is an example of what economists call "externalized costs". The son doesn't pay the food or vet costs, so he acts like they don't exist,
Externalized costs are why the market won't eliminate coal on its own. According to a recent Scientific American article, coal particulates kill as many Americans annually as car accidents. And given the nature of the illnesses caused, that's a lot of cost, not even putting a price on human longevity or quality of life,
If all the costs of pollution were part of the purchase decision, the market would make an objectively optimal choice about continuing to use coal. But the costs are paid by someone else, so as far as the parties to the transaction are concerned they don't exist.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
they'll be burning natural gas from North Africa.
That is still way better than burning coal.
Who said wind is cheaper? Quote please?
Wind and solar are cheaper than coal in Australia.
Wind is cheaper than coal in India.
Wind directly competes with coal on price.
News Flash: Wind is not cheaper than coal.
Rarely have I seen a comment so stuffed with half truths, myths and outright nonsense.
https://energytransition.org/2013/02/the-german-coal-myth/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_phase-out
How can Germany have "failed on the claim to abandon coal" when German hard coal subsidies aren't scheduled to stop until 2018 and total coal generation isn't scheduled to end until 2030 at the earliest?
Please understand I'm not responding to you. I understand that you have an agenda, and renewables aren't part of it. I'm commenting here simply so people honestly interested in what's happening in the European energy sector have convenient access to information more accurate and less agenda-driven than yours.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Find it funny that you link to an article about Australia, considering the current topic of national discourse is why our electricity prices are so high, and continue to go up.
If they decide to go up in smoke, coal plants will not even be peanuts in comparison.
"If solar and wind are as cheap without subsidies as recent stories claim, why do countries need to set targets like this?"
Because coal companies still get heavy subsidies all around the world, without which they can't survive. This gives them and their miners an early warning to look for another job.
Well, that's blindseer, you know. To say that he has an agenda is not quite the right description - if nuclear power had a dick, he would suck it day and night.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
virtue signaling
Well, it seems like the (unironic, not quoted) use of "virtue signalling" has mostly taken over as "SJW" as the most effective indicator that the user of it is a raging idiot.
The nice thing about "virtue signalling" is that you can accuse anything of being virtue signalling and it's impossible to deny.
For example: the parent post is simply virtue signalling. It's utterly content free, except for waving a big fat virtue flag saying "I'm attacking the right people see how virtuous I am".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So the panic over climate change is starting. Wonder how long before they realize it's about overpopulation.
France is a net importer of energy, not an net exporter.
Germany is a net exporter of energy, not a net importer.
And yes, they all learned from Germany. As the energy revolution in Gemany is the poster child for the rest of Europe.
Negative price desls are usually I wash your hand, you wash my hand back and forth going deals amoung energy companies. So why do you care?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You could also ask: how is this and other similar measures stop climate change? I suppose carpet bombing Africa with condoms and oher contraceptives would make more sense.
This is Europe. ... or most countries are small.
It is pretty difficult for a 'free market entity' to declare itself to be a power company and invest a billion into a new power plant. First of all: from where should it get that billion? And secondly from where should it get the land to build the plan on? Europe is small
Production cost of power is probably a bit less than 30% of the selling price. (30% production, 30% transportatiom, 20% taxes, 10% earnings)
Even while wind is cheaper than coal for new installations, it would only cut into the 30% production cost and lower it perhaps to 25% now and 20% in far future.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I have a neighbor who has four pit bulls. Notice I say "has" not "owns". Her adult son, who lives in the same town, is a dog fancier but can't be bothered to feed them, clean up after them, or pay for veterinary care. He just buys dogs and then dumps them on his mom, and comes over to play with them when he feels like.
This is an example of what economists call "externalized costs". The son doesn't pay the food or vet costs, so he acts like they don't exist,
Externalized costs are why the market won't eliminate coal on its own. According to a recent Scientific American article, coal particulates kill as many Americans annually as car accidents. And given the nature of the illnesses caused, that's a lot of cost, not even putting a price on human longevity or quality of life,
If all the costs of pollution were part of the purchase decision, the market would make an objectively optimal choice about continuing to use coal. But the costs are paid by someone else, so as far as the parties to the transaction are concerned they don't exist.
Ok, but one issue: the "economic" point of view tries to turn things into numbers. There was some study many decades ago trying to study the costs of an infrastructure development, and they ended up having to put a value on things like, the value to the community of an old church building. Trouble is, you could invent any number for that, and so end up with totally different conclusions about which infrastructure design to go for. Anyway, that's what the psychology prof said.
I feel that, the talk about pollution as an "external cost", falls into this sort of thinking trap. Intuitively, yes, it is something which affects everyone negatively. That's fine. But then people try to say, oh let's put a monetary cost on it.
As if making up numbers makes for a more convincing, objective, case. It doesn't. And besides, how do you put a value on the good that the coal brings? Let me make up a number for that... and depending on my worldview, let me make that a really small number or a really big number...
I'm not saying that it isn't true that companies, governments, NGOs, heavy metal bands, mean old ladies, etc. don't do stuff which ends up being a detriment to many people -- the trouble is, putting an "economic cost" on it, which, whilst it sounds like a nice objective way to make a rational argument about what a clear and sane course of action, only works if you can actually measure that stuff, and crucially, measure both the positives and the negatives.
So the simple question to a matter of externalities is, how did they measure that? How did they measure the positives and the negatives?
And nuclear.
We should be thanking Germany. Not only did they prove that this was feasible and not economically crippling as some had predicted, but they encouraged other countries to follow suit. It's actually possible that large parts of Europe might be coal, nuclear and largely combustion engine free within my lifetime. Likely, even.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Who would be that central planner? As far as I'm aware, energy companies are completely free to decide how they generate or from whom they buy their power as long as tey don't violate the law. Power grid companies do have a central planning role, but it only concerns the transport of electricity, not its generation.
The Italians have made Silvio Berlusconi prime minister multiple times. Donald Trump is basically the Hollywood remake of Silvio Berlusconi.
You misspelled 'America'.
No sig today...
And since they want to switch to electric vehicles, they'll effectively be "vehicles powered by natural gas burned at very high efficiencies". Which is not in any way a bad thing. Combined cycle NG plants can reach 60% efficiency or so; a typical ICE peaks at 35-40% and averages 20-25%, and releases much more pollution per unit energy - and emits it right where people are breathing it in rather than "at altitude, generally outside of cities".
That said, let me be the first to question Italy's seriousness on the electric vehicle front. While Europe is up to 1,6% market penetration on average, with Norway in first place at around 1/3rd market penetration, Italy has a measly 0,1% market penetration - the worst in the developed world. Even Iceland buys nearly as many electric cars per month now as Italy (the latter having 12% of the population of the entire EU, the former having a third of a million people). Italy is an embarrassment when it comes to electric vehicles, not a role model. We'll see if they actually do anything to change this.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
So...the anti-mdsolar? If they reply to each other do we get the destruction of the Internet?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Italy doesn't have nuclear, is actually illegal.
Why can't they just say that they'll do it, do it, and then all the people in the business of making power generation won't have spent 10 years trying to get a coal power plant built then find in 2025 that they'll just have to shut it down and swallow the cost?
while blind-as-a-bat has to lie to get their partisanship seeming sensible. Not that I consider mdsolar to be as unbalanced in their partisanship as blindfromwanking is, but you have your own agenda and bias and partisanship: you hate people who "talk too much" like a hippie eco warrior.
8 years away is a long time, given the current trend. A yearly 20% price reduction on solar electricity will drop the price with 83% over 8 years. Right now, electricity from a new solar farm or a new coal power plant costs roughly the same. It won't take many years before the price for electricity from a new solar farm will be lower than the price for electricity from an already-build and paid off coal power plant.
They want coal to be cheaper so China can buy it all.
So the 'global warming' nutcases are going to turn the entire developed world into a third world country, because 'climate change'. Bloody idiots.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
Of course, it's easier to switch over a smaller infrastructure used by fewer people. Not to mention you can't just compare the efficiency of the gas plant to the efficiency of the combustion engine, you also have to multiply that by the efficiency of the electric motor and the wires to the charging station.
It means the politicians want another round of campaign cash from coal lobby.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
You make a weasel statement. You lose. GP wins.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
You know, the people who ensure that the country runs. And since it needs an electrical grid system, it runs the electrical grid system. What do you think all your whining about regulation and interference by government in private business means if government has no role and does nothing in regards to things like private business planning and actions?
It's to move away from coal and towards natural gas. Coal is extremely dirty compared to gas, it produces acid rain and the ash is means the plants emit more radiation than a nuclear plant to the surrounding area. Market forces alone don't control those short of imposing penalties or bans. The plan is to get rid of dirty coal and switch to cleaner gas (not clean - cleaner), then use renewables to produce as much as possible to minimise the cost of buying gas and market forces are driving things in that direction. There'll likely always be a need to cover a shortfall (even if it's only 5%) so they're focussing on the cleanest option possible. Meanwhile switching to electric vehicles so you generate your electricity by burning gas at very high efficiencies in centralised locations where it's easier to mop up and control the pollution, which takes the pollution out of the cities entirely. That leaves fuel engines for niche purposes only (eg racing, vintage cars, backup generators).
You can also fit devices to chimneys to capture the pollutants which are too costly/heavy to be fitted to ICE cars so you can release fewer pollutants in the first place, as well as doing so in a better place. And they can be subject to closer monitoring.
I really don't know anything about Italy's power system. But from what I know of Europe, I'd be absolutely floored to find out it was a free market. If I had to guess I'd say it was either a state-owned company or well-connected private monopoly that couldn't care less what it pays for power because it passes the generation fees along to the consumer.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
All other losses after the Carnot losses are minor. In the US, for example, grid transmission efficiency is around 98%, and there's another 4% losses for distribution, then a couple percent from the transformer to the socket. Charging is usually in the 90%s from the socket/charger connector (slow charging = more efficient, fast = less efficient), relative to achievable energy output from the battery. Motor + inverter efficiency (including wiring losses) depends on the type - induction averaging in the upper 80%s in real-world driving, PM averaging low to mid 90%s.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
There aren't many elecric vehicles mainly because they're expensive (considering unknown battery lifespan) and funding for incentives has run out many years ago (there are some proposals for 2018), people who want a cleaner vehicle and with cheaper fuel usually convert their car to LPG.
Additionally various cities have wasted taxpayer money in the past on fleets of electric vehicles that were left unused in depots because lead-acid proved to be inadequate, which might have hindered more recent attempts.
The GP is obviously yourself, and his (your) post has already been both downvoted and ridiculed. No need to embarrass yourself further, poor idiot.
'nuff said
It seems that a big part of how people are using the term "virtue signaling" is to mean something like "engaging in support of values or goals I don't care about." Unfortunately, this abuse of the term is making it much less useful to discuss actual virtue signaling; the term actually arises from the study of religious communities where people would engage in public behavior that was obviously very stringent about the rules. In fact, the term could be used in a useful context for discussing environmental issues but almost never is: if for example you make a big deal about how you turn off the lights when you leave a room, but you drive a car regularly and use you a clothes dryer all the time rather than let your clothes dry on a rack or the like, there's a real chance that you are engaging in virtue signaling (or you don't understand to even an order of magnitude how much energy different things use and don't care enough to find out which sounds a lot like virtue signaling also). Yes, every little bit helps, but the big things help more.
I had a conversation a few days ago where someone more or less proudly talked about how they were so careful to turn off lights; I attempted to tell them that if they cared about their energy use, there were a lot of other things they could do. They were completely incredulous that anyone could do any of them (e.g. not own a car, even though my wife and I don't own a car in the same city that this person lives in and it works fine), and got a little irate. When I mentioned that about half the things on the list were things that we actually did, they got very upset. My conclusion is that the person cared more about signaling "I save energy" then actually saving energy. And one when someone out-signaled them, got upset. Part of their mind seemed to have trouble with the idea that one could be taking a course of action to be genuinely helpful in an optimal fashion.
It's not that complicated. The cost he cited above is measured in lives, and science permits as to determine a fairly accurate number of how many people die from pollution. Without even trying to attach an economic cost to that, that's just a specific number of people dying. I mean, your question amounts to, "Yeah but, how do we knowwwww mannnn? How to we really knowwww?" *rolls eyes*
"Old man yells at systemd"
Everyone else can and is doing it. Italy has no excuse. When Iceland is nearly outpacing Italy in total (not per capita) numbers, that doesn't reflect well on Italy.
Furthermore, there is not "unknown battery lifespan". Ignoring that accelerated aging tests have been done, the Roadster was delivered nearly a decade ago and there are Model Ss with with hundreds of thousands of miles / many hundreds of thousands of kilometers on their packs. The "it's unknown" excuse just doesn't fly anymore. It's known, and degradation is minimal. The typical curve is about 4% in the first year, then it greatly slows with time; year five total degradation is about 6-7%.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
Oh, and as for your first claim:
This is wrong on many levels.
1) The basic premise itself is wrong. If you have fewer people, yes that means less demand, but it also means correspondingly less resources to make the change.
2) Iceland is a much more challenging case than Italy. Both Italy and Iceland are mountainous, but Iceland - in addition to having a worse climate - also has a far lower population density.
3) Infrastructure in Iceland isn't better than in Italy. Take Tesla, for example. Italy has five Tesla stores, 2 Tesla service centres, and 23 supercharging stations (soon to be 35) covering the whole of the country. Iceland? 0, 0 and 0. Iceland doesn't even have any kind of charging stations at all - even slow chargers - covering large chunks of the Ring Road, the main road around the country. Just a couple months ago chargers only went a third of the way around.
I'll repeat: Italy has no excuse. They're not a role model when it comes to EVs; they're being lapped at the track by everyone else and making up excuses for why it's not their fault.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
they'll be burning natural gas from North Africa.
That is still way better than burning coal.
Fucking A. And with increasing improvement in battery technology, they (and hopefully we at some point) will be reducing how much nat or syn gas gets burned for energy.
The Italians have made Silvio Berlusconi prime minister multiple times. Donald Trump is basically the Hollywood remake of Silvio Berlusconi.
As much as I loathe the Silvio, these two are incomparable.
The power market in the European Union was liberalised decades ago. While some power companies are owned by local and regional authorities, most are publicly listed and there are no monopolies. Consumers and businesses can choose any energy supplier they like and everyone can start a power company.
Coal is necessary in steel production. It's not going away anytime soon as far as that's concerned. (Recycling existing products is different).
The new coal plants are for smelting, not generic electric production.
Coal will never again be a generic source of power. You are deliberately misunderstanding the conversation regarding coal. And I say this as a NeverTrumper who did not vote for him. (Although I am very pleasantly surprised with what he's done.) Listen to Michael Moore - Trump has grabbed the mantel of labor - that we respect the work that you do. Obama and Hillary just flipped them off saying, in effect that these idiots need to be "retrained."
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
It is cheaper to kill your wife than to divorce her. By your logic, the only acceptable way to prevent spouse homicide would be to let the free market make divorce cheaper than murder.
You free market fanboys really crack me up. Complete and total absence of the tiniest bit of morality or ethics in your reasonings.
Well how about that! Good for them. But there seems to be something wrong with the market in Italy. From this paper:
This indicates pretty strongly that market forces are not in fact at work. This is probably one reason:
And finally, it looks like they tax the hell out of it to support renewables - plus the rates are dictated by the government to increase with consumption:
So while there may be more of a market than there was 30 years ago, it's still heavily regulated and the rate structure is centrally planned.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Calling it Virtue Signalling seems accurate though when taken with the 1st post. AC asked, "If solar and wind are as cheap without subsidies as recent stories claim, why do countries need to set targets like this?" Which would lead to the pointlessness of the law, so with the definition from Wikipedia "Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values done primarily with the intent of enhancing standing within a social group." it start to sound like this is just political pandering, and with the last part of the definition from Wikipedia "the term has become more commonly used as a pejorative characterization by commentators to criticize what they regard as empty, or superficial support of certain political views, and also used within groups to criticize their own members for valuing outward appearance over substantive action." then we can easily see that if the question by AC is grounded in fact than it is Virtue Signalling. If on the other hand we can say that none of this is cheaper, and the laws are necessary to improve the environment, but even this simple site https://www.skepticalscience.c... says that CO2 turnover is at least 500 years if we stopped 100% now. More likely 1000 years, so it seems more like it is Virtue Signalling since it would be pointless. Now, if the goal was to improve air quality for people and animals in/near cities and power plants I could easily get behind this. http://www.oecd.org/env/the-co...
Well, let's say you choose to value human life and suffering at $0 -- which is effectively what you do when you choose to ignore the cost because it's hard to put a precise value on those things. You could even argue this is a defensible philosophical position, although defending that position may take you places you don't want to go.
You can still put a hard cost on what it takes to treat 50,000 cases of fatal pulmonary disease. Is it rational to ignore that?
Here's what you're probably left with if you choose to value human lives, but not factor them into cost calculations: regulation, but no basis whatsoever to decide whether that regulation should be more restrictive or less restrictive.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Italy just can't do anything.
... except having the healthiest people on the planet ( https://www.weforum.org/agenda... ), the highest number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the world ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), giving birth to those who invented the radio, the telephone and even the first microprocessor ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), having had some of the biggest scientists in history (Galileo, Volta, Fermi), and, quite surprisingly, having one of the richest population on the planet in terms of median net worth per adult, far higher than the US ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ).
Except all of that, they can do nothing.
P.S.: Italians chose to leave the war after they toppled Mussolini. It was actually an extremely cunning move: while formally defeated, they basically avoided paying war damages, and they preserved their gorgeous architecture and artistic heritage from allied carpet-bombing. So now they have probably the three most beautiful cities in the world: Florence, Rome and Venice. Just look at how ugly Berlin is instead.
In the US for 2012, subsidies for fossil fuels was 14B. Wind and solar, which is about 1% of the market was 10B. Per watt of energy, renewables received 100x more subsidies than fossil fuel did.
Thanks for that. I truly did "LOL". I hadn't realized blindseer was so...ah..."dedickated".
Cheers, my friend.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
We don't have a monetary value for CO2 emissions right now.
But it is well known that we can't burn all the coal there is - it would lead to an atmosphere with no oxygen in it. Actually, even 1% CO2 makes the air unbreathable. So coal burning has to stop someday. Apparently, some countries have made plans already.
CO2 emissions may have some effect on climate. In that case, recent weather problems in north America may help you put a price on CO2.
According to the CIA France is the largest exporter of electricity by a large margin.
https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...
France gets over 70% of it's electricity from nuclear power. Europe runs on nuclear power because of what France exports. If Italy wants to close their coal plants in the next 10 years then they will have to increase their imports from France, burn a lot more expensive natural gas, or see the lights go out.
Italy needs to get over their fear of nuclear power real quick or see their electricity rates keep going up and up. Germany and Italy already have some of the highest electricity rates in the world, certainly high compared to the rest of Europe, and France has much cheaper electricity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Germany isn't the poster child, it's the town drunk to show people what not to do.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Most countries tax energy consumption, often to support renewables. If you call that a 'centrally planned rate structure', then every product or service that is taxed has a centrally planned rate structure.
The point though, is that, while imperfect, Italy fundamentally has a more or less free energy market. There is no central planner.
Italy doesn't have nuclear, is actually illegal.
They'll just buy electricity made by nuclear power from France. Italy will be using nuclear power regardless. They have been for a long time now and their reliance on nuclear power will only increase as France builds more nuclear reactors and Italy shuts down their coal plants. Kind of like how Germany has been buying so much electricity from France to make up for their failure to provide for their electrical demand after shutting down their coal plants.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The "France did it and their rates aren't excessive, so why can't others?" line keeps coming up.
The Messmer Plan, which converted France to a nuclear grid, came at a huge cost. Between 1973 and 1984, EDF's debt rose by 650%. As EDF is largely owned by the state, this has a direct influence on France's total debt standings. By the mid 1980s, EDF's debt standing was 15,4% of France's total foreign debt - a debt which shot up during the Messmer Plan's implementation (not solely due to it, but it certainly didn't help). The fact that ratepayers weren't directly forced to pay this on their power bills is irrelevant; everyone pays indirectly when you fund things through a debt burden borne by the state.
Furthermore, because France didn't account for improvements in efficiency in their power forecasts, so they overbuilt. This led to France desperately seeking ways to use and sell more power, which led to wasteful consumption (such as the conversion of heating to electric, reduced focus on efficiency, insulation, etc). So they took on a debt burden in order to create power generation to use inefficiently.
And the Messmer Plan was really a best case scenario: a unified deployment of identical plants back in the 1970s. Unfortunately, nuclear power has experienced a negative learning curve since then; things have been getting more expensive, not less, as we've learned of problems in previous designs that need to be overcome with future designs. Fixing these means starting over with a new generation of plants, but this restarts the learning curve. The most recent attempt to do this - the so-called "nuclear renaissance" - was a colossal failure, leaving a mess of hugely overbudget / behind schedule plants, debt-saddled / bankrupt utilities, the bankruptcy of Westinghouse and the bailout of Areva in its wake.
France is now putting a new focus on renewables. But they're behind the curve on this front. France has had little incentive to work on renewables compared to other major powers because they were overbuilt on generation capacity. Now it's catch-up time.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
The lives of people are the "external cost" as the result of pollution. So if your life is worth $0 or near $0, then yes the GP would be wrong because monetary cost wouldn't be included (your post's implication). Is your life worth that much? Or even less?
I had a conversation a few days ago where someone more or less proudly talked about how they were so careful to turn off lights; I attempted to tell them that if they cared about their energy use, there were a lot of other things they could do. They were completely incredulous that anyone could do any of them (e.g. not own a car, even though my wife and I don't own a car in the same city that this person lives in and it works fine), and got a little irate. When I mentioned that about half the things on the list were things that we actually did, they got very upset. My conclusion is that the person cared more about signaling "I save energy" then actually saving energy. And one when someone out-signaled them, got upset. Part of their mind seemed to have trouble with the idea that one could be taking a course of action to be genuinely helpful in an optimal fashion.
Or maybe they were just annoyed that you came off as the latest form of this guy:
https://www.theonion.com/area-...
It's great that you get by just fine without a car. But not everyone can or wants to. Perhaps his job requires him to work odd hours which would make other options impossible or less desirable. Perhaps he works on call and needs to respond quickly without being at the mercy of uber or zip car availability. Maybe his life is just so busy that the extra 5 minutes you take for granted here and there makes it less realistic for him. There's a multitude of other reasons.
Likewise, you mention not using a dryer. Again, great for some people. My mom always did it when I was young. I personally can't stand the rougher feeling of line dried clothing/towels. Line drying undeniably takes more effort than simply throwing the bundle of clothes in the dryer.
The simple fact that you engaged in such a conversation with them and challenged them about their commitment level suggest to me that you're probably at least as interested in signalling as they are.
The typical curve is about 4% in the first year, then it greatly slows with time; year five total degradation is about 6-7%.
Assuming reasonable headroom in the capacity and no overheating. Nissan LEAF owners in hot climates have experienced serious battery degradation due to the lack of a battery cooling system. I own a LEAF and have had no problems (50K miles on the clock and negligible degradation), but I don't live in a hot climate.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Yeah, because there's no other reason to phase out one of the dirtiest means of generating electricity ever invented.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well, we know what increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere does, so shouldn't companies that produce CO2 emissions be forced to pay for what they're doing? Why should the companies with coal-burning power plants get off without paying for emissions? Wouldn't that effectively be a subsidy?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Or maybe they were just annoyed that you came off as the latest form of this guy: https://www.theonion.com/area-... [theonion.com]
Sure, cars, TVs and being vegetarian are all the sort of thing that people do feel a need to tell others about. http://grrlpowercomic.com/archives/664 is relevant.
It's great that you get by just fine without a car. But not everyone can or wants to. Perhaps his job requires him to work odd hours which would make other options impossible or less desirable. Perhaps he works on call and needs to respond quickly without being at the mercy of uber or zip car availability. Maybe his life is just so busy that the extra 5 minutes you take for granted here and there makes it less realistic for him. There's a multitude of other reasons.
Sure, those are valid reasons! And it is easy to add to that list. If for example one has kids it is pretty much impossible to function without a car. The person in question however is an academic who works at the same university as I do and doesn't live that far from campus.
The simple fact that you engaged in such a conversation with them and challenged them about their commitment level suggest to me that you're probably at least as interested in signalling as they are.
This is the problem with emphasis on "virtue signaling" in a nutshell; it simply assumes that people don't have some minimal level of actually caring about results. So any conversation or action must be about signaling rather than actually trying to be helpful.
It is probably still cheaper to continue to use whatever you have already built. I don't think those recent stories take that in consideration. Of course, if you are building new capacity, it would be no brainer to pick clean energy. I doubt they are building new coal plants at this point.
Did you just call a conversion to electric heat "wasteful"? I thought electric heat was the goal of every "green" energy plan? If people don't heat with electricity then what are they supposed to use?
Heating with coal, oil, or natural gas are presumably out, as those contribute to CO2 output. Are people supposed to burn wood for heat? That's going to go over real well once people find out how many trees would have to be cut down every winter.
Assuming a combined cycle natural gas plant (about 60% efficiency) and resistance heating (at 100% efficiency) and someone would be getting a total efficiency not much worse than a cheap natural draft natural gas furnace. Assuming an inefficient natural gas turbine at 30% efficiency (common for providing peak power) and a modern heat pump (with an "efficiency" of 300%) and people would be getting double the heat for fuel burned over a high efficiency natural gas furnace. If the electricity comes from nuclear power then the CO2 released from electric heat is next to nothing, and real cheap to install and run. If a nation limits itself to "green" energy like wind and solar then heat can only come from electricity. Electric heating makes sense regardless of the energy source.
Fixing these means starting over with a new generation of plants, but this restarts the learning curve.
Yes, that does mean largely starting over with the nuclear power learning curve. If we figure this out then we've solved the energy problem for all time. Uranium and thorium are so abundant, and provide so much energy per mass, that we will never run out. With wind and solar there is only so much land area that we can use to harness that energy. Wind and solar are so unreliable and dilute that it will be real easy to run out of land if those were our primary sources of energy.
Assuming wind and solar is cheaper than nuclear and coal, the growth in demand as more people in the world want to get to a standard of living that those in Europe enjoy will soon overwhelm the supply and prices will go up. There will be a point that wind and solar are not cheap any more. We will need to restart our investment in nuclear power at some point or we will put a self imposed cap on the global standard of living.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Yes, I'm assuming a proper EV (aka, not a Leaf) ;) More specifically, I'm referring to data collected from Tesla Model Ss.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
I mean all that coal is going to stay in the ground and pollute out ground water and give people cancer. I like the current system where we extract this dangerous substance and burn it so it can't harm people.
[...] Donald Trump is basically the Hollywood remake of Silvio Berlusconi.
As much as I loathe the Silvio, these two are incomparable.
Exactly: a Hollywood remake.
How about you link to an article that doesn't use five year old data?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
http://notrickszone.com/2017/1...
https://www.cleanenergywire.or...
The majority of CO2 reductions from Germany in the past 25 years has been from shutting down old Soviet designed power plants that Germany inherited from reunification. If there are any of these inefficient power plants left then any future shutdowns will have diminishing returns on CO2 reductions. A large part of their current zero emission electricity is from currently operating nuclear power. Shutting them down will only increase their CO2 output since nothing has a lower CO2 footprint than nuclear. Wind and hydroelectric have marginally lower CO2 output if good spots are found. Germany ran out of rivers to dam long ago, and their optimal wind locations will only last so long before their CO2 output exceeds nuclear.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/u...
I know the link I provided is from a nuclear power advocacy site, they only compiled data from other sources and funded no studies themselves.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Just to be clear, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a 501(c)(03) public charity which received $307,000 from Exxon Mobile or its foundation between 2003 and 2007. IER also received $175,000 from Koch Industries according to a Greenpeace report.
Source: https://www.sourcewatch.org/in...
Germany foreign trade of electricity 2006-2016 (negative values are exports):
-5,3 -2,3 -0,6 +1,0 +3,1 -1,3 +0,7 -8,1 -7,3 -8,5 -19,8 -19,1 -22,5 -14,3 -17,7 -6,3 -23,1 -33,8 -35,6 -51,8 -53,7
Source: http://www.ag-energiebilanzen....
But I know, nuclear fanboys do not care for facts.
Units: TWh
+1 Insightful.
Not that free markets can not be a useful tool to efficiently organize economic activity in many cases, but it is nothing more than a tool which is useful in some cases and completely inappropriate in many others.
Yes, I'm assuming a proper EV (aka, not a Leaf) ;)
Hey there! I quite like my LEAF!
I certainly have to grant that the small battery and lack of battery cooling are flaws, though the latter doesn't affect me and the former doesn't affect me much. I'm in line for a Model 3, but fairly far down the list. Probably late 2018 or early 2019. Maybe later if they keep having production ramp-up problems.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
If you call that a 'centrally planned rate structure',
No, that what I'm calling the fact that rates are mandated to be progressive. That is the exact reverse of what a free market would do... when does buying smaller amounts of something result in a cheaper per-unit price? Never in a free market, unless you are buying so much that you start manipulating the market - and even then the price would go up for everyone.
It's self-evident that there is not a free market - otherwise the rates would converge on those of its direct neighbors. If there were a free market in Italy, I could go make a fortune in arbitrage right now by running a giant extension cord into neighboring countries and then reselling the power.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It is completely irrelevant how much CO2 could be saved by using nuclear, as it is too expensive.
And it would be even more expensive, if it would be scaled up to have a global impact, because you would need to establish completely new fuel cycles.
For this reasons, it is not a solution for global warming.
And Germany's use of coal (coal + lignite) decreased substantially: 197 TWh (1996) to 189 TWh (2006) to 161.5 TWh (2016)
(source: http://www.ag-energiebilanzen....)
I know, not in your alternate reality where facts don't matter.
Germany pays subsidies for wind and solar only to export the electricity at low prices so it's not a complete loss. Not only low prices but negative, as in paying people to take it so the grid remains stable. They are bankrupting themselves.
http://fortune.com/2017/03/14/...
https://www.technologyreview.c...
http://euanmearns.com/getting-...
http://www.windpowermonthly.co...
Denmark imports electricity at 30 euro/MWh and exports at 20 euro/MWh. Germany does better with imports at 30 euro/MWh and exports at 27 euro/MWh. If Germany keeps shutting down reliable nuclear and replacing it with unreliable wind and solar the net export is likely to disappear, the price difference is most definitely going to spread, and this will cost Germany money. Perhaps Germany will remain a net exporter of electricity but they will have to pay their neighbors to take it.
These "environmentalists" like to talk about things being sustainable. This is not sustainable.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Eucker covered it. I don't need to repeat what he said.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
It is completely irrelevant how much CO2 could be saved by using nuclear, as it is too expensive.
What? CO2 saved doesn't matter? I thought that CO2 output was the ultimate threat to life on Earth, and reducing it was to be done at any cost!
Also, wind and solar keep promising to be cheaper than coal and any claim that nuclear could get cheaper as well is dismissed. Why can't nuclear get cheaper too? Is there some magical force in the universe preventing this? Nuclear is only going to get cheaper if people take it seriously as an alternative to coal.
If nuclear power is feared more than global warming then why should I fear global warming?
And it would be even more expensive, if it would be scaled up to have a global impact, because you would need to establish completely new fuel cycles.
Why would we need completely new fuel cycles? There's enough uranium on Earth to last until the sun consumes the planet.
For this reasons, it is not a solution for global warming.
Which is just another way of saying that global warming is not a threat.
I know, not in your alternate reality where facts don't matter.
Facts do matter. If all you have against nuclear power is that the technology is expensive and fuel is rare then let's invest in development. Kind of like how we invested in wind and solar.
Here's some facts, nuclear is already cheaper than wind in most places on Earth. There's a chart on this article that compares costs.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
Facts show that nuclear is not too expensive. If nuclear is too expensive then so is wind and solar because nuclear is cheaper than both, and provably so.
We are running out of places to get cheap wind. In the USA we have onshore wind cheaper than nuclear but how long can that last? We're going to run out of good places for wind. And, we've barely begun to research new nuclear. We've been boiling water with nuclear power for decades. The next generation of nuclear is not likely to be bound by the limits that water imposes on efficiency, safety, and cost. We are getting real close to the limits on wind and solar. We are already seeing the price reductions in solar come at the cost of reduced efficiency.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
English must be a second language for you...
Italy wouldn't care about its own, just the policymakers.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
It's also the most consistent and readily converted source. Unlike solar or wind's requirement of an expensive converter, it only requires a flame.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
So wind is cheap in USA, Australia, and India. How much does it cost in Italy? Or any neighboring nation?
I tried finding it myself but I haven't had much luck. Lots of articles on how European nations are building wind energy capacity, but that only means that there's a lot of government subsidies.
Australia, India, and the US have access to large land areas to pick from for wind. It's going to be much easier to find cheap wind in these large nations than the relatively tiny Italy.
I look at my globe here in my office and I can see that the 45th parallel goes through Italy. By comparison I see that large chunks of India and Australia are between the 15th and 30th parallel (on different hemispheres obviously). The USA is is bit further from the equator, most of the land between 45th and 30th parallels, but still has lots of what I assume is cheap land around the 30th parallel. That would imply that solar power isn't going to be all that cheap in Italy, at least not as cheap in India, Australia, and USA.
Italy has a fair amount of hydroelectric power available, which I assume they use not only as a "green" source of energy but also to manage the intermittent nature of what wind and solar they have now and may get in the future. I find it hard to believe that Italy will have all that much access to cheap wind and solar and it looks like they maxed out on hydro power 100 years ago. They might be able to improve on the hydroelectric storage by adding pumps to pump the water back up the hill when electricity is plentiful, but that costs money.
Italy will have to choose two of these three: cheap, reliable, and "green".
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If you think the goal of "100% renewable electricity cheaper than fossil fuels" is realistic. I don't, at least in the short to mid term. There's nothing wrong with natural gas heating. Natural gas is low carbon, clean burning, cheap, abundant, and can (by varying means and to varying degrees) be a renewable resource.
You should be a story writer, because you've composed an elaborate story in your mind about who I am and what I believe.
Wood is a terrible fuel source. As polluting as coal, and that's assuming you have equivalent scrubbers.
History tells us that, in addition to being saddled with massive costs, we'll end up having to switch to yet another "new generation" a couple decades down the road.
The fact that nuclear has been this way isnt due to "bad luck". It's the very nature of what you're doing. You're creating immensely toxic materials, from literally all across the periodic table, meaning literally every possibility for corrosion, side reactions, etc. You're doing this in the middle of an intense neutron flux which embrittles materials at the best, and at the worst makes them store Wigner energy which can be suddenly released. Neutron transparency / absorption requirements mean you have to work with exotic materials. Etc, etc, etc. When was the last time you welded a half-meter diameter zirconium pipe with x-ray-perfect precision? How many people do you think there are in the world who know how to do something like that? Because that's the sort of stuff you have to do to build nuclear power plants. That's the sort of thing that causes cost overruns. Check out some of the latest generation of overbudget plants and look at the various reasons why they went over budget. Hint: "NIMBY" has nothing to do with any of them.
That's not how it works. Production goes up when demand goes up. And the larger the scale of production, the lower the unit cost, not higher.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
Sorry, I know, Leaf is an easy punching bag ;) It's overly simplified powertrain hurts it in a lot of other ways too, many of which aren't as obvious. For example, Leafs lose a lot of range in the winter, but Teslas only lose 10-20% (assuming dry pavement in both cases). Electric powertrains don't give off a ton of waste heat, but each component does give off a meaningful amount, and being able to capture it from one place and shunt it to another is hugely advantageous in adverse weather conditions.
But, the Leaf did what it's supposed to do: gave Nissan a way to roll out EVs in significant numbers quickly at an affordable price point. Now, however, it's time for that pricepoint to switch to properly managed EV powertrains. ;)
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
Electricity rates are completely irrelevant for a typical european citizen.
An italian probably drinks 3 espresso per day, that is 90 per month, that is significantly more costs than his electricity bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As you probably see: there are no accurate up to date numbers for every year. It helps to click on the two arrows in the "Electricity exports" column.
Europe runs on nuclear power because of what France exports.
No it does not. France has enough power for its own country and exports a small fraction. The rest of Europe together consumes more than 5 times the power France is _producing_ not even talking about exporting (probably 100x what France is exporting).
There is no "Italy needs to get over their fear of nuclear power real quick", as there is no Italy. There is the italian population, and they decided not to invest into nuclear power around the early 1990s, for 100ds of reasons: mostly cost.
Germany and Italy already have some of the highest electricity rates in the world
No it has not. I already linked you real world exampled of electric power in Germany often enough.
And then again: I already told you often enough that the price per kWh is misleading. As germans don't need much power. But the infrastructure costs are the exact same, more or less unrelated to the amount of power you transport (simplified, before you start another stupid argument here)
2/3rd of of a typical german house holds electricity cost is taxes, infrastructure, billing and earnings of the power company. So even if you would cut the "electricity price" to 10% of its actual price, the price per kWh would only drop towards ~73% of the actual price.
Germany isn't the poster child,
It is. And that is why everyone is basically following our lead in energy politics and energy production. Even France!
Your stupid problem is that you don't grasp that here are not countries competing but power companies. And your stupid problem extends to not grasping: there is no Germany and France and Italy ... there is only Europe or more precisely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
However you were right about the amount of power exported. France exports a bit more than Germany, however versus Germany France is a net importer. We sell more to them ..... oops our power companies sell more to French customers (manly the one and only power company there) than we buy from them.
So your whole chain of arguing was wrong.
BTW: the french more or less state owned power company that runs 70% of its power production with nuclear plan (wich is wrong, it is meanwhile around 60%, because they introduce wind and solar just like Germany! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ãlectricité_de_France) is state owned. The french state, aka the tax payer is covering all losses of the company. And only every few years they pay dividend to the French state.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Well, let's say you choose to value human life and suffering at $0 -- which is effectively what you do when you choose to ignore the cost because it's hard to put a precise value on those things. You could even argue this is a defensible philosophical position, although defending that position may take you places you don't want to go.
You can still put a hard cost on what it takes to treat 50,000 cases of fatal pulmonary disease. Is it rational to ignore that?
Here's what you're probably left with if you choose to value human lives, but not factor them into cost calculations: regulation, but no basis whatsoever to decide whether that regulation should be more restrictive or less restrictive.
As I said, you also have to put a value on the positives. Why do you suppose there are still many coal plants being built? My guess is that people intuitively weigh up the fact that quick expansion of energy is a way to save lives. That's an "external benefit" and if you want to measure it in lives, and reduction in human suffering, then that has to be included.
We cannot be 100% solar and wind. Or at least, I've never heard anyone claim we can. Something has to run the steel mills. Which make the steel for the wind farms. And whilst nuclear and coal have a "cost", they also have a "benefit", however one wants to measure it or make up numbers for.
Interesting. I didn't realize Tesla recovered waste heat for cabin heating. That does make a lot of sense, even if it's not a huge amount of heat.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Stop weaseling. I debunked your previous claim: "Kind of like how Germany has been buying so much electricity from France to make up for their failure to provide for their electrical demand after shutting down their coal plants." Your new nonsense is also easily shown wrong: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/...
It is completely irrelevant how much CO2 could be saved by using nuclear, as it is too expensive.
What? CO2 saved doesn't matter? I thought that CO2 output was the ultimate threat to life on Earth, and reducing it was to be done at any cost!
Spending money for nuclear would prevent spending money on much more cost-effective ways to reduce CO2.
Also, wind and solar keep promising to be cheaper than coal and any claim that nuclear could get cheaper as well is dismissed. Why can't nuclear get cheaper too? Is there some magical force in the universe preventing this? Nuclear is only going to get cheaper if people take it seriously as an alternative to coal.
First, one has to acknowledge that nuclear is already an old technology where a lot of money has already spent in research and development. I did not get cheaper in the past, instead it got much more expensive. In contrast, wind and solar quickly got much cheaper once people started to invest in it. So let's turn the question around: what is the reason more money should suddenly cause a breakthrough in nuclear technology? There is no such reason. The magical force in the universe making it difficult to develop cheap nuclear reactors is called complexity. It simply is an extremely complex technology. It would not even exist, if governments hadn't spent an insane amount of money to develop it in the first place.
If nuclear power is feared more than global warming then why should I fear global warming?
This is a strawman. I don't fear nuclear. I just realized - while studying this question - that it is too expensive to be a solution.
And it would be even more expensive, if it would be scaled up to have a global impact, because you would need to establish completely new fuel cycles.
Why would we need completely new fuel cycles? There's enough uranium on Earth to last until the sun consumes the planet.
The question is: How much a uranium can be mined cost effectively. Uranium needs to be enriched to be usable. Once we have consumed all higher grade ores which can be mined cheaply, the whole enterprise quickly becomes more expensive. This is another reason why one cannot really scale up nuclear anyway without running into even more problems with cost. In theory the solution could be to switch to thorium or have a closed fuel cycle. As regular nuclear is already very expensive, and this would require huge amounts of new investments, both ideas have essentially been given up a long time ago.
For this reasons, it is not a solution for global warming.
Which is just another way of saying that global warming is not a threat.
It clearly is a major threat, but even after huge investments in the past, nuclear is too expensive to be any usel in addressing this problem. In contrast, we have made already huge progress with renewables and some progress with better efficiency.
Too late
Yeah, the heat management system in Teslas is superb. And they keep coming up with more tricks to make it even better. Example: the Model 3 has no battery pack heater. Wait, isn't that a step backward? Well, no: what they do instead is deliberately run the motor very inefficiently (even when at a stop), creating tons of waste heat in the motor, and then the thermal management system shunts that to the battery pack ;)
Between the battery pack, the drive unit, the cabin heater, the radiator, and the compressor, they can shunt heat between any of them, as needed. As for the radiator, it has louvres and some powerful fans. Normally the louvres stay shut to keep the drag down, but when supercharging or sprinting on a track, the louvres open and the fans come on for additional cooling. This lets them get rid of heat fast.
According to the new EPA docs, Model 3's pack can take 525A. It's a nominal 400V, which would imply 210kW - although one expects them only to be able to take that much at lower SoCs, maybe 180kW. But still well more than any charger in that voltage range can deliver. The super-rare "350kW" CCS chargers are only 350A (you can only use the "350kW" if you can charge at 1000V, which nobody today can). Tesla Superchargers are about the same current (but far more common). And Model 3 is also one of the most efficient EVs out there - only a tiny bit more energy consumption per kilometer than the Prius Prime and Ioniq (both 4 seaters, vs. the Model 3's five seats), and way less than the dozen or so other major PHEVs and EVs on the roads today. So high charging powers plus low power-per-mile requirements...
What a beast :) I can't wait to get mine.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.