How to decrease European dependence on Russian energy?

djpbarry wrote: »

Because he happens to present something that happens to support your argument?

Actually he does not support my argument, his view is that given expected energy demands, to use nuclear power for it we would have to commission a nuclear power plant every single day between ~2011 and 2050. This I concede is not realistic. He's promoting something else - research into artificial photosynthesis. I took his view because I figured he had some idea what he was talking about.

Can the French model be scaled up to incorporate the whole of Europe? Is there enough Uranium to go ‘round?

Yes, provided the French model is copied exactly. That would include no limitations on Uranium exploration, and a system of fuel recycling.

Will the cost be reasonable? Can it be done in a reasonable time frame?

Yes to the first question, France has a robust, clean, cost-effective and reliable energy system that is >90% non-fossil and its energy costs are among the lowest in Europe. So clearly whatever they're doing, it works.

As to the second question, it is a common complaint by the environmental movement that nuclear "can't be done in time." Hypothetically speaking, lets say commissioning a nuke takes 10 years. "But that's not 'in-time' to avoid climate catastrophe, we need something NOW."

The problem is that they say that all the time, and will probably continue to say the same thing 10 years from now, 20 years from now, indeed for the entirety of our lifetimes and beyond.

A lot of gas isn’t either. In fact, the Russian-influenced share of the world’s gas production is smaller than their share of the world’s uranium production. Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan and Ukraine produce almost half of the world's uranium.

That's fine for the world, the problem for us is Western Europe. Gas cannot be stored and is difficult to transport. Uranium has neither issue. Even if we had to rely on Russia and its satellites for Uranium (unlikely seeing as Canada, Australia and Africa are the main supplier-regions) we would have an advantage: if for whatever reason we could no longer import from Russia et. al. and relied on their supply, we would have time - up to a year at minimum, more if we hoarded - to figure out how to react. With gas, if Russia turns off the tap, or something goes wrong with the pipeline, the lights go out within a day or so.

djpbarry wrote: »

In other words, you’re assuming the existence of undiscovered, high-grade uranium deposits?

No, I'm assuming reprocessing. The Unites States is the largest producer of nuclear energy, larger than France, but it wastes fuel by refusing to reprocess fuel, thanks to a bunch of left-wing presidents from Jimmy Carter right on through to Barack Hussein Obama. If that changes, and the Uranium price goes up, that policy could be reversed and a very large volume of so-called "waste" could be recycled and re-used.

But not the lowest? According to your logic, shouldn’t everyone be
copying whoever has the lowest price for electricity?

There isn't much difference, those with cheaper costs are either countries with lots of geothermal power and fjords, or they're Eastern European countries where things are supposed to be cheaper anyway. Excluding those factors France is the cheapest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing
Besides, you know you're doing something badly wrong when your energy prices are comparable to remote island nations (Germany is 10th most expensive in the world, Denmark 7th, and they're surrounded on that table by island nations like Niue, American Samoa and Tuvalu.

But anyway, you didn’t answer my question – can the French model be scaled up?

Yes, but some fundamental decisions would have to be made.

On the face of it, I would say no, because the French generation system is far too rigid to incorporate large amounts of renewable generation.

The world is moving away from centralised generation, for a variety of
reasons, towards a more distributed system and it’s difficult to see how
large-scale nuclear is compatible with this model:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/natural-gas-sets-off-a-distributedenergy-boom

Only they're not decentralising the grid, they're just destabilising it. Because you still need the power plants, the transmission infrastructure, the residential and business connections, only the amount of flexibility demanded from the generators is increased exponentially. My favourite part of this article was the user comments, like this:

Natural gas is feed stock for production of numerous chemicals - including fertilizer. Stupid, wasteful uses of NG - e.g., electricity - eventually will result in higher prices for food, medicines, plastics and many other things that define our "modern" lives.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/the-rise-of-the-personal-power-plant

From that article:

To make all that happen, engineers there are preparing to aggressively deploy an array of advanced energy technologies, including combined-cycle gas turbines

OMG more wasted gas. And probably German style electricity prices and grid stability in Fort Collins.

No they’re not – Kazakhstan is by far the largest producer of uranium in the world, producing far more than Canada and Australia combined.

One imagines Russia gets first dibs on what they produce though.

First of all, you’re assuming we’d be able to hoard – if the world went nuclear, why would suppliers flood the market with cheap uranium that others could store for future use? Surely the suppliers would hoard their valuable asset that is only going to appreciate in value?

See above. Besides hoarding by entities other than consumers tends to cause bubbles that might eventually come back to bite the suppliers in the backside.

Russia is far, far too dependent on the income from gas sales to Europe.

Until they decide to go and invade another country, and yet again dare us to do anything except issue a few strongly worded statements.

djpbarry wrote: »

But reprocessing is already standard practice in the rest of the world?

There are only a few places that do it.

You’re pinning all your hopes on the US getting on board with
reprocessing?

I think it would be a very good idea, yes.

So in other words, you’ve decided, based on an entirely arbitrary set of criteria, that France’s electricity system is the cheapest and the best in the world?

In a Western European context, it is, but the set of criteria is not arbitrary:

1. Cost
2. Carbon emissions
3. Ability to control (in the right circumstances)
4. Energy independence (in the right circumstances)
5. The avoidance of "opportunity cost" (defined below)

If we’re “wasting” gas by using it for electricity production, then aren’t we “wasting” uranium by using it as nuclear fuel?

No, because of the "opportunity cost." I.E. when you use a resource for one thing, you lose the opportunity to use the same resource for something else. It's like if you have €100 to spare, and you decide to spend it on a new part for your computer, you lost the opportunity of using the same money to go on the beer for the weekend. And vice-versa.

Gas is a demon for this because it has so many other uses that it should be saved for - chemical feedstock, heating, transport and so on.

Uranium does not present this problem because there's sod all else you can do with it, ok there are some nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, but that's about it. You're not going to put Uranium in your car or cook a meal with it, at least not directly. So you might as well use it for electricity.

Hoarding is hoarding. It’s all speculation at the end of the day, regardless of who’s doing the hoarding.

True, but I think the food and fuel crises of 2008 were caused by pure futures speculation, i.e. traders that do not produce or consume simply gambling on futures.

Annexing Crimea has made Russia less dependent on income from gas exports to Europe?

No, but the Russians knew they would get away with it because all Western Europe could do is issue a few strongly worded statements. Not something I want to repeat.

djpbarry wrote: »

THORP is still reprocessing fuel.
So you’ve no idea how much nuclear power is costing French taxpayers, but you’re still insisting they’re getting good value?

If there are any subsidies, I am not aware of them.

Did you know that the cost of decommissioning Sellafield is expected to exceed £70 billion?

France charges a decommissioning levy on nuclear energy sales. The UK system has a lot more early experiments and thus has certain inefficiencies.

I’m guessing you don’t.

I have an open mind. But the behaviour of the people screaming loudest about Anthropogenic Climate Change does not inspire with confidence.

So they’re not “energy independent” then.

They can choose suppliers and hoard if needed. A lot better than sucking gas out of a pipeline.

There are thousands of biogas production facilities throughout Europe and a large number of them are used for power generation. For example, Germany is projected to be producing just under 4 GW of electricity from biogas by the end of this year:

Again, opportunity costs. Only this time there's two of them.

1. Biogas generally involves growing energy crops to digest in a bio-reactor. That carries with it, the opportunity cost of using land for energy farming, the chemical fertiliser and pesticide inputs. Corn, a.k.a. maize, is the worst for this.
   
   Say you're given X number of thousand acres of land and a mandate to produce Y amount of power. The choice is between wallpapering the land with wind turbines, energy crops and a gas burners. The other choice is to build a nuke in the corner of the plot and commit the rest to a fallow nature reserve. Which is 'greener?' I should think it's obvious.
2. Having made the gas, there is the opportunity cost of wasting it in a power plant vs using it for heating/cooking/transport.

Such as?

More meaningful trade sanctions? Material support for the Ukrainian military?

djpbarry wrote: »

Bit of a contradiction there?

No. It's a cost, built into the sales of the particular type of electricity correlating to a cost associated with that particular type of electricity, and even with it, the result is such a large, cost efficient energy supply that France is a massive net exporter.

Biogas generally involves processing waste, such as sewage, manure and, in the UK in particular, landfill gas. Sometimes “energy crops” are mixed in, in Germany in particular, where the mix is about 50-50, I believe. However, legislation was introduced in 2012 to shift the balance back toward waste products.

The German setup relies extensively on energy cropping. Corn in particular. Is there enough waste products to make biogas to displace Russian imports? Especially with a renewables plan that is hopelessly dependent on CCGT?

djpbarry wrote: »

You’ll have to excuse my scepticism, given the deal that was done with EDF for Hinckley Point. Government financial support has also been provided for new reactors in the US, through Federal loan guarantees.

Both are money well spent IMO, or not even as in the latter case.

I never said there was. I was just countering your claim that biogas couldn’t possibly be used for energy production.

Perhaps it can, but on a vast scale, enough to displace Russian gas, and without incurring massive "opportunity costs" by energy farming? I don't think so.

Remember it's Russian gas imports that I have an issue with in the context of this thread, and the current policy continues to be shown to be insolvent:
http://news.yahoo.com/eus-united-front-russia-falling-amid-gas-needs-093909049--finance.html

I'm in favour of alternatives to this.

djpbarry wrote: »

Is Europe-wide, large-scale adoption of nuclear a cost-effective option? Please note that simply pointing out that France has relatively cheap electricity is not an answer.

Why not? Clearly they're doing something right!

Is there enough uranium to go around, especially if you’re going to avoid Russian-influenced production? Known global reserves, at present rates of consumption, will run out in about 80 years.

Provided that Uranium is used efficiently, (i.e. no more "once through" nonsense like the U.S. and exploration is not prevented, there should not be a problem.

Stuff to be avoided includes this kind of carry on. I am sure you would agree that it would be hypocritical to claim there is not enough Uranium while objecting to exploration to same?

Once again, I never said it could, at least not in the short term.

Well, that's the fundamental problem.

See here: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/eus-united-front-russia-falling-093929674.html

So even if nothing else goes wrong (e.g. we don't run out of money) at minimum we have no voice when Russia does something vile. Which has now been proven.