Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Utility Plans Massive Wind Farm Island In North Sea (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Britain's homes could be lit and powered by wind farms surrounding an artificial island deep out in the North Sea, under advanced plans by a Dutch energy network. The radical proposal envisages an island being built to act as a hub for vast offshore wind farms that would eclipse today's facilities in scale. Dogger Bank, 125km (78 miles) off the East Yorkshire coast, has been identified as a potentially windy and shallow site. The power hub would send electricity over a long-distance cable to the UK and Netherlands, and possibly later to Belgium, Germany, and Denmark. TenneT, the project's backer and Dutch equivalent of the UK's National Grid, recently shared early findings of a study that said its plan could be billions of euros cheaper than conventional wind farms and international power cables. The sci-fi-sounding proposal is sold as an innovative answer to industry's challenge of continuing to make offshore wind cheaper, as turbines are pushed ever further off the coast to more expensive sites as the best spots closer to land fill up.
"The power hub would send electricity over a long-distance cable"
Hopefully multiple cables, not just one, for plain old redundancy and for national security sake (imagine an enemy going "snip" to the one cable).
Isnâ(TM)t that where the danish guy raped and dismembered some reporter on a home built submarine?
The Dutch have expanded into the ocean and used wind power for quite a while.
They've expanded their country by building dikes, pumping out water using windmill pumps, and reclaiming the seabed.
Building an artificial island and surrounding it with windmills to generate enormous amounts of electrical energy (rather than, say, building nuclear reactors) is right in character. B-)
(Back in the mid 20th century, one of the Lampoon magazines had a joke conspiracy theory article about the Dutch taking over the world by expanding out into the ocean and pushing the water up onto everybody else's country. It somehow involved people in other countries being awakened by the sound of chainsaws, wielded by invading Dutch military squads, being applied to their kitchen doors (to convert them into the two-segment, house-ventilating, "Dutch doors").)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Calm down, SlashDrew. Why don't you just pick another user ID to post with instead of making the same FP troll over and over again? BeauHD trolls these forums and looks like an idiot, but *at least* he is willing to show his own stupidity and does not try to conceal it. So I'm guessing BizX is fine with that. He hasn't been fired yet.
By the way, it would be cool if Slashdot could get a technically literate staff again. Think about it. The Dutch have been using wind power for, what, 500 or more years, because it is so RELIABLE and so ABUNDANT? Yes, the windmill was pioneered in THE NETHERLANDS many hundreds of years ago because wind power is so easy pickin's.
Too bad that Mrs. Mash and BonerHD claim everything dumb to be revolutionary.
rather than, say, building nuclear reactors
Thankfully the Dutch are also building nuclear reactors. Safer thorium reactor trials could salvage nuclear power The Dutch are aware that there are mathematical limits to renewable energy (due to intermittency), and consequently they are building clean baseload nuclear energy.
Given the reality of climate change, it is immoral to oppose nuclear power
Wrong. The future of energy is energy storage and nuclear power is entirely redundant, supremely expensive, and a disaster in the worst case. Vacuum flywheels, water pumps, hot water storage, any number of ways exist to invest in medium-term energy storage. All are better investments than nuclear.
How did they solve the Don Quixote problem? ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
What about a nuclear reactor on an artificial island, far from any inhabited area? One with multiple electrical power links to the mainland? I have an idea on where they could build this artificial island.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I disagree with you. It turns out a lot of scientists disagree with you as well. The Dutch also disagree with you.
The leading 100% renewable plan has been debunked by the national academy of science. It is not feasible with current technology. Energy storage is expensive. Yes nuclear is expensive as well, but 4th generation reactors can be factory built. The Dutch are innovating in that technology.
We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is a reason the world's leading climate scientists have repeatedly said nuclear power is the only viable path forward on climate change
Also Germany tried what you did and they have failed. Only 34% of German electricity is clean. Germany has spent a quarter of a trillion dollars, and their electricity is 10x dirty then their neighbor France. Scroll to the third graph comparing Germany and France. You will notice that Germany emits 560 grams of CO2 per kWh and France emits 58 grams of CO2 per kWh. That is almost 10x.
So now the UK and other parts of the EU could have to pay back the Dutch for the costs of an artificial island and to keep the power generation in profit.
Nice to own a new island and have a other nations submit to contracts making them dependant on your "green" energy at a nice profit.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
There are no limits to remewables. One specific might, but as a whole, they aren't limited in the way you imply.
Learn to love Alaska
I bet you can sell wind farm plans to trump quite easily.
"See the dutch thing? we will do it, but with BIGGER towers, and eagle wing shaped turbines! it will make em look like complete wimps!"
What about a nuclear reactor on an artificial island, far from any inhabited area?
Now we're venturing into James Bond Villain territory...
#DeleteChrome
"See the dutch thing? we will do it, but with BIGGER towers, and eagle wing shaped turbines!
"Why do those wing-shaped turbines have a right-angle bend in th- ... oh. I get it."
As for the article: "The sci-fi-sounding proposal" ? If you were born in 1913, perhaps.
Let's do this. Not because I think that off shore wind power is a good idea but because I think that this would be a good place to put a nuclear power plant.
I expect them to build this artificial island, lay the power cables, and put up the windmills, only to later have a storm come along and damage enough windmills, or some other problem, to send them into bankruptcy. At that point they'll have this island with the infrastructure for a power plant and not much else to do with it.
They show the island with a landing strip for airplanes, and facilities for bringing in cargo by sea, so I guess this island could be used for a lot of things. I don't know how big the island is planned to be, and how long of a runway it could support, but if a long enough runway could be built then it could be a place to build an airport. Japan did this. Although Japan did this for the much more pressing problem of a lack of large flat areas for an airport, a problem that Europe does not have, yet.
When it comes to concerns of a nuclear power plant being damaged by a storm like windmills there is plenty of evidence of this not being a problem. There was just a major hurricane that slammed into a nuclear power plant in Florida and it was operating through the storm. When it comes to incidents like Fukushima we've learned on how to avoid them in the future. The reactors at Fukushima were very old and not up to modern specs of safety, and had long known safety violations but was allowed to continue operating regardless. In short, don't do that again.
In the unlikely event of a meltdown then there would be no need of an evacuation beyond the island itself. So, sure, build this island. I expect them to fail only to build a nuclear power plant on the site later.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
It won't be long before wind and solar have reached the point where they won't need any subsidies at all to compete with fossil fuels...which no doubt will still enjoy the billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies they get right now.
It's unfortunate that North America squandered its opportunity to lead the world in developing and manufacturing the means to provide renewable energy, thanks to lobbying by fossil fuel corporations and low-information taxpayers who have never figured out how little they spend subsidizing renewables, and how much they spend subsidizing oil, gas, and coal.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Dutch and wind in the article, and no one has posted some sort of Dutch Oven joke yet?
I would, but I'm coming up with nothing at the moment.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Those undersea cables will be high voltage DC, which is difficult to generate. Can the turbines directly generate the DC and avoid a conversion step?
In the grandparent post I saw links to a number of very interesting articles on how nuclear power is the only solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. The parent post is just ad hominem. Interesting isn't it?
You can claim that wind and solar power is the solution to our greenhouse gas problem but without some kind of data that claim is rather empty, no? Sure, we do in fact see plenty of wind and solar power capacity being developed. In fact I see windmill parts being transported down the interstate daily where I live. I will not dispute the increasing pace of wind and solar energy deployment. What I dispute is the economics of it all. Not just in dollars and cents but in the greenhouse gas emitted.
Nuclear already has a lower greenhouse gas emission rate per energy produce than solar and is on par with wind and hydro. I know the argument, when solar power hits its stride then the greenhouse gas emissions will drop. That's fine, I'll go with that. What happens though when nuclear power hits its stride? It's lower than solar now, what happens when we see cement and steel for the next nuclear reactor getting produced from nuclear power?
Another argument is how energy storage will make wind and solar reliable enough to keep the lights on 24/7 instead of when the sun shines and wind blows. I ask this, what do you think that same electric storage technology could do if paired with an already inherently reliable energy source like nuclear power? I hear the argument on how a failure of a large nuclear power plant could render large areas without power. Sure, that could happen. That would happen now, that is, since we have a "dumb" grid and no storage. What happens if we pair nuclear power with a "smart" grid and battery storage? Or with, what seems to be everyone's favorite energy storage, pumped hydroelectric? Hydroelectric dams are already used now for load following, seasonal scale storage, and such for nuclear power. Just ask the Tennessee Valley Authority. I've seen the facility.
The argument against nuclear seems to me rides on the idea that it is somehow separated from technologies like grid scale battery storage and "smart" grids. Nuclear power can have those things too. Solar and wind as energy sources are impossible without storage and enough "smarts" to manage it all, nuclear does not need them. What happens though if these storage and "smart" technologies are mated with nuclear power then we have something far safer, cheaper, and "greener" than anything solar and wind could do.
That's fine though. Keep claiming that wind and solar will win in the end. I see a different future. A future powered by nuclear reactors.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I mean, I get it's not an eyesore as some people claim, if it's offshore, but surely the cost of shipping the items out there and running a hefty cable back to land is astronomical?
Also servicing?
Is there that little free land in the region?
You just can't bother to fund them, meanwhile, as the turbines and panels go up. So enjoy my future instead, bitch! Haha. Yours doesn't pay for itself. Mine does.
Ad hominem? Sir, I have not begun to shit on your face with the cold light of day.
Those subsidies are done at state level anyway not federal level.
USA is a leader in renewables, and still is. Tesla in electric cars, major solar and wind projects, and a mass of individual domestic projects.
In 2008 renewables were 9.25% of total US electricity generation by 2016 that had increased to 14.94%.
Tweets from Trump don't really affect that. The technology people don't follow him, they don't need him, and he is not a position of power over their renewable projects. He's just some whiny walking victim always tweeting about how the world is against him.
Renewable electricity generation continues to increase, because its a capital cost, you spend *once*, and the equipment has a twenty year+ lifespan, rather than an ongoing extraction cost, paid continuously. Since there's plenty of capital in the US, there's plenty of expansion into renewables and in the long term its a lot cheaper.
So Trump symbolically withdraws from the Paris climate agreement, but Trump's his golf course manager builds a flood wall to protect from floods due to global warming. His manager is following Obama and science, not following Trump and Fox News. Even Trumps own people continue to work to fix the effects of global warming.
now THAT would be expensive
Wrong. The future of energy is energy storage and nuclear power is entirely redundant, supremely expensive, and a disaster in the worst case. Vacuum flywheels, water pumps, hot water storage, any number of ways exist to invest in medium-term energy storage. All are better investments than nuclear.
Energy storage is useful only if there is energy generated to store. Where do we get this energy? That's the real question, isn't it? I mean we don't need storage if we can produce energy on demand. Let's discuss our options.
Every energy source has three major costs, capital, operation, and fuel. For any fossil fuel energy source the fuel dominates the costs when run at high capacity rates. The other costs still need to be met and this is done by burning fuel, so there is a sweet spot with every fossil fuel plant. Anything that uses steam will have to run at high capacity factors to pay the bills, and this includes nuclear even though fuel costs are next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. Natural gas turbines that are currently used for load following will typically run about a 30% capacity factor as a sweet spot for paying the bills and burning money.
Wind and solar, like nuclear, having no fuel costs simply make more money, and therefore get cheaper per kWh, when run as much as possible. Wind and solar though cannot have their capacity factors adjusted, they get what they get. Nuclear is an energy source that we have control over the throttle. This means we run nuclear as much as we can, to make as much electricity it can, to produce more means the cost of the kWh goes down.
So what storage systems do is buy electricity when the spot price is low, and sell when it's high, to make money on the margins. But then if a utility has access to a reliable energy source to buy from, as in nuclear, then they'd be attracted to their ability to sell energy at any time, day or night. With wind and solar they have to sell when they have it, regardless of the price.
Wind and solar will always be at a disadvantage here on price since the nuclear power will be available at any time. If there is not enough demand then the wind and solar people will effectively have to pay for the storage, or to pay the nuclear power plant to reduce power. It will be easier to convince the fossil fuel people to reduce output since that means burning less fuel. The nuclear people will have to be paid more to reduce power, since reducing power can only cost them money.
You can run the scenarios through your mind yourself and no matter how it's done the nuclear people will be willing to undercut just about anyone to keep running since fuel costs next to nothing. I agree that the future is likely to be in energy storage but that also means nuclear. With nuclear and storage then wind and solar become redundant.
Again, energy storage means nothing unless there is inexpensive energy to store. Nuclear energy gets cheaper the more you buy. This is a downward spiral I'm willing to live with.
In contrast, the U.S. west coast (where winds from the ocean are strongest and most consistent) pretty much has no continental shelf. I'm in Southern California, and when I go fishing, by the time I'm a half km from shore, the water is already deeper than the North Sea. By about 3-5 km offshore, the water is a half kilometer deep. The east coast is better off, with a continental shelf that extends about 50-100 km out that's about 100-200 meters deep. But the wind blows predominantly from west to east, meaning the wind on this continental shelf is mostly spoiled by land, so is inconsistent and doesn't blow as strongly as off Europe. That's why most of the offshore wind in the U.S. has concentrated off the coast of Massachusetts - the land there makes a sharp turn to the east, providing about 200 km of continental shelf with wind unspoiled by land to the west.
The subsidy on oil and gas, if attributed entirely to gasoline alone, works out to about 2.3 cents per gallon. Even if you take the high estimates some people like to use (which includes things like low income assistance to purchase home heating oil), it works out to about 10 cents per gallon. The Federal fuel tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon, plus about 30 cents per gallon at the state and local level. So there's no net subsidy for fossil fuels. Rather there's a huge tax on it (albeit not as big as in other countries). Huge enough to more than swamp out the coal subsidies (which are only about 1/4 that of oil and gas subsidies).
So low-information or not, they're still right. The people complaining about the "huge" subsidies fossil fuels get always look at total dollar amounts. The total amount is huge because the vast majority of our energy is still derived from fossil fuels. If you instead look at the subsidy per unit of energy generated (i.e. how much the subsidy skews the price, depending on the energy source), you can see how massive renewable subsidies are compared to fossil fuels and nuclear.
There's nothing wrong with this - you want to subsidize technologies you wish to develop more quickly. But arguing rewewables subsidies are underfunded compared to fossil fuels based on total dollar amount is just plain ignorant. It's like complaining that California gets $4 billion in federal highway funding while Wyoming only gets $360 million. It's not because Wyoming is being short-changed, it's because California has a lot more roads (and cars) than Wyoming. The proper comparison in that case would be federal highway dollars per mile of road (or perhaps miles driven on said roads). Just like the proper comparison for energy subsidies is per kWh or per megajoule.
Why are you since years repeating the lie that nuclear power produces less CO2 than wind and solar?
Then later can basically installed with zero CO2 emissions, the first likely never will have zero (transportatin, mining etc.)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Why are you since years repeating the lie that nuclear power produces less CO2 than wind and solar?
Then later can basically installed with zero CO2 emissions, the first likely never will have zero (transportatin, mining etc.)
It's only a lie if it's not true. Do you have anything that shows solar has a lower CO2 output per energy produced?
The claim was that nuclear and wind were the same on this so then the argument comes to other matters of choosing one over the other. How much does electricity from wind cost on a calm day? I know what the nuclear electric rates would be since that plant would be operational.
Also, what's the rate for solar power at night?
How about some numbers? Or all you all just full of BS?
Look, the nuclear industry* has promised us a pony that turned out to glow in the dark and have two heads so many times, that the first time I will support a thorium-based reactor is if private industry develops and runs a prototype for 5 years in the CEO's backyard, not a moment sooner.
Meanwhile, in the real world, nuclear power relies heavily on subsidies, has a massive waste problem and is tied in with the political hairy problem of Proliferation.
The money wasted on new powerplants might as well be spent researching power storage solutions.
*NOTE: I said industry. I am not against nuclear power per se, but the current industry is a malicious beast that massively overpromises and underdelivers, and it has to die and reconstructed before I will take nuclear power seriously as an alternative.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
George Monbiot, in The Guardian, to his credit, did point out that the greens assume wind and solar will benefit from progress, whilst denying the same progress advantages for nuclear.
We all need energy. All energy companies are vested interests. Sixty years ago the British Coal Board put out a video saying nuclear was not here yet, not a reliable option. Money, politics, vested interests all round, all trying to sway public opinion.
Wind and solar are still in their early phase where it all looks full of future promise.
We, as the public, have not yet seen from experience the downsides, whatever they might be.
Take Britain, which arguably, runs its infrastructure into the ground, and then dumps the bill on the public, like the trains and extortionate ticket prices. Will we one day be footing ever increasing bills for repairs to ageing wind farms? Who knows.
But for now, wind and solar are the new shiny.
Aside from the expense of trying to build such a complex device and supply/maintain it on an island, the extreme weather is probably more than anyone can certify a nuclear plant for anyway.
Why bother spending more on a nuclear plant and running and decommissioning costs when you can just build a cheaper, cleaner wind farm? The wind farm won't need subsidies either, and the energy will be cheaper. Much cheaper.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Ugly pieces of shit they won't let anywhere near their property because they're ugly and loud. So 125 km away is probably far enough away. The environmentalists will probably complain about this though just wait and see.
The thing is that with nuclear power, all the people operating one say that the chances of their plant blowing up is on the order of 1 in a million per year or less. But over the past 5 decades we've seen WAY more bad mishaps happening causing damage to a very large area.... So the conclusion MUST be: We cannot safely use nuclear power on this planet.
Seriously? THIS IS NOT NEW NEWS. I live in East Yorkshire. This offshore windfarm which will be four times larger than the worlds current largest has been planned for over half a decade and already has started to be built a few years ago, being built in four stages. Siemens even built a brand new Wind Turbine factory on Hull docks which was completed 2 years ago to build wind turbines and service the windfarm.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Arth1 you FUCKING LOSE you ignorant moron, hahahaha https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11532533&cid=55833641/ & an American (me) kicked your ass!
* Dumb little shit!
APK
P.S.=> Your arrogance & ME are YOUR UNDOING bigmouth... apk
When will the Dutch realize that the future of energy is coal, not stupid wind.
Why bother spending more on a nuclear plant and running and decommissioning costs when you can just build a cheaper, cleaner wind farm? The wind farm won't need subsidies either, and the energy will be cheaper. Much cheaper.
Because, on average, the capacity factor of wind is about 30% (topping out at 40%), while nuclear generally is in the 90% range:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
If you want reliable power all the time you need less "raw" capacity if you start with nuclear.
Of course, even if you have to build many more wind turbines, it could still be cheaper than nuclear given all the paranoia around it. Personally I think we should build more nuclear, and I say this as someone who lives less than 80km away from a couple of nuclear plants:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickering_Nuclear_Generating_Station
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlington_Nuclear_Generating_Station
Let's get real. Nuclear is one of the least subsidies electricity sources. Renewables are subsidized at a much higher rate.
Waste is not a massive problem. It is a red herring. Check out this youtube video series. Honestly waste is not an issue. The number of people have ever been killed or even injured from waste is 0. I would appreciate if you would stop repeating bs fossil fuel industry written talking points.
Finally power storage solutions are expensive. Much more expensive then new nuclear power.
Given the reality of climate change, it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
Thank you for nicely proving my point.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Looking at the data here, and plugging it in and crunching, you end up with this graph. Wind and nuclear are tied at about 12g CO2e / kWh, and solar is around 54 g CO2e / kWh. So nuclear is about equivalent to wind, and ahead of solar. Do you have data saying otherwise?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
for IceLink.
Nuclear power seems to have a negative learning curve. Each new nuclear plant seems to cost more than prior plants. This has been observed over decades. Wind and solar, OTOH, have been observed to get cheaper over time with dramatically lower costs each year.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
the first time I will support a thorium-based reactor is if private industry develops and runs a prototype for 5 years in the CEO's backyard, not a moment sooner.
Not going to happen for a good reason. An industry which is treated with fear and contempt will attract dangerous overregulation. That is precisely what happened in the nuclear industry with dedicated one size fits all standards which leave no room for innovation or development. Designing exclusively to the standard has resulted in no proper process developement in many years and the lack of new project (again driven by fear) has left the industry with old equipment lacking even the most basic of modern safety features let alone inherently safer design.
The nuclear and process industries were in the same space in the 60s. Both were massively unsafe. It was DuPont (or BASF, not quite sure anymore) that introduced a policy of the plant manager and his family living in a house next to the plant. This drove wonderful advances in process safety. In the mean time the nuclear industry has taken these advances and trickled them down 20 years behind through very slow moving government regulation. They aren't given the space to do what you propose.
10 years ago dangerous overdesign was a thing discovered in the process industry, it will be a while before the nuclear industry catches on to this.
Meanwhile, in the real world, nuclear power relies heavily on subsidies, has a massive waste problem and is tied in with the political hairy problem of Proliferation.
All three of those problems are nothing to do with the industry and everything to do with the governments. They wouldn't need subsidies if they didn't need to spend impossible amounts of money to meet substandard requirements, they wouldn't have a waste problem if they were allowed to properly reprocess it, and proliferation in general is a political concept and nothing to do with the industry itself.
They've been finding all sorts of good stuff (mammoth and other "modern" fossils, even archaeological finds) from dredging, fishermen, and the like. Well, maybe they'll be able to check out the stuff being dredged up to build the island.
I was worried about shipwrecks and the like (since there've been numerous naval engagements in the area). But apparently none were actually on the Dogger Bank itself (the German warship Blucher being the closest and it's 50 miles away). Still, navigation is going to get even tougher in the North Sea with artificial islands, wind generators, underwater cables, and the like.
Perhaps that’s a trend. But as an analogy, I remember early smart phones which had such awful interfaces, that if you’d asked me, I would have thought they had no future. Then one company got together the right mix of ingredients, and suddenly it all changed. Likewise, space rockets.
The public are right to be highly skeptical of nucler, but maybe the problems will be solved with new designs.
And if you believe that, you pony up a few billion.
No wait, it is ratepayers holding the bag again.
All of the tens of billions wasted on nuclear plants since 2000 alone could have bought enough insulation, new bulbs, solar panels or wind turbines to shut down more coal plants.
You'd think that after 50 years they could have figured it out but it just keeps getting more expensive.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
What would this James Bond villain do with his nuclear reactor on an artificial island? Threaten to sell electricity at below market prices or.... not?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Wonder if the Dutch can make biofuels out of the bird shit and bird body parts that result from all those turbines on that reclaimed land.
Looking at the data here, and plugging it in and crunching, you end up with this graph. Wind and nuclear are tied at about 12g CO2e / kWh, and solar is around 54 g CO2e / kWh. So nuclear is about equivalent to wind, and ahead of solar. Do you have data saying otherwise?
Mod this up. There's real data there instead of grandparent post with no citations.
But he'll settle for about 6 x 9 feet. I can't wait to see him in that jumpsuit.
Me neither, except I don't believe it'll ever happen.
If an absolute scumbag like him can get elected, I have no hope for the American people. They'll rationalize anything away.
APK is just mad because he is a retard and got spanked hard earlier this week.
He couldn't defend any of his statements logically and couldn't offer any proof of his assertions.
So now he is on a quest to remove any doubt that he is a retard.
Now go jerk off to the latest Trump tweet or InfoWars article.
Your thoughts of nuclear power will cause your ass to explode.
You were doing quite well until the end when you gave your deception away. You compared Germany to France, not how Germany has improved from where it started from. You selected France because it has the largest proportional of nuclear power in the world, but neglected to mention that they have decided not to fund any more of it and that decision nearly made two of their nuclear operators bankrupt. In other words, it was a corporate welfare programme and now they have a better, cheaper alternative.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
My deception? What deception? I compared Germany and France because they are similar. They are both European countries with strong economies. Their populations are close enough in population to draw meaningful comparisons along with their annual energy usage. The made different decisions on energy which resulted in German electricity being 10x dirtier.
I can also compare Germany to Finland. Finland currently is using 30% nuclear with plans to increase that to 60%. Not surprising given the high quality of Finland education. They plan to fill the last 40% using a combination of renewables.
If you want me to compare Germany to Germany I can. Germany has not decreased greenhouse gasses in any significant measure. Their reputation as an environmental leader is undeserved.
I care about greenhouse gas emissions more then I care about any corporate welfare claims. Renewable subsides can also be considered corporate welfare. I do not care. I care about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, safety and energy reliablity. Nuclear provides all of that.
Finally yes the French elected a couple of anti-nuclear greenies, Hollande and Marcon. Thankfully their plans to shutdown nuclear reactors have failed. Every place in the world where a nuclear power plant was shutdown had its capacity replaced by fossil fuels(see Germany and California).
.
No, but I have common sense.
The plants itself don't produce CO2.
The production of the plants won't produce CO2 in future when they are build with non CO2 producing electricity.
So the remaining thing, which might take longer to get rid off, is transportation to the building site and building the plant up.
In the end basically none of the thee technologoies will produce any CO2. So it is pretty idiotic to make CO2 comparision graphs about technologies that don't produce CO2 in the forst place.
Why solar energy should procude 4 times as much as wind/nuclear is beyond me ... it makes no sense at all.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
We live on a tiny windy and wet island and still we decide to pay the French and Chinese well over market rate for a NUCLEAR reactor! We have the chance to be self sufficient but apparently that's not desirable... renewables have smaller brown envelopes maybe?
He’d drive every other electric utility out of business. Then, he’d...
RAISE THE RATES!
#DeleteChrome
"Why, this offshore windfarm cannot be built! And if it can, it should not be built! Renewable energy gets subsidies so that makes it wrong! No wait, peak loads and variable power generation makes it wrong! It's not nuclear so it's wrong! It's not Thorium nuclear so it's wrong! It's not fusion so it's wrong! It's European so that makes it wrong!"
Really, how long are the /. trolls going to persist in nay-saying successful alternative energy sources?
International cooperation - nope, that's something that the British government and Brexiting majority would never accept. Gunboats will be dispatched to defend our borders from these filthy foreigners and their disgusting non-1950s stereotype ideas. And we'll man the gunboats with Dad's Army volunteers and get Gibraltar to pay for it!
(sgd) Swivel-Eyed Loon
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"