Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
sorry I hit post a bit too early.

So indeed consumption isn't stagnating, but increasing slightly.
This is the second time you mention that elites have knowingly built overcapacity because they were afraid they wouldn't get the chance to build new capacity in the future. I don't know of any other country that knowingly overbuilds nuclear capacity, besides France, but does so for quite unclear reasons. Maybe somebody else knows.

I think I saw somewhere that between 1970 and 1980 the average growth in electricity in Sweden was around 7%. Is it possible they just extrapolated?


Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Fri Sep 8th, 2006 at 08:41:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I don't think so. 12 units were built. The people in industry (like Curt Nicolin) who extrapolated wanted 24 units. But the last two, the biggest units (BWR 90) were not really needed at the time. They should have been built in the 90's instead if reason had prevailed. Which, considering this is Sweden, it of course did not.

And of course power demand grew immediatly when those units were completed, one can't not use the power when the reactors are built, can one? So lots of power was "wasted" in the late 80's and 90's (on inefficient direct electrical heating for example) until "real" demand recently caught up with the "overbuilt" demand.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Fri Sep 8th, 2006 at 10:42:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Electric heating seems to be a good indicator of nuclear overcapacity.

Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Fri Sep 8th, 2006 at 01:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree.

Or cheap power overcapacity in general. Not that cheap power is not a good thing, but let me give you an example.

Norway. Cheapest power in the world, extensive power intensive industry, all hydro, everyone has electrical heating. So far so good. Cheap and clean and comfortable.

The problem is that power demand in Norway is growing and hydro expansion is no longer possible. So they will build natural gas power plants. The reasonable alternative would have been to change electrical heating to electrical heat pumps to accomodate increasing power demand. Or Hell, just insulate those drafty houses.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Fri Sep 8th, 2006 at 07:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or build wind or nuclear power if they really want to increase generation instead of end-use efficiency.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Fri Sep 8th, 2006 at 07:21:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
End-use efficiency indeed is appealing to me. Actually, this is the reason why I oppose any energy policy that emphasises nuclear energy as a recourse: it is not a recourse to inefficient use for one, and still is the general discourse a solution, when it's nothing more than an alternative for baseload power.

I don't think it is possible to at the same time develop nuclear energy (that is brag about non-polluting-too-cheap-too-meter-our-new program-will-also-be-called-'ploughshares' electricity) and tell people that they have to spend X euros insulating theirs houses, buying special light bulbs, etc.

To me the discourses go in opposite directions.

Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Sat Sep 9th, 2006 at 12:54:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Still, all evidence shows that improving efficiency and building renewables just doesn't hack it.

What is needed is closing fossil power plants and replacing them with something else, and that something is very often nuclear.

I see no inherent problem in promoting both nuclear power and improved efficiency.

It can be framed like this: "our power use shall be efficient and our power generation clean and competitive".

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sun Sep 10th, 2006 at 05:37:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series