How about no? Costs in Germany and Denmark are high because production is expensive. They have to both use very expensive forms of generation as well as buy foreign electricity (which means both paying for electricity and long range transfer across international exchange) to provide spinning reserve for it.
Germany and Denmark prices were much lower back when they were using cheaper forms of generation, such as nuclear.
And when talking about subsidies, you cannot miss the fact that German subsidies are far higher than anyone in Europe right now. And their price is still far higher than French.
The obvious problem being costs. Germany is a net exporter when its renewables are producing at maximum and electricity price is zero or negative because of overcapacity issues.
Poland sells to Germany when renewables are not producing and spot price is massively inflated due to lack of production that cannot meet demand.
As a result, while Germany is a net exporter in terms of electricity, it's a net importer in terms of value of electricity.
If you have difficulties grasping this, let me put this another way. Poland would do just fine if they cut off all their interconnects with Germany. Germany would have severe problems with reliability of their electric grid if this occurred however.
50% is realistic considering increase of exports to Germany, even if French industry declines. German long term policy has been largely about outsourcing their power production, and reliable high volume interconnects remain a pipe dream in central Europe.
That means Western and Southern Germany will continue being supplied from France for foreseeable future, just like Eastern and Northern is currently supplied from Poland.
You do not know how grid works. We know it already from your previous idiocy from relevant threads.
Renewables that are at risk of losing 100% of their capacity have to have 100% spinning reserve. That is the reality. If you don't, you risk cascade failure across the entire grid.
It has nothing to do with "vanishing wind". Biggest cut-off issues with wind power are related to too strong winds rather than too weak ones, as that causes near-instant cut-off rather than slow decay of feed in.
Ah yes, angelosphere. The ignorant trolling continues. You are incorrect on all accounts as usual.
1. "No enrichment of spent fuel rods" policy covers almost entire world minus France and to some extent Russia. This is largely because of proliferation movement combined with anti-nuclear lobby. Same process that is used to enrichment is also used for producing nuclear grade material which creates proliferation fears and anti-nuclear lobby is extremely successful in blocking anything nuclear related that would make it more sustainable, down to security upgrades to Fukushima reactors.
2. 96% figure is the amount of fissible U235 remaining as a portion of what was put in when fuel rod is extracted. 100% means amount of U235 on fresh rod. 96% of this remains when rod is extracted and considered "spent".
Modern GPUs can be hundreds and even thousands of times faster than CPUs at highly parallelizible simple math. That's why things like bitcoin mining, which are exactly that were done on GPUs before they moved to even more specialized hardware.
Because people in the region often lack accomodations to use bed nets. Remind yourself of poverty levels in affected regions. Having a warm bed is a luxury many cannot afford.
Lots of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Not a single fact.
Well done. Demagogy at its finest.
In reality, French already recycle their fuel, and what they can't recycle can be buried deep in the ground. You know, where similar radioactive materials are already present in regions rich in natural uranium and its natural fissile products.
Dear idiot pretending to be knowledgeable. Modern plants extract electricity not from "heat" but from "heat differential". This applies to all plants that work steam turbines, which means everything from nuclear to burners.
While it's true that turbines become more efficient with greater thermal differential, nuclear combats this with total volume of steam going through the turbine. Instead of getting typical 100-200MW turbines used with larger burner plants, nuclear turbines are rated several times that. That is why it "spews more thermal energy into the waste water", which is a really nice way to inject lots of ideologically loaded and factually incorrect words into the argument. It's not a waste water, it's tertiary cooling circuit, which you can use for pretty much anything you want, such as central heating for example. There is no "waste" in the water, it's the same water as one on intake, it's simply somewhat warmer. If you put the plant near the large body of water, it's literally irrelevant how much water you need to pump through tertiary circuit. As long as you meet the needs of the turbine thermal differential, you're good. The extra temperature that ends in your sea or ocean is utterly irrelevant when considering the total volume of water and thermal energy it contains.
But nice use of buzzwords, I'll give you that. What you utterly lack in knowledge of the process, your certainly replace with your considerable talent for demagogy and spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Even that argumentation is questionable. One has to remember that socialists are almost guaranteed to lose the presidential elections in a few years, and UMP/Republicans are effectively guaranteed to cancel this policy regardless.
And in reality, all that will happen is that Eastern Europe will get even more business in selling coal and nuclear electricity over exchanges to Western Europe. It's already great business for Poland, thanks to German drive to shut down its nuclear plants.
Perhaps this is a chance for Spain to lift itself out of the current economic woes by building up coal and nuclear on French border and selling energy to France?
Doubtful that French leaders would be that stupid though. I suspect that people in relevant places know that socialists are on their way out regardless, and UMP/Republicans are going to reverse the policy in a few years before it gets to do any damage. Hollande gets to say he fulfilled his promise, Sarkozy or whoever gets to lead the right gets another good election topic on which to destroy already depressed socialists on and everything will go back to normal in a few years. Everybody wins.
EDF has been losing money not on generation but on building projects that had bad management practices. Generation is highly profitable, as most of the plants long paid for themselves and are generating pure profit at this point.
Approximately 96% of "spent" fuel rod is fissile material. The reason it's considered "spent" is mechanics of the process which make it less economic to use at that point.
In much of the world, a mix of anti-nuclear lobby and anti-proliferation lobby declare this 96% spent fuel "waste". In France, they recycle it into fuel.
It's pulled out, enriched back to normal levels and put back into the reactor. Remaining 3-4% are the generated impurities. The portion of this that is "high grade" is actually fairly easy to deal with - you just let it sit and break itself down. The more radioactive it is, the shorter half life it has and the faster it destroys itself. It's the low grade stuff that is problematic, as you can't just wait for it to break itself up, you need to actually store it somewhere. That's what most of the nuclear waste storage brouhaha is about.
I would happily do so if it was present in actually significant amounts. It's a very expensive and very demanded gas that is extremely difficult to produce.
The problem is that your inane hyperbole pretends that amount is significant. It's not. It's spread over huge surface in minute amounts.
Which ones? Ones coming from Sweden because wind power needs 100% spinning reserve capacity and Swedes now sell hydro power where they let their lakes fill on windy days and drain them on calm ones?
Or ones that are supposed to transfer electricity from German wind farms that will need Poland to build even more coal plants for their spinning reserve because Swedish reserve are already getting taxed by Denmark?
Certainly. Other factors to be considered would be regional commander's documented willingness to drop nuclear bombs on other countries to "combat communism", which most certainly wasn't about "saving 19.000.000 lives".
Except for VAT payment, which requires buyer to identify himself and pay the tax. Welcome to real world. Especially in current climate in EU, where tax dodging caused a significant tightening of enforcement of tax code across many jurisdictions.
Slashdot Mirror
How about no? Costs in Germany and Denmark are high because production is expensive. They have to both use very expensive forms of generation as well as buy foreign electricity (which means both paying for electricity and long range transfer across international exchange) to provide spinning reserve for it.
Germany and Denmark prices were much lower back when they were using cheaper forms of generation, such as nuclear.
And when talking about subsidies, you cannot miss the fact that German subsidies are far higher than anyone in Europe right now. And their price is still far higher than French.
I suspect the misunderstanding is on your part. I read the same post you did, and I drew a completely different conclusion than you.
The obvious problem being costs. Germany is a net exporter when its renewables are producing at maximum and electricity price is zero or negative because of overcapacity issues.
Poland sells to Germany when renewables are not producing and spot price is massively inflated due to lack of production that cannot meet demand.
As a result, while Germany is a net exporter in terms of electricity, it's a net importer in terms of value of electricity.
If you have difficulties grasping this, let me put this another way. Poland would do just fine if they cut off all their interconnects with Germany. Germany would have severe problems with reliability of their electric grid if this occurred however.
Are you perchance unaware of the fact that French electricity prices are among the LOWEST in Europe?
If you were even remotely correct with your claim, prices would surely be at least on AVERAGE level?
50% is realistic considering increase of exports to Germany, even if French industry declines. German long term policy has been largely about outsourcing their power production, and reliable high volume interconnects remain a pipe dream in central Europe.
That means Western and Southern Germany will continue being supplied from France for foreseeable future, just like Eastern and Northern is currently supplied from Poland.
You do not know how grid works. We know it already from your previous idiocy from relevant threads.
Renewables that are at risk of losing 100% of their capacity have to have 100% spinning reserve. That is the reality. If you don't, you risk cascade failure across the entire grid.
It has nothing to do with "vanishing wind". Biggest cut-off issues with wind power are related to too strong winds rather than too weak ones, as that causes near-instant cut-off rather than slow decay of feed in.
Ah yes, angelosphere. The ignorant trolling continues. You are incorrect on all accounts as usual.
1. "No enrichment of spent fuel rods" policy covers almost entire world minus France and to some extent Russia. This is largely because of proliferation movement combined with anti-nuclear lobby. Same process that is used to enrichment is also used for producing nuclear grade material which creates proliferation fears and anti-nuclear lobby is extremely successful in blocking anything nuclear related that would make it more sustainable, down to security upgrades to Fukushima reactors.
2. 96% figure is the amount of fissible U235 remaining as a portion of what was put in when fuel rod is extracted. 100% means amount of U235 on fresh rod. 96% of this remains when rod is extracted and considered "spent".
"We have to respect their laws while selling our products on their territory? HOW DARE THEY?"
Modern GPUs can be hundreds and even thousands of times faster than CPUs at highly parallelizible simple math. That's why things like bitcoin mining, which are exactly that were done on GPUs before they moved to even more specialized hardware.
That was a factually correct statement. Mac OS is the bastard cousin when it comes to desktop software. The flaming didn't start until 4th sentence.
Because people in the region often lack accomodations to use bed nets. Remind yourself of poverty levels in affected regions. Having a warm bed is a luxury many cannot afford.
Lots of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Not a single fact.
Well done. Demagogy at its finest.
In reality, French already recycle their fuel, and what they can't recycle can be buried deep in the ground. You know, where similar radioactive materials are already present in regions rich in natural uranium and its natural fissile products.
Dear idiot pretending to be knowledgeable. Modern plants extract electricity not from "heat" but from "heat differential". This applies to all plants that work steam turbines, which means everything from nuclear to burners.
While it's true that turbines become more efficient with greater thermal differential, nuclear combats this with total volume of steam going through the turbine. Instead of getting typical 100-200MW turbines used with larger burner plants, nuclear turbines are rated several times that. That is why it "spews more thermal energy into the waste water", which is a really nice way to inject lots of ideologically loaded and factually incorrect words into the argument. It's not a waste water, it's tertiary cooling circuit, which you can use for pretty much anything you want, such as central heating for example. There is no "waste" in the water, it's the same water as one on intake, it's simply somewhat warmer. If you put the plant near the large body of water, it's literally irrelevant how much water you need to pump through tertiary circuit. As long as you meet the needs of the turbine thermal differential, you're good. The extra temperature that ends in your sea or ocean is utterly irrelevant when considering the total volume of water and thermal energy it contains.
But nice use of buzzwords, I'll give you that. What you utterly lack in knowledge of the process, your certainly replace with your considerable talent for demagogy and spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Even that argumentation is questionable. One has to remember that socialists are almost guaranteed to lose the presidential elections in a few years, and UMP/Republicans are effectively guaranteed to cancel this policy regardless.
And in reality, all that will happen is that Eastern Europe will get even more business in selling coal and nuclear electricity over exchanges to Western Europe. It's already great business for Poland, thanks to German drive to shut down its nuclear plants.
Perhaps this is a chance for Spain to lift itself out of the current economic woes by building up coal and nuclear on French border and selling energy to France?
Doubtful that French leaders would be that stupid though. I suspect that people in relevant places know that socialists are on their way out regardless, and UMP/Republicans are going to reverse the policy in a few years before it gets to do any damage. Hollande gets to say he fulfilled his promise, Sarkozy or whoever gets to lead the right gets another good election topic on which to destroy already depressed socialists on and everything will go back to normal in a few years. Everybody wins.
EDF has been losing money not on generation but on building projects that had bad management practices. Generation is highly profitable, as most of the plants long paid for themselves and are generating pure profit at this point.
Approximately 96% of "spent" fuel rod is fissile material. The reason it's considered "spent" is mechanics of the process which make it less economic to use at that point.
In much of the world, a mix of anti-nuclear lobby and anti-proliferation lobby declare this 96% spent fuel "waste". In France, they recycle it into fuel.
It's pulled out, enriched back to normal levels and put back into the reactor. Remaining 3-4% are the generated impurities. The portion of this that is "high grade" is actually fairly easy to deal with - you just let it sit and break itself down. The more radioactive it is, the shorter half life it has and the faster it destroys itself. It's the low grade stuff that is problematic, as you can't just wait for it to break itself up, you need to actually store it somewhere. That's what most of the nuclear waste storage brouhaha is about.
I would happily do so if it was present in actually significant amounts. It's a very expensive and very demanded gas that is extremely difficult to produce.
The problem is that your inane hyperbole pretends that amount is significant. It's not. It's spread over huge surface in minute amounts.
Which ones? Ones coming from Sweden because wind power needs 100% spinning reserve capacity and Swedes now sell hydro power where they let their lakes fill on windy days and drain them on calm ones?
Or ones that are supposed to transfer electricity from German wind farms that will need Poland to build even more coal plants for their spinning reserve because Swedish reserve are already getting taxed by Denmark?
At speed proposed? No, not without a massive collapse in quality of life or utter exodus of heavy industry.
Except that they did. Consult relevant history.
Certainly. Other factors to be considered would be regional commander's documented willingness to drop nuclear bombs on other countries to "combat communism", which most certainly wasn't about "saving 19.000.000 lives".
Remember what they got Al Capone for?
Yeah.
Previous post should read "seller" obviously.
Except for VAT payment, which requires buyer to identify himself and pay the tax. Welcome to real world. Especially in current climate in EU, where tax dodging caused a significant tightening of enforcement of tax code across many jurisdictions.