Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

How to decrease European dependence on Russian energy?

13»

Comments

  • #62
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    You're all ignoring research into advanced energy sources for some reason.


  • #63
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,732 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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?


  • #64
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    If there are any subsidies, I am not aware of them.

    France charges a decommissioning levy on nuclear energy sales.
    Bit of a contradiction there?
    SeanW wrote: »
    Biogas generally involves growing energy crops to digest in a bio-reactor.
    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.


  • #65
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,732 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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?


  • #66
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    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…
    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.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Is there enough waste products to make biogas to displace Russian imports?
    I never said there was. I was just countering your claim that biogas couldn’t possibly be used for energy production.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,732 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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.


  • #68
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    Both are money well spent IMO...
    I'm well aware of your opinion, at this stage. However, my argument against nuclear has always been an economic one and you've provided nothing to convince me that nuclear power plants are anything other than massive white elephants.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Perhaps it can, but on a vast scale, enough to displace Russian gas, and without incurring massive "opportunity costs" by energy farming?
    Once again, I never said it could, at least not in the short term.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Remember it's Russian gas imports that I have an issue with in the context of this thread...
    And remember that I’ve already pointed out Russia’s very significant influence on the world’s supply of uranium.

    So, two great big questions remain, which you have consistently avoided:
    • 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.
    • 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.


  • #69
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,732 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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.


  • #70
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    Why not? Clearly they're doing something right!
    That’s not an answer.

    If nuclear is so wonderfully cheap, then explain to me why Hinkley Point, to be built by the nuclear poster boys, the French, is so massively expensive and needs to be so heavily subsidised? Why does the world’s largest producer of electricity (ÉDF) need a guaranteed price per kWh produced if nuclear is the sure bet you claim it to be?
    SeanW wrote: »
    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.
    Again, that’s not an answer. You’re just assuming that there’s enough fuel. You’re asking everyone to take a leap of faith: “It’ll be grand – sure we’re bound to find more high grade uranium ore lyin’ around some place.”
    SeanW wrote: »
    I am sure you would agree that it would be hypocritical to claim there is not enough Uranium while objecting to exploration to same?
    But I’m not objecting to exploration?
    SeanW wrote: »
    Well, that's the fundamental problem.
    The fundamental problem is that we can’t produce enough biogas to displace Russian gas imports? Really?


  • #71
    323
    Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭323


    Just found and read through this thread.
    SeanW wrote: »
    If there are any subsidies, I am not aware of them.

    OK, but I get the feeling it's more a case that you regard the huge number of subsidies received by all of the energy industries, in particular nuclear generation, as an inconvenience and then proceed to ignore them.

    You said you have an open mind but should you genuenly choose to remove the blinkers, suggest reading this for a start, just one of many similar studies.

    Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies.
    OK. It's based on the nuclear generation industry in the US, but not a million miles from your beloved froggie system.

    “Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”



  • Advertisement
  • #72
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,732 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Actually, I am soft on the idea of using nuclear power for the purpose of getting Europe away from Russian gas, primarily because it would take too damn long and I would prefer something faster.

    Because we can now add the blood of the 299 people on MH-17 - many of them Western European citizens (the Netherlands suffered proportionally more than the US did on 9/11 in that atrocity) - to the price to be paid for Russian gas.

    Coal, much as I despise it for environmental and other reasons, could be expanded massively now to be producing in about a year. Frankly the German love-affair with the stuff doesn't seem like so bad an idea in the current context, where the people we're buying gas from to back up these useless windmills have basically shown themselves to be imperialist thugs of the worst order.


  • #73
    comongethappy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    True.... Relative merits matter little when alternatives are needed now.

    That some countries allowed themselves become so dependant on a single supplier is bad.

    Its sad that inertia still seems to grip Europe.


Advertisement