The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
by Starvid Tue Sep 12th, 2006 at 04:56:20 AM EST
A great primer written by We Support Lee with lots of pretty graphs.
Read it here.
Frontpaged - whataboutbob
She says somewhere how well growth and electricity consumption are correlated, and then show the Swedish consumption graph, which shows that the consumption is stagnating. The graph for California would have worked as well.
Then, it seems to me that the first thing to do when your objective is to reduce CO2 emissions is to look at why you pollute so much, not how you pollute so much. It seems that the approach she uses is the same one that's being criticized here when The Economist blames nationnally owned oil companies for high oil prices: the focus on producers doesn't make sense when an average american consumes 8tep per year. Why is it not the same with electricity? 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
The other reason is that nuclear power was overbuilt in the 80's as the elites understood that there wouldn't be a second chance to build reactors in a long time, due to the anti-nuclear referndum.
It has taken almost 20 years of "natural" consumption growth to reach the capacity level nuclear overbuilding generated. No new capacity worth mentioning has been built since 1985, until just now when growth has caught up with capacity and the two 600 MW Barsebäck reactors were prematurely closed. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Well, let's compare France and Germany. Their per capita emissions should be identical except for power generation.
France: 6.80t of CO2 per capita (about 90 % CO2 free power) Germany: 10.21t of CO2/capita (about 33 % CO2 free power)
And this in spite of a higher French per capita power consumption!
So power the kind of power generation utilized is obviously one of the most, if not the most , important factor for CO2 emissions. And it is more important in what way the power is generated than what how much power is consumed. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
If Germany abandons its nuclear plants, its carbon production will rise.
The effect in botanical terms alone is much greater than had been previously thought:
http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/calmag/200609/harte.asp
and the most relevant to your question:
i.e. power plants in the US (which are 50% coal and 20% gas-fired) are responsible for 40% of all carbon emissions. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
On the other hand, Canada is building big wind farms up north on the Shield that will take advantage of the hydro transmission lines already in place. With hydro, nuclear, and wind Canada may be able to supply the US with cleaner power.
US utilities already buy some power from Canada.
Of course as Canada's Arctic continue to thaw out, surely the Canucks will not need so much electricity to get through the winters. Or may have some to spare until the ocean currents from the tropics are shut down by the influx of melt-water.
If I'm reading it right, that is.
Thank you for the gracious compliments!
I have been away from the computer for a couple of days. I will work on posting the material here during the next day or so.
Best wishes!
by Oui - Dec 4 41 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 8 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 1 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 27 69 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 23 37 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 20 68 comments
by Oui - Nov 21 2 comments
by Oui - Nov 15 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 82 comments
by Oui - Dec 441 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2769 comments
by gmoke - Nov 26
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2337 comments
by Oui - Nov 212 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2068 comments
by Oui - Nov 159 comments
by ATinNM - Nov 135 comments
by Oui - Nov 134 comments
by Oui - Nov 124 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 10115 comments
by Oui - Nov 87 comments
by IdiotSavant - Nov 818 comments
by gmoke - Nov 8
by Oui - Nov 428 comments
by Oui - Oct 2916 comments