101–110 of 210 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.taz.de/1/zukunft/umwelt/artikel/1/solarstrom-wird...
Taz seems to be a rather leftist newspaper, wouldn't take it at face value.
A bank is usually very reputable in calculating economics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I suspect will happen is more power will be imported from nations that flagrantly pollute the environment. The Chinese might be on to something with putting the engineers in charge. Sometimes the public really doesn't know what the fuck they're doing, and should be completely ignored.
Look at it from a different perspective: The engineers failed to convince society and have only themselves to blame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot agree. You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.
it's got bugger all to do with any gods or deities. I can't help noticing that the natural tendency of the human species is to expand and adapt - that is what we are. I also notice that the various movements that advocate more basic living patterns have never really caught on. So you are going to have two options: 1) Refuse to do anything about power, let it get more and more expensive until enough people die that yo…
Serious? That's a huge claim. yet, so many people do live this "quieter" life. I am striving to live that life. There is quite a growing community (at least in British Columbia) of people concerned with things like food security and climate change.
Ever since I was young, I was disgusted by the City. Yes, this is not a popular view, but I am in no way choosing to live "a more basic quieter life against our natural instincts." The city was never meant for me.
Though, I'm not really sure what movements you are referring to? Do they include those that suggest consuming less? Or are there some movements somewhere suggesting you start living by candle light?
Sorry, if this comment is off-topic from the article, but it seems wildly bold for you to claim that a way of life is against natural instincts. I strive to live a life combining the joy, satisfaction and security of producing my own food, and living with the land as well as benefiting and perhaps contributing to advancements (particularly with water and power management).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See Fukushima for the cost of running nuclear power plants. The cost of the running power plant is deferred also to a future which then needs to deal with the waste from burned fuel. Germany has no solution how to deal with the fuel. The cost for that adds up every day.
How many people died at Fukushima ? 1 How many people die every year because of coal plants working perfectly normally ? 30 000 in the US alone. See http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html Nuclear waste is a bigger problem indeed, but using Fukushima as an argument against nuclear is both dishonest and stupid.
Second: don't you ignore the risk of how many people _could_ die, in the case of a big disaster? That would have global conequences for quite some days (ironic).
Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal), the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They generate more electricity from solar than Fukushima did. The problem is that a country requires many Fukushimas (in Germany's case, 17). If renewables cannot fill the gap left by shutting down nuclear, you'll have to import your electricity from other countries generating it by the very method you phased out, or by even worse methods like coal. Being the leader in renewables doesn't change this fact. > Seems l…
Fukushima I was a site with SIX reactors. German nuclear sites are usually smaller. Off these 17 German reactors currently 13 are off the grid. Germany has had an overcapacity and was a net exporter of electricity. It is also no longer that electricity is bound to countries here in Germany. We have a Europe wide market and electricity is imported based on needs and price. If electricity is cheaper somewhere, we may i…
A significant number were pulled off the grid in the wake of Fukushima. So while it's true they had an overcapacity, it's not the case anymore. [1] How quickly can renewables close that gap? And does renewables provide for cheap electricity? If you're importing based on price, it's not coming from wind or solar. So where exactly is the environmental benefit, other than to make it someone else's problem (i.e. getting France to hide away more spent fuel rods)?
Being an exporter with renewables is definitely a matter of 'when'. It's foolish to pretend the years between now and then don't exist, they have consequences too.
[1] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Germany-net-energy-importer-ap...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They generate more electricity from solar than Fukushima did. The problem is that a country requires many Fukushimas (in Germany's case, 17). If renewables cannot fill the gap left by shutting down nuclear, you'll have to import your electricity from other countries generating it by the very method you phased out, or by even worse methods like coal. Being the leader in renewables doesn't change this fact. > Seems l…
I'm not saying there isn't a problem with their plan. Just trying to point out that of all the countries who could pull it off, Germany would probably be my first pick. And it isn't just because of solar...they have aggressive energy goals in place already (some before 2022) which makes me think that Germany has an energy plan the likes of which I never saw while in Canada..and certainly not now that I'm in Asia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
we don't have even a viable intermediate solution. Which would have to be built. The spent fuels are full and provide a new danger. See Fukushima on the effects of full spent fuel pools in times of an nuclear accident. Reactor five had also recently a loss of cooling for it. Currently much of the used fuel is stored on site. This has never been planned, costs additional money, and provides new dangers. Plus, for a st…
This need is there whether we stop in 2022 or 2032. It doesn’t make a difference. Also: High fixed costs, low variable costs. It’s as simple as that.
The current experimental Asse II site already cost us BILLIONS of Euros. Plus it is fucked up and needs to been evacuated for a few additional billions.
Throughout the whole article no mention of any specific alternatives to be used? 23% is a big amount to make up to. A relevant TED talk by Bill Gates (Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero): http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html In short, the most viable option currently, in his opinion, is the thorium reactors. Current uranium reactors can be converted to work with thorium. "The main point of using thorium, in…
Germany does not want a different form of nuclear power. Nuclear power is no option. The goal is to develop renewable energy to 100% over the next 40 years.
As Bill Gates explains the current renewable technology is not viable. This is because of various reasons, such as low ratio of energy invested vs energy returned, instability (eg. what you do when the wind is not blowing?), requirements for a possible site, et cetera.. I fully agree that it should be the long term goal to switch over to renewable energy, but with current technology it is out of reach. Therefore we a need a stepping stone that the nuclear energy can provide us with.
It is too early to go all in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany is currently planning to build two HVDC (High-Voltage Direct Current) lines to Norway. They will provide us here in North Germany with Hydro backup. There is a lot of research going on in new storage systems. In solar thermal power plants, there is already storage. It is not that Germany switches over night to renewable. The shutdown process of the nuclear power plants will take ten years. The plan for the 10…
Who in Germany has those plans!? No one. Norway proposed them to Germany, to the Netherlands and Great Britain. None of these HVDC are currently even close to be projected. Of course, they'd be glad if Germans elect a Government that will force it's citizens to buy the luxury of clean norwegian energy.
Funky. The German regulation authorities then seem to have given permission to a project that nobody plans, nobody has heard of, does not exist? Please inform them of your findings.
Hamburg Abendblatt, November 2010:
>NETZAGENTUR GENEHMIGT STROMLEITUNG
>Deutschland und Norwegen vernetzen sich
>Das 600 Kilometer lange Unterseekabel soll Netztschwankungen der beiden Länder ausgeichen. Nur die EU-Kommisssion könnte widersprechen.
> Das 600 Kilometer lange Unterseekabel soll Netzschwankungen aus der norwegischen Wasser- und deutschen Windkraft ausgleichen.
>BONN/HANNOVER. Deutschland und Norwegen vernetzen sich: Die Bundesnetzagentur hat den Weg für eine direkte Stromverbindung zwischen Deutschland und Norwegen durch die Nordsee frei gemacht. Das Konsortium NorGer erhielt am Donnerstag eine Ausnahmegenehmigung der Bonner Behörde. Sie befreit das Projekt damit von bestimmten Vorschriften zur Regulierung des Energiemarkts. Agenturchef Matthias Kurth nannte die Entscheidung ein „positives Signal für die Integration erneuerbarer Energien“.
>Eine Funktion des 600 Kilometer langen Unterseekabels wird es sein, Netzschwankungen aus der norwegischen Wasser- und deutschen Windkraft auszugleichen. Niedersachsens Umweltminister Hans-Heinrich Sander (FDP) lobte den Beschluss: „Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass die Verbindungsleitung eine sinnvolle Ergänzung zum landseitigen Netzausbau darstellt.“ Das Kabel soll ab 2015 von Flekkefjord an der norwegischen Südküste über den Meeresgrund bis an die ostfriesische Küste führen. Für den deutschen Abschnitt wurde bereits im Mai ein Raumordnungsverfahren gestartet. Der innereuropäische Stromhandel wird nach Einschätzung Kurths von der deutsch-norwegischen Direktverbindung profitieren. Die Gleichstrom-Leitung leiste „einen wichtigen Beitrag für die Marktintegration“. Eine Voraussetzung für die Befreiung von den üblichen Bestimmungen zum Netzanschluss und -zugang sei gewesen, dass sich das Projekt insgesamt positiv auf den Stromwettbewerb auswirkt. Das Bundeskartellamt sprach sich ebenfalls für eine Genehmigung aus. Zwar könne die EU-Kommission als oberste europäische Wettbewerbsbehörde bis Ende Februar noch Einwände erheben, sagte Kurth. „Ich gehe aber davon aus, dass dieses grenzüberschreitende Projekt auch von ihr unterstützt wird.“ Norwegen ist kein EU- Mitglied, gehört jedoch zur Europäischen Freihandelszone EFTA. Das Konsortium NorGer umfasst die norwegischen Unternehmen Agder Energi AS, Lyse Produksjon AS und Statnett SF sowie die Schweizer Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft Laufenburg AG.