How to decrease European dependence on Russian energy?

SeanW

Mods: feel free to move this to Green issues if you think it more relevant there, but I hope to start a wider discussion here as energy policy and other matters have a lot of involvment from environmental interests nowadays.

Over the passage of time, reading the statements of and debating with environmentalists has lead me to believe that they, and by default governments who now have to design energy policy etc. based on the environmental agenda through EU directives and the like, support the continued burning of fossil fuels in power generation, specifically natural gas.

The logic for this conclusion is lengthy but straightforward:

Environmentalists generally oppose the construction and operation of nuclear power plants, for reasons I would generally dispute as irresponsible at best (despite the fact that as France shows us you can use nuclear energy to virtually banish fossil fuels from your grid and also have sane electricity prices), but they also oppose coal fired power as being dirty and bad for the climate etc. Adherents to the mainstream environmental movement generally advocate more reliance on "renewables" like wind turbines and solar panels, which unlike other forms of power, require vast subsidies, are literally as dependable as the weather and which it is difficult if not impossible to power a country with.

The only way that has been shown, so far, to square this proverbial circle, is to use something called Combined Cycle Gas Turbines, which are allegedly more efficient, and critically, can because of its flexibility and ability to change the amount of output rapidly, be paired with wind farms and solar panels to counter the ups and downs of production of those plant types. Nuclear and coal, happily for them, cannot react to the instability of wind farms etc. Gas is also nice and clean and it causes much less CO2 emission than coal so it won't fry the polar bears so fast and so on.

In a European context however, besides the reality of higher energy costs and worse CO2/KWH figures than countries like France, there is the problem that most gas used in European gas fired power plants is imported from Russia, which as we have seen is lead by a man keen to rebuild the Soviet Union and has a shopping list of bits of neighbouring countries that he'd like to recapture. South Ossetia, Crimea in Ukraine as well as other parts of Eastern Ukraine (which Stalin settled with Russians the same way Britain sent "planters" to settle largely in what is now Northern Ireland) and possibly other bits of other countries as well. This in addition to his desire to support horrible dictators like the leader of Belarus, the slimeball that used to rule the Ukraine, Bashar Al-Assaid in Syria etc so as to keep these countries inside Moscow's "sphere of influence."

This Ukrainian business should cause all of us to question ANY energy strategy that leaves us reliant on Russia. For me, what Europe in general needs to do now is pretty much a settled question, but some of my views on the topic would not be popular. So I throw the question out to Boardsies in general and to adherents of the mainstream environmental movement in particular, how should our energy policy be altered in light of any question over the continued reliance on Russian gas? If you are an environmentalist, how do we - or can we - proceed with the Green agenda if the desire not be dependent on Russia serves as a limit on the use of gas?

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Adherents to the mainstream environmental movement generally advocate more reliance on "renewables" like wind turbines and solar panels, which unlike other forms of power, require vast subsidies...

Nonsense. Every form of power generation is subsidised to some extent. Fossil fuels in particular are still heavily subsidised:



http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27142377

SeanW wrote: »

In a European context however, besides the reality of higher energy costs and worse CO2/KWH figures than countries like France, there is the problem that most gas used in European gas fired power plants is imported from Russia...

Not true - only about a third of Europe’s gas comes from Russia. That’s obviously still a significant amount, but it’s far less than “most”.

SeanW wrote: »

If you are an environmentalist...

What exactly is an environmentalist? I mean, isn’t everyone an environmentalist to some extent?

RDM_83 again

Nuclear power nearly always requires very significant state subsidies and guarantees, witness the problems the UK has in financing new Nuclear Plants its not some magic solution otherwise private companies would be leaping at the chance to build them (I presume the fate of Energy Northwest made a lasting impression).

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

Nonsense. Every form of power generation is subsidised to some extent. Fossil fuels in particular are still heavily subsidised:

True, but a lot of that is fuel subsidies in poorer countries where money is much tighter, and as such people there would not otherwise be able to use the fuels at all, drawing supplies from the same world markets as the U.S. and Europe. Other examples include "subsidies" by means of reduced VAT e.g. gas in the UK, which is not a subsidy at all but simply a reduction of the amount of tax costs levied, and likely more than compensated for by tax on transport fuels.

Not true - only about a third of Europe’s gas comes from Russia. That’s obviously still a significant amount, but it’s far less than “most”.

It's still too much - I would prefer that we were not importing that 1/3rd when Vladimir Putin or his hand-picked descendent decides "hmm, there's some Russian 'planters' in Estonia left over from the Soviet days, let me go start something there and take a bit of that country."

As I see it, your policy will leave us in the same position when Russia decides to invade Estonia or another part of the former Soviet Union, as we are today with this Ukrainian business - powerless and impotent, capable of little more than puffing hot air, because we rely on Russia to keep our lights on and our homes warm.

I would like a policy that reduces Europes reliance on gas, and imports of gas in particular.

You appear to want policies that leave Europe more reliant on gas, and (especially without fracking) more reliant on Russia. Unless you can show us coal fired power plants and nuclear plants that can co-operate with renewables the same way that CCGT/gas does. Plant types that you would explicitly support in preference to the status quo.

What exactly is an environmentalist? I mean, isn’t everyone an environmentalist to some extent?

I'm referring to the mainstream environmental movement, Greenpeace, world Green parties etc. With "Climate Action NOW" "Cher-NO-byl" "Windmills uber alles" type sloganeering and mentalities.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Nuclear power nearly always requires very significant state subsidies and guarantees, witness the problems the UK has in financing new Nuclear Plants its not some magic solution otherwise private companies would be leaping at the chance to build them.

So how come the French have a 95% non-fossil power grid, and among the cheapest power in Europe? Meanwhile in countries like Germany and Denmark, where mainstream environmentalists have been dictating policy, costs are dramatically higher, as is reliance on fossil fuels?

(According to that, Denmark's electricity prices are cheaper only than those of 6 small island nations, most of them microscopic territories in the Pacific Ocean such as Niue, Tonga and the Soloman Islands)

Jonny7

SeanW wrote: »

because we rely on Russia to keep our lights on and our homes warm.

Russia is just as reliant on the revenue (if not more so in their current economic situation)

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

True, but a lot of that is fuel subsidies in poorer countries where money is much tighter, and as such people there would not otherwise be able to use the fuels at all, drawing supplies from the same world markets as the U.S. and Europe.

So you’re saying that fossil fuels do not benefit from vast subsidies?

SeanW wrote: »

Other examples include "subsidies" by means of reduced VAT e.g. gas in the UK, which is not a subsidy at all...

Of course it is – the net result is that gas is cheaper to the consumer. It is effectively subsidised.

SeanW wrote: »

As I see it, your policy...

I’m sorry, my policy? What’s that then?

SeanW wrote: »

I'm referring to the mainstream environmental movement, Greenpeace, world Green parties etc.

Greenpeace is mainstream environmentalism? Interesting. I would have thought most people consider Greenpeace pretty extreme.

SeanW wrote: »

So how come the French have a 95% non-fossil power grid, and among the cheapest power in Europe? Meanwhile in countries like Germany and Denmark, where mainstream environmentalists have been dictating policy, costs are dramatically higher, as is reliance on fossil fuels?

Spain are world-leaders in solar and wind generation, but their electricity prices are only marginally higher than France’s, according to your link.

What gives?

SeanW

So you’re saying that fossil fuels do not benefit from vast subsidies?

It's possible, but remember that my position opposes fossil fuel usage in power stations. So whereas your article points out subsidies for coal burning in Germany, I would be opposed to that without equivocation. In transport and home heating, obviously things get much more complicated. E.g. transport fuel must be dense and easy to carry, while heating fuel is generally limited to stuff you can burn, like fossil fuels or peat or wood or the like.

Of course it is – the net result is that gas is cheaper to the consumer. It is effectively subsidised.

But do you not see any difference between a "subsidy" and "less tax?" Ireland has lower VAT rates on essential things like food, is that a "subsidy" or it simply the government taking less of your money?

I’m sorry, my policy? What’s that then?

I consider you to be a mainstream environmentalist. That leads me to make certain assumptions, feel free to point out any flaws:

1. You consider the threat of global warming to be real (which I'm not disputing, to be clear).
2. You are opposed to the use of nuclear power as a drop in replacement for fossil fuel electricity and do not wish to follow the French example.
3. Your approach involves carbon taxes and regulations, and broad support for weather based renewables, potentially regardless of cost.
4. You have no realistic plan for dealing with the unreliability of said weather based renewables, with the exception of pairing them with natural gas fired CCGT.
5. You do not support fracking.
6. As a result of this, your policy implicitly supports continued excessive reliance on Russian gas. That in turn could leave in the same position regarding a country like Estonia in 2020 as we are in with the Ukraine today.

Spain are world-leaders in solar and wind generation, but their electricity prices are only marginally higher than France’s, according to your link.

What gives?

Umm ... Spain is a little bit further to the South than either France or Ireland, and thus a good deal warmer. As such, it is possible that many of the issues regarding weather based renewables are less there, e.g. solar plant output may closely match air conditioning demands.

It's also possible that there are subsidies for such that are not included in the electricity price.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

It's possible, but remember that my position opposes fossil fuel usage in power stations. So whereas your article points out subsidies for coal burning in Germany, I would be opposed to that without equivocation.

But that's just not a realistic position. We can't remove fossil fuels from the mix overnight - it's totally unrealistic.

SeanW wrote: »

But do you not see any difference between a "subsidy" and "less tax?" Ireland has lower VAT rates on essential things like food, is that a "subsidy" or it simply the government taking less of your money?

If a government taxes product A, but does not tax an alternative product, B, then B has effectively been subsidised.

SeanW wrote: »

I consider you to be a mainstream environmentalist.

I consider myself a practitioner of common sense.

SeanW wrote: »

[*]You are opposed to the use of nuclear power as a drop in replacement for fossil fuel electricity and do not wish to follow the French example.

No, I just don't think it's feasible. I mean, if the French system is the model we should all be following, then why are the French moving away from nuclear?

SeanW wrote: »

[*]Your approach involves carbon taxes and regulations, and broad support for weather based renewables, potentially regardless of cost.

I'm not convinced a carbon tax is feasible or necessary, actually. But interesting that you should point out the potentially high cost of renewables, but completely overlook the potentially huge cost of nuclear.

SeanW wrote: »

[*]You have no realistic plan for dealing with the unreliability of said weather based renewables, with the exception of pairing them with natural gas fired CCGT.

What about all the other means we have of generating electricity?

SeanW wrote: »

[*]You do not support fracking.

I’m undecided on the issue, actually.

SeanW wrote: »

[*]As a result of this, your policy implicitly supports continued excessive reliance on Russian gas.

So you want the EU to break trade links with every state in the world that has engaged in dodgy dealings overseas? Wouldn’t that mean the EU would probably have to sever ties with most countries in the world? And let’s not forget that there are several EU states (the UK in particular) whose foreign policies leave a lot to be desired.

SeanW wrote: »

Umm ... Spain is a little bit further to the South than either France or Ireland, and thus a good deal warmer. As such, it is possible that many of the issues regarding weather based renewables are less there, e.g. solar plant output may closely match air conditioning demands.

It's also possible that there are subsidies for such that are not included in the electricity price.

The point is that it’s not as simple as nuclear = cheap electricity, renewables = expensive electricity. It’s all about finding the optimal mix that results in affordable electricity, while minimising ecological impact.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

But that's just not a realistic position. We can't remove fossil fuels from the mix overnight - it's totally unrealistic.

Thing is, some countries have more or less done it, either because they are blessed with geographical features like fjords and geothermal resources, or because they went hell-for-leather down the road of nuclear technology and all of its components.
Iceland would be the best example of the former, followed by Norway, whereas France is the best example of the latter. All have rates of non-fossil supply of 85% or better.

If a government taxes product A, but does not tax an alternative product, B, then B has effectively been subsidised.

Do you realise that this could be taken to silly extremes. Food items are taxed less than most other commodities in Ireland, 13.5%, whereas I think its 22% for goods and a whole lot of extra taxes on various categories of goods, alcohol, tobacco, cars, fuel etc. Does that mean that food is "subsidised" by the State simply because they take less tax? How about say a can of Coke vs a Bulmers? Or a fully-paid fare on an unregulated bus service vs a trip in a car with taxed transport fuel?

No, I just don't think it's feasible. I mean, if the French system is the model we should all be following, then why are the French moving away from nuclear?

That's very simple - the rise of the Left. There is no logical reason for a change of course in France right now, as you can hear from the people who didn't vote for the Socialist president with his 75% taxes, nuclear limitation and reprehensible personal life.

But interesting that you should point out the potentially high cost of renewables, but completely overlook the potentially huge cost of nuclear.
What about all the other means we have of generating electricity?

We're not exactly spoiled for choice when it comes to good ideas for power generation, by and large all forms of power are either dirty, expensive, unreliable, or limited by geography. Throw in other energy needs like motor/heating fuel and you have all these issues plus wars and meddling between countries etc. It's a mess and if there was something better like Fusion, free rotating magnets, petrol substitution from artificial photosynthesis or something I would be behind that instead in a heartbeat.

So you want the EU to break trade links with every state in the world that has engaged in dodgy dealings overseas? Wouldn’t that mean the EU would probably have to sever ties with most countries in the world? And let’s not forget that there are several EU states (the UK in particular) whose foreign policies leave a lot to be desired.

One thing I've learned as I got older - I don't have the solution to all the worlds problems. So I don't know about all these other states in the world or "the UK in particular" or a lot of stuff like that, though I don't think the UK has annexed another nations territory recently. Hell, given the paralells between the history of Eastern Ukraine and Northern Ireland, I don't even have the answer to that. Nobody does.

But I do feel very strongly that it is extremely irresponsible to arbitrarily leave our energy security in the hands of people in Moscow at the present time. We may not be able to avoid needing gas for heating, cooking etc, nor oil for transport, but for electricity we have other choices. I think we've seen enough to conclude that the Russians' behaviour has been beneath reprehensible and that opposition to reliance on them would be similar in character to that of the Anti-Apartheid Dunnes strikers back in '84. More to the point, given that there are other nations in a similarly weakened state post-USSR - Estonia comes to mind - any factor that may potentially threaten those nations should be regarded as most grave.

It’s all about finding the optimal mix that results in affordable electricity, while minimising ecological impact.

I agree in part, but the problem is that this argument really only works in a vaccum. We have problems both real and forecasted, that make it much more complicated. Politics, for one, and the forecasted threat of Anthrophogenic Climate Change/Global Warming or whatever its called these days. Some of the figures and claims that I've read over time are quite alarming. "Screwed up climate, droughts in some places, monsoons in others, the 3rd world to be hit the hardest." "We need to cut CO2 emissions by 80% or 90% from todays levels by 2050." "Humanity needs to be carbon-negative by the end of the century" "It could reach a tipping-point and become an unstoppable chain reaction." "Every kilogram of CO2 brings us closer to catastrophe."

The solutions often proposed are no less alarming. Ban lightbulbs. Ban patio heaters. "Carbon tax" cars. Increase fuel taxes. Increase costs for energy heavy businesses like steel mills. Lower speed limits (or introduce them as was proposed for German Autobahns), and have motorist hostile policy everywhere generally. Have governments give individuals legally-binding "carbon allowances." Painful medicine I'm sure you would agree.

I say all this for one simple reason. If a fraction of the fears of climate change are justified, or tenth of what has been proposed in various quarters to address it are now required, then this extreme urgency must be reflected in your "optimal mix." Between that and the politics of energy, any electricity must be framed by two key questions.

1. Does it reduce our reliance on thermofossil electricity to the greatest possible extent?
2. Does it make us energy independent, or failing that leave us dependent only on nations with which we have an equal and friendly standing (e.g. Canada, Australia, fellow EU nations).

Oil and gas fail, spectacularly, on both counts, so any policy that relies on them arbitrarily for electricity is (in my opinion) deeply questionable.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Thing is, some countries have more or less done it...

Can the whole planet do what those countries have done? Can Europe even?

SeanW wrote: »

Do you realise that this could be taken to silly extremes.

It sure could, but tax breaks are widely accepted as a form of indirect subsidy.

SeanW wrote: »

That's very simple - the rise of the Left. There is no logical reason for a change of course in France right now...

How about cost? For example, I’m sure the French electorate are monitoring EDF’s involvement in the Hinkley Point project with great interest.

SeanW wrote: »

One thing I've learned as I got older - I don't have the solution to all the worlds problems. So I don't know about all these other states in the world or "the UK in particular" or a lot of stuff like that, though I don't think the UK has annexed another nations territory recently.

You don’t think Ireland should have broken trade relations with the UK when the former invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? I’d call that a double standard.

SeanW wrote: »

The solutions often proposed are no less alarming. Ban lightbulbs. Ban patio heaters. "Carbon tax" cars. Increase fuel taxes. Increase costs for energy heavy businesses like steel mills. Lower speed limits (or introduce them as was proposed for German Autobahns), and have motorist hostile policy everywhere generally. Have governments give individuals legally-binding "carbon allowances." Painful medicine I'm sure you would agree.

Indeed, although I’ve not heard of any reputable organisation proposing such “solutions”.

SeanW wrote: »

1. Does it reduce our reliance on thermofossil electricity to the greatest possible extent?
2. Does it make us energy independent, or failing that leave us dependent only on nations with which we have an equal and friendly standing (e.g. Canada, Australia, fellow EU nations).

Oil and gas fail, spectacularly, on both counts, so any policy that relies on them arbitrarily for electricity is (in my opinion) deeply questionable.

I see. So where’s all this high-grade uranium going to come from that will allow the whole World to go nuclear?

SeanW

It sure could, but tax breaks are widely accepted as a form of indirect subsidy.

Perhaps, but as far as I am concerned, less tax is just that: the government taking less of your money.

You don’t think Ireland should have broken trade relations with the UK when the former invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? I’d call that a double standard.

I'd call that picking your battles. None of us could have prevented the war in Afghanistan because that was started on Sept 11th 2001 by Al Queda who had been explicitly sheltered and given sanctuary by the Taliban. As for the Iraq mess, responding to that would have required not just Ireland (because we're part of the EU) but most of Europe cutting trade links not just with the U.K. but also the United States. All of this while it is actually possible that both countries geniunely believed bad intel about a possible threat. Do you really that would have ended well, either for us or anyone else?

No, of course not, that's why when you recognise that you don't have all the answers, you decide what you CAN do. Like the Dunnes Stores strikers in '84. There was plenty of dodgy stuff going on back then too I'm sure, but they focused on something they could actually do something about, i.e. Apartheid. Were they guilty of "double standards" too?

Indeed, although I’ve not heard of any reputable organisation proposing such “solutions”.

1. The U.S. already has a ban on all incandescent lightbulbs, the E.U. has restrictions.
2. Members of the European Parliament made some sort of non-binding vote to ban patio heaters all across Europe.
3. Motoring taxes are now almost entirely carbon based. VRT, Motor tax, extra duties on fuel etc.
4. Steel mills must participate in "cap-and-trade" and that has created perverse incentives to 'mothball' steel mills and lay off the workers to cash in on carbon credits instead of actually making steel, as happened to a steelworks in the UK some years back.
5. The policy of the German SPD, that nations second largest political party, calls for the abolition of the "advisory" 130kph speed limit on uncongested autobahns and their replacement with normal (mandatory) limits ... for environmental reasons, of course.
6. Personal Carbon Allowances are already provided for in legislation in the United Kingdom by environmental law enacted in 2008 and could be activated at any time. One organisation presumably very happy about this is the Carbon Trust, who ran a trial study with some volunteers to prepare a strategy for PCAs. This part is most interesting:

   The qualitative findings of the study are fascinating. Consumers did act to reduce food waste and energy bills, but other areas, such as holidays and meat consumption, proved harder to address.

So the picture that I'm getting from the Environmental-Left is simply this: Anthrophogenic Climate Change is such an extreme danger that we have to become vegetarians, forget about having a foreign holiday ever again, accept extreme limitations and crippling costs on our choices on transport, lighting, heating, employment etc. But the problem isn't bad enough for the same Environmental-Leftists to make sacrifices of their own, like admitting that they've made a grave error in electricity policy and changing it. How convenient.

Can the whole planet do what those countries have done? Can Europe even?
I see. So where’s all this high-grade uranium going to come from that will allow the whole World to go nuclear?

The whole world cannot go nuclear, because as the Chernobyl accident showed us, you must have a competent and politically stable government running the territory where the plant is to be located. That limits us primarily to North America, Europe, Australia/NZ and some Asian nations.

The second issue is one of Uranium supply, and I wish I could answer this more thoroughly, but there is so much bad policy surrounding the issue that it is impossible to determine the potential availability of nuclear fuel. Sometimes exploration/mining is banned for ideological reasons, like the Green Party scuppering two energy exploration licenses in Dongeal almost from the minute the clowns took office towards the end of the last decade. Nuclear fuel reprocessing offers the potential to multiply 60-fold the amount of energy recovered from a given amount of Uranium but much fuel is wastefully used on a "once through" basis with no reporocessing. The reasons for this are numerous but (yet again) the involvement of Left-wing politicians is normally a large factor, e.g. presidents Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama in the United States. At minimum I think, all spent fuel not recycled should be stored in such a way as to allow it to be retrieved and recycled if and when the need/desire to do that should arise.
On the bright side, India is looking at the use of Thorium because they've got loads of the stuff and need as much energy as they can get for over a billion people. If they make a go of it, we in Europe should take "last movers advantage" and copy them :pac:

Jonny7

SeanW wrote: »

On the bright side, India is looking at the use of Thorium because they've got loads of the stuff and need as much energy as they can get for over a billion people. If they make a go of it, we in Europe should take "last movers advantage" and copy them :pac:

They're also looking to the power of sun - and plan to massively expand their solar power output within 5 years

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

I'd call that picking your battles.

Splitting hairs.

SeanW wrote: »

The U.S. already has a ban on all incandescent lightbulbs…

Utter nonsense.

SeanW wrote: »

Members of the European Parliament made some sort of non-binding vote to ban patio heaters all across Europe.

That was six years ago, but patio heaters are still readily available.

SeanW wrote: »

Motoring taxes are now almost entirely carbon based.

They were previously based on engine size – not exactly a radical shift.

SeanW wrote: »

Steel mills must participate in "cap-and-trade" and that has created perverse incentives to 'mothball' steel mills and lay off the workers to cash in on carbon credits instead of actually making steel, as happened to a steelworks in the UK some years back.

You’ll have to forgive me for being sceptical of anything on a UKIP website, but I’ve already said I’m not convinced of the need or effectiveness of carbon taxes or credits.

SeanW wrote: »

The policy of the German SPD, that nations second largest political party, calls for the abolition of the "advisory" 130kph speed limit on uncongested autobahns and their replacement with normal (mandatory) limits ... for environmental reasons, of course.

Come off it. That whole debate dates back to the 70s oil crisis.

SeanW wrote: »

Personal Carbon Allowances are already provided for in legislation in the United Kingdom by environmental law enacted in 2008 and could be activated at any time.

Further legislation would almost certainly be required.

SeanW wrote: »

So the picture that I'm getting from the Environmental-Left is simply this: Anthrophogenic Climate Change is such an extreme danger that we have to become vegetarians, forget about having a foreign holiday ever again, accept extreme limitations and crippling costs on our choices on transport, lighting, heating, employment etc.

The extreme left, maybe.

But who cares? None of what you have listed is likely to come to pass.

SeanW wrote: »

The second issue is one of Uranium supply, and I wish I could answer this more thoroughly, but there is so much bad policy surrounding the issue that it is impossible to determine the potential availability of nuclear fuel.

In other words, you have no idea whether there is enough fuel to go around, but you still think the entire developed world should become heavily dependent on nuclear power?

SeanW wrote: »

On the bright side, India is looking at the use of Thorium…

Thorium-based nuclear power has been at the heart of a variety of research projects since the 60s, but we’re still waiting for the technology to be commericalised.

I’m not going to hold my breath.

SeanW

Sorry for "posting and running" but I had some serious problems the past week or so

djpbarry wrote: »

Spain are world-leaders in solar and wind generation, but their electricity prices are only marginally higher than France’s, according to your link.

What gives?

Funny someone should mention Spain, I just got a link to this recently which explains the current Spanish situation:

http://www.thelocal.es/20140511/sun-sets-on-spanish-solar-power-dreams

Solar energy was cheap in Spain because it was subsidised directly by the government. But Spain is in an austerity cruch and can't afford the subsidies anymore. And that's left a lot of small investors in a serious bind.

And back to the topic of the reality that these things are not just cost-ineffective. Even if they were free, they would leave us dependent on, I would argue effectively subjugated by, a country whose actions are similar in character to the early years of Nazi Germany, and which has attacked its neighbours under justifications that leave other nations (such as Estonia) in a very vulnerable position.

All the while driving up our energy costs and as often as not, raising our supposidly crucial CO2 levels far beyond what they should be bringing us closer to the global warming armagaddeon we're warned about, and threating our power grids with unnecessary instability.

Am I the only one that has a serious problem with this?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

We (Ireland) should try to be as energy self sufficient as soon as possible.

It's literally a matter of national security.

I'm fully in favour of fracking, turf cutting, tax incentives to oil/gas companies, green subsidies ect.

WakeUp

Russian gas is cheap and plentiful finding an alternative source for the percentage they supply is easier said than done. The EU should continue to deal with the Russians Vlad is a business man he likes money and his gas is cheap no need to look elsewhere at the moment Russia has plenty. European countries are making deals with the Russians bi-lateral agreements basically sidestepping EU sanctions there isn't a proper consensus when push comes to shove between European countries on the issue of Russian energy and probably won't be for a while yet if ever the pipelines are still being built. Russia is not going to turn off the tap once we don't do anything stupid. Energy contracts are long term between fifteen and twenty five years so things will roll on as they are. Nuclear power isn't exactly an alternative to Russian energy dependence. Nuclear power plants require uranium . Russia supplies over 35 percent of this to EU plants. They also have lots of cheap coal it's a just a country blessed and rich in resources. Long term in Ireland we can look at different things perhaps one day we will discover a larger oil or gas deposit, I do like wind energy maybe we could do more things there. Don't piss the Russians off and we won't have a problem in the EU.

SeanW

WakeUp wrote: »

Russian gas is cheap and plentiful finding an alternative source for the percentage they supply is easier said than done. The EU should continue to deal with the Russians Vlad is a business man he likes money and his gas is cheap no need to look elsewhere at the moment Russia has plenty. European countries are making deals with the Russians bi-lateral agreements basically sidestepping EU sanctions there isn't a proper consensus when push comes to shove between European countries on the issue of Russian energy and probably won't be for a while yet if ever the pipelines are still being built. Russia is not going to turn off the tap once we don't do anything stupid. Energy contracts are long term between fifteen and twenty five years so things will roll on as they are. Nuclear power isn't exactly an alternative to Russian energy dependence. Nuclear power plants require uranium . Russia supplies over 35 percent of this to EU plants. They also have lots of cheap coal it's a just a country blessed and rich in resources. Long term in Ireland we can look at different things perhaps one day we will discover a larger oil or gas deposit, I do like wind energy maybe we could do more things there. Don't piss the Russians off and we won't have a problem in the EU.

Even if we accept this (and I certainly do not) the Russians have been looking for other markets for their gas, namely China and the Asia-Pacific region.

So even if I could accept that your suggestion of continuing the status quo, the Russians might not - 10 years from now we could be 500 million people in Western Europe (getting poorer) competing for the same imports as 2 billion people in Asia, all of them getting richer. Not to mention that Russia has a lot more in common with China etc than they do Western Europe.

It really requires the suspension of disbelief to take any of this seriously.

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

Russia is not going to turn off the tap once we don't do anything stupid.

Russia relies heavily on gas income, natural resources are the country's lifeblood. As I've mentioned before the Russian economy is projected to grow by 1% this year.. that's before any effects of growing international isolation

WakeUp

SeanW wrote: »

Even if we accept this (and I certainly do not) the Russians have been looking for other markets for their gas, namely China and the Asia-Pacific region.

So even if I could accept that your suggestion of continuing the status quo, the Russians might not - 10 years from now we could be 500 million people in Western Europe (getting poorer) competing for the same imports as 2 billion people in Asia, all of them getting richer. Not to mention that Russia has a lot more in common with China etc than they do Western Europe.

It really requires the suspension of disbelief to take any of this seriously.

On page one of this thread you compared Russia to nazi Germany , irony aside considering the western backed nazis within Ukraine, it requires the suspension of disbelief for me to take statements like that seriously and I dont. Its actually quite simple, a stable Europe requires a stable relationship with Russia and there wont be a problem. So ask yourself who is the driving force behind the push to isolate and offend the Russians and why further down the line they may not want to continue with the status quo. That would be the Americans interfering in European affairs when really they should stay out of it, its none of their business they have their own reasons for "caring" about Ukraine and creating hostility between Europe and Russia. It would make sense for us here in the EU to have closer ties with the Russians and I believe the Russians are open to this. Though you cant blame them for looking toward China when the EU at the behest of the US is acting in an amateurishly hostile way what did you expect them to do.

That deal has been ten years in the making. because of EU actions the Russians will view us as a somewhat unreliable partner and in turn they pushed the deal through with the Chinese, probably conceding on the price disagreement they had to make it happen. It makes perfect sense for them to do that. Alternatively speaking, Russia as opposed to the middle east, long term is a much more stable option as a supplier of energy. This idea that the Americans can swoop in and meet demands is pure fantasy. The have neither the infrastructure nor probably the supply to meet demand and that is without even taking the economic cost of it getting here. There is nothing wrong with attempting to diversify EU energy supply though how is it going to be done. In Ireland we import our gas from the UK and Norway. The British are not even sure how much of their gas imports originate from Russia via a Dutch pipeline between 0 and 15 percent something like that as the pipelines are all interconnected.

Short term the Russian/Chinese deal doesnt mean much for the EU, imports between us and the Russians will still be significant and we will continue to be reliant on one another. When the China/Russia deal comes into play in four years Russia will only be exporting a fraction to China some four times less than EU imports. As the years move forward its possible Russian exports to Europe may well drop to maybe 25%. The Russians are splitting their risks its normal behavior considering the circumstances, long term its symbolic highlighting Russian refusal to rely on EU business and why wouldnt they with the signs and actions they have been receiving. Some countries geographically close to Russia with long term links like Germany/Hungary and Bulgaria will continue to have good relations with them I would imagine as it is in their interests to do so. Only yesterday Bulgaria under American pressure decided to suspend the implementation of the Russian south stream gas pipeline, a pipeline which is an alternative route for supply of Russian gas for European countries should something happen the existing pipeline connecting Ukraine to Europe. How long this will last I dont know but its certainly politically motivated. The EU supports this action why they do is beyond me its akin to potentially shooting ourselves in the foot a dumb undertaking indeed. So the Russians appear to want to do business and they are coming up against obstructions. Personally speaking I would like to cut the Americans out of the equation and tell to mind their own business, to then not adnit Ukraine into the EU let them be and to continue to deal with the Russians who are open for business and who I believe want good working relations with Europe. American motives are harder to nail down but I believe they are up to something they always have an angle. Sure we can attempt to diversify energy supplies of course we can lets see if it can be done and lets see what happens Im not against that. For now though the EU should continue to deal with the Russians though if they continue to act like twats that decision may well be taken out of their hands.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Russia relies heavily on gas income, natural resources are the country's lifeblood. As I've mentioned before the Russian economy is projected to grow by 1% this year.. that's before any effects of growing international isolation

With regard to their energy exports they dont seem to concerned about international isolation when they know of the divides among some of the European nations on the issue.

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

With regard to their energy exports they dont seem to concerned about international isolation when they know of the divides among some of the European nations on the issue.

Oil and gas account for almost 60% of total Russian exports, with gas the lion's share of that, their economy is heavily dependent on those revenues

60+% of their main export - gas, goes to the EU..

The EU is currently engaged in a frantic effort to shore up new suppliers - including emerging liquified nat. gas market, with big future exporters like Qatar and the US

Russia is politically isolated on the intl. stage, economic growth grinding to a halt this year, this isn't some sleeping superpower, remember they have a GDP barely higher than Italy

Despite Putin's carefully stage-managed veneer of cool and the recent wave of nationalistism.. I'd say there's more than a few economists sweating over there

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

Oil and gas account for almost 60% of total Russian exports, with gas the lion's share of that, their economy is heavily dependent on those revenues

60+% of their main export - gas, goes to the EU..

The EU is currently engaged in a frantic effort to shore up new suppliers - including emerging liquified nat. gas market, with big future exporters like Qatar and the US

Russia is politically isolated on the intl. stage, economic growth grinding to a halt this year, this isn't some sleeping superpower, remember they have a GDP barely higher than Italy

Despite Putin's carefully stage-managed veneer of cool and the recent wave of nationalistism.. I'd say there's more than a few economists sweating over there

Not just economists I would think there are all sorts of people sweating over there from average individuals to business people, investors all sorts not sure that Putin cares much about international isolation as he sees the situation for what it is. I would question what happens next. Is the west going to attempt to freeze the Russians out of the monetary system. If diplomacy fails what comes next will be an economic and currency war this is already starting to take shape. Though if the west continues on its current course with the Russians ( our way or the high way this is their position ) they really need to be prepared for what might happen. If these events begin to unfold I dont see Vlad blinking or taking a single step back I think he has crossed the line.

In the near term I cant see how Russians preeminent position in the gas market can be threatened as always it comes down to economics. long term maybe but not anytime soon. Qatar is tiny yet is the second largest exporter of gas. The thing about Qatar is that they know they can never overtake the Russians as Europes top gas seller because of the massive market share the Russians already possess. Every EU country faces their own individual geopolitical and geographical challenges when trying to source alternative gas supplies for example energy corridors and infrastructure. LNG infrastructure costs a lot of money with plenty of European governments cash strapped near term can they afford the investment some of them maybe some of them I would say no. though an even bigger issue would be the price. Qatar exports predominantly to Asia obviously making it far less dependent on EU exports. because of the Russian market share it can sell its gas at maybe 50% below what the Qataris could offer. So the Russians will likely sign deals with Europe at rates Qatar just wont find acceptable. They have their deals in the Asian market if it doesnt make economic sense they wont deal. and European governments wont have an incentive either or probably the ability. Even Poland who would be one of the most vocal EU countries when it comes to the issue of Russian energy are still signed up to a deal with Gazprom till 2022 and they intend to honor it. Sometime in the future Qatar and Europe may well be in a position to do more business though short term cant see it happening. the same with the Americans. If the EU can source gas cheaper than what they Russians are offering or find a way of diversifying I would be all for it just dont see it happening anytime soon.

Elmer Blooker

Even Poland who would be one of the most vocal EU countries when it comes to the issue of Russian energy are still signed up to a deal with Gazprom till 2022 and they intend to honor it. Sometime in the future Qatar and Europe may well be in a position to do more business though short term cant see it happening. the same with the Americans. If the EU can source gas cheaper than what they Russians are offering or find a way of diversifying I would be all for it just dont see it happening anytime soon.

.... and Estonia for example. I saw the Estonian foreign minister Urmaet Paets interviewed on BBC News Hardtalk programme recently. When he was talking about finding alternatives to Russian energy imports the interviewer (Zeinab Badawi) said that won't happen overnight and will take years and "you know it". In fact Badawi made him look quite naive, he wasn't being very realistic. I actually felt a little sorry for him by the end of the interview as he appeared quite a forlorn figure. I got the impression the EU dream hasn't quite worked out for Estonia with "Big Brother" next door still having a huge economic influence.
How much would the price of gas go up for you and me if Europe switched to imports of say liquified US shale gas? I'd rather not think about it - bills are high enough as it is!!

WakeUp

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

.... and Estonia for example. I saw the Estonian foreign minister Urmaet Paets interviewed on BBC News Hardtalk programme recently. When he was talking about finding alternatives to Russian energy imports the interviewer (Zeinab Badawi) said that won't happen overnight and will take years and "you know it". In fact Badawi made him look quite naive, he wasn't being very realistic. I actually felt a little sorry for him by the end of the interview as he appeared quite a forlorn figure. I got the impression the EU dream hasn't quite worked out for Estonia with "Big Brother" next door still having a huge economic influence.
How much would the price of gas go up for you and me if Europe switched to imports of say liquified US shale gas? I'd rather not think about it - bills are high enough as it is!!

All things taken into consideration it isnt practical to ship gas from America to Europe its an oversimplified attempt at a solution I think short term certainly there is zero potential. It would be hard to put a price on it but I would say maybe double though cant say that for sure. It would take years to build the required facilities both sides of the Atlantic to ship and receive it and then there is the building of the tankers. and even if everything gets built there would be no guarantee US gas would be price competitive enough to reach Europe as you have to factor in the free market. Asia pays more for gas, US gas would have to compete against the likes of Russia and Norway in Europe would they be competitive enough long term to make it worth their while probably not and a lot of that would be because of transport costs. Although if the Americans started shipping their gas to Aisa that would make that market more competitive and countries from the middle east and Africa who would otherwise just export there might decide to get more involved in Europe. Lots of ifs and maybes and nothing for sure.

Estonia is interesting did Paets talk about the proposed lng terminals and pipeline between Estonia and Finland? ..Those northern European countries have long harsh Winters its really important that they have a stable affordable supply of gas to keep everything ticking over during the coldness it really does limit their options when dealing with the Russians. If the terminals and pipelines get the go ahead it will cost close to a billion dollars half of which will come from an EU structural fund giving the Baltic states direct access to the global lng markets.

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

All things taken into consideration it isnt practical to ship gas from America to Europe its an oversimplified attempt at a solution I think short term certainly there is zero potential. It would be hard to put a price on it but I would say maybe double though cant say that for sure. It would take years to build the required facilities both sides of the Atlantic to ship and receive it and then there is the building of the tankers.

It's been underway for several years in some cases. Estonia have started to build their terminal - their neighbour is projected to finish their terminal this year. Qatar and Libya are also lining up as exporters.

Many countries in the region are determined to shed their dependance on just one source of gas - which, as we can see, is not good when international political events can affect supply

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's been underway for several years in some cases. Estonia have started to build their terminal - their neighbour is projected to finish their terminal this year. Qatar and Libya are also lining up as exporters.

Many countries in the region are determined to shed their dependance on just one source of gas - which, as we can see, is not good when international political events can affect supply

Good. Lets hope its a case of competition and not one of collaboration energy isnt just about money its also geopolitics and influence. The Russians would prefer that the Qataris stick to the Asian market and let them concentrate on Europe in return Russia would hold back in Asia. Im not fussed where the gas comes from once its cheap and available though Qatar already has long term contracts in Asia and south America it remains to be seen how much exactly they will be in a position to export short/medium term.

Elmer Blooker

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's been underway for several years in some cases. Estonia have started to build their terminal - their neighbour is projected to finish their terminal this year. Qatar and Libya are also lining up as exporters.

Many countries in the region are determined to shed their dependance on just one source of gas - which, as we can see, is not good when international political events can affect supply

The Russians are also building their own terminal in Kaliningrad.
Hypothetical situation of course in the future: The Russians make an offer to Estonia (and Finland plus the other two Baltic states) - we'll sell you the gas for 70% less than what you are paying Qatar.

petronius

Qatar a country which funds insurgents in Syria, Libya, sends in troops to kill and suppress pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain, and suppresses democracy in its own country.

pO1Neil

Could just bomb Russia & steal their energy.

Eggy Baby!

Jonny7 wrote: »

Russia relies heavily on gas income, natural resources are the country's lifeblood. As I've mentioned before the Russian economy is projected to grow by 1% this year.. that's before any effects of growing international isolation

When compared with the broader picture, Russia's economy has been growing at a very healthy rate for the last few years (recession aside). The 1% growth rate is obviously a minor slump.

SeanW

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The Russians are also building their own terminal in Kaliningrad.
Hypothetical situation of course in the future: The Russians make an offer to Estonia (and Finland plus the other two Baltic states) - we'll sell you the gas for 70% less than what you are paying Qatar.

But what would be the catch?

On page one of this thread you compared Russia to nazi Germany , irony aside considering the western backed nazis within Ukraine, it requires the suspension of disbelief for me to take statements like that seriously and I don't.

Re-read my post, I compared Russia's behaviour to that of the early years of Nazi Germany.

Russia has invaded two of its neighbors and taken their territory. Hitler did the same before 1939.

The justification for both was almost identical. Hitler was "re-uniting the German people" Putin was "protecting Russian people."

This is why I fear for Estonia - because just as Stalin and co. committed genocide against the Ukrainians, which is the basis for the current aggression against them, they also did it, but with somewhat less success, against Estonia.

Does it not make sense to want to draw a line in the sand with this carry-on?

Wurzelbert

WakeUp wrote: »

Russian gas is cheap and plentiful finding an alternative source for the percentage they supply is easier said than done. The EU should continue to deal with the Russians Vlad is a business man he likes money and his gas is cheap no need to look elsewhere at the moment Russia has plenty. European countries are making deals with the Russians bi-lateral agreements basically sidestepping EU sanctions there isn't a proper consensus when push comes to shove between European countries on the issue of Russian energy and probably won't be for a while yet if ever the pipelines are still being built. Russia is not going to turn off the tap once we don't do anything stupid. Energy contracts are long term between fifteen and twenty five years so things will roll on as they are. Nuclear power isn't exactly an alternative to Russian energy dependence. Nuclear power plants require uranium . Russia supplies over 35 percent of this to EU plants. They also have lots of cheap coal it's a just a country blessed and rich in resources. Long term in Ireland we can look at different things perhaps one day we will discover a larger oil or gas deposit, I do like wind energy maybe we could do more things there. Don't piss the Russians off and we won't have a problem in the EU.

yes, and long-term nuclear fusion might become available as an infinite energy source...europe should definitely invest massively in research here...

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Funny someone should mention Spain, I just got a link to this recently which explains the current Spanish situation:

http://www.thelocal.es/20140511/sun-sets-on-spanish-solar-power-dreams

The point is it’s not simply a case of nuclear = cheap electricity, renewables = expensive electricity.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

The point is it’s not simply a case of nuclear = cheap electricity, renewables = expensive electricity.

Only the latter half is definitely true, and provably so, while there is good evidence from France to suggest the former.

And at the end of the day after paying all that money, you don't have a source of power that can be controlled, or even track well with usage, because it's literally as dependable as the weather.

And it relies on CCGT, which wastes natural gas and leaves Europe as a whole reliant on Russia. A country that is currently hacking off bits of its neighbours using the same justification as the Nazis used prior to its invasion of Poland in the '30s, and which could conceivably threaten countries as far West as Estonia under these justifications.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Only the latter half is definitely true, and provably so...

Off you go and prove it then.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

Off you go and prove it then.

I just did - you cited the example of Spain, I showed that those solar plants were only built because the government promised the people boatloads of subsidy money for it. Then the money ran out ...
and they're probably more dependant now than ever on imported gas, which is another side effect of weather based renewables. Which carries a whole new set of problems and implications.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

I just did - you cited the example of Spain, I showed that those solar plants were only built because the government promised the people boatloads of money for it.

And that proves that renewables are always expensive and nuclear is always cheap?

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

And that proves that renewables are always expensive and nuclear is always cheap?

No, I said it proved "the latter half" of your "it's not to simple as" statement which was that renewables are expensive.

The former "nuclear = cheap electricity" has some evidence in the case of France.

And France is much less dependent on Russian gas for electricity.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

No, I said it proved "the latter half" of your "it's not to simple as" statement which was that renewables are expensive.

Relative to what?

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

Relative to what?

What exactly are you getting at?

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

What exactly are you getting at?

You're advocating that Europe go nuclear. You're also stating that renewables are expensive. I have to conclude that you're asserting that a mass roll-out of nuclear generation across Europe would be cheaper than a mass roll-out of renewables. Ignoring for a moment the feasibility or practicality of either scenario and the simplicity of such a binary choice, given the ever-increasing cost of nuclear and the continuous fall in the cost of renewables, I'm finding it difficult to understand how renewables could be considered "expensive", relative to nuclear.

Jonny7

SeanW wrote: »

No, I said it proved "the latter half" of your "it's not to simple as" statement which was that renewables are expensive.

The former "nuclear = cheap electricity" has some evidence in the case of France.

And France is much less dependent on Russian gas for electricity.

Likewise Germany produces 50% of it's electricity needs through solar power

I am a supporter of modern nuclear, but only as a step toward full renewables (which we are still a long way off from, but getting there)

comongethappy

Jonny7 wrote: »

Likewise Germany produces 50% of it's electricity needs through solar power

I am a supporter of modern nuclear, but only as a step toward full renewables (which we are still a long way off from, but getting there)

Really?
50%?

Thats incredible for a northern European nation.
Why is the rest of Europe not doing similar?

Jonny7

comongethappy wrote: »

Really?
50%?

Thats incredible for a northern European nation.
Why is the rest of Europe not doing similar?

They are not German apparently

Also I presume it requires a degree of capital and organisation to set them up, so that rules Italy and Spain out

dlouth15

Jonny7 wrote: »

They are not German apparently

Also I presume it requires a degree of capital and organisation to set them up, so that rules Italy and Spain out

Also, it is not true that over the course of a year, Germany produces 50% of its power from solar.

Jonny7

dlouth15 wrote: »

Also, it is not true that over the course of a year, Germany produces 50% of its power from solar.

Well it does depend on sunlight after all. With the Germans constantly installing panels and increasing storage I presume the figure will be much higher in 10 years

Compared to somewhere like the US, which produces just 0.2% via sunlight, it shows the potential

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

You're advocating that Europe go nuclear. You're also stating that renewables are expensive. I have to conclude that you're asserting that a mass roll-out of nuclear generation across Europe would be cheaper than a mass roll-out of renewables. Ignoring for a moment the feasibility or practicality of either scenario and the simplicity of such a binary choice, given the ever-increasing cost of nuclear and the continuous fall in the cost of renewables, I'm finding it difficult to understand how renewables could be considered "expensive", relative to nuclear.

Well, Spain pays more for electricity than France, as does Germany, and both I suspect for the same reason. Plus we now know that Spains electricity was only so "cheap" because it was subsidised by a massive off-the-bill subvention by taxpayers, specifically those solar panels you were bragging about earlier.

I keep hearing that renewables are "falling in cost" usually from the same Walter Mitty types who talk about storing lightening in jars, underground steam caverns and solar panels made of wood.

Back on planet Earth however we have to deal with the fact that these renewables:

1. Are limited by the laws of physics in how much they can produce, i.e. if you dammed every river and tapped every gust of wind, there would only be a fraction of the worlds energy needs.
2. Have to be subsidised. To the hilt. As 'ze Germans and Danes can tell you because they're paying twice what the rest of Europe does and 3 times what the Americans pay.
3. Only work when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, which has a serious effect on grid stability.
4. Because of the problems posed by 3, leave us more reliant on a single fossil fuel source - gas, much of which has to be imported from Russia. Oh and the CCGT plants needed for this backup work also need to be subsidised. Tynagh, as may have been mentioned above in this thread or some other, is CCGT and it gets a slice of the PSO levy.

If we as a people are to seriously those problems that are real (national and energy security etc) and those we are told are real (Anthropogenic Climate Change) then we need solutions that actually work. If you are claiming that we can do this (as a continent, or as a species) without a nuclear component, that is simply not credible.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Well, Spain pays more for electricity than France, as does Germany, and both I suspect for the same reason.

Oh well if you suspect something then it must be true.

SeanW wrote: »

Plus we now know that Spains electricity was only so "cheap" because it was subsidised by a massive off-the-bill subvention by taxpayers…

Point to a form of electricity generation that has never been subsidised.

SeanW wrote: »

I keep hearing that renewables are "falling in cost" usually from the same Walter Mitty types who talk about storing lightening in jars, underground steam caverns and solar panels made of wood.

These kind of childish comments do nothing to help your argument. The cost of renewable energy has been falling dramatically for decades:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/03/16/smaller-cheaper-faster-does-moores-law-apply-to-solar-cells
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_spring2007.web.dir/Kevin_Taylor/uaf1.htm

SeanW wrote: »

Back on planet Earth however we have to deal with the fact that these renewables:

Are limited by the laws of physics in how much they can produce, i.e. if you dammed every river and tapped every gust of wind, there would only be a fraction of the worlds energy needs.

You really need to do some more research before coming out with this kind of nonsense. Several studies have demonstrated that global energy demand could be met, in theory, by wind power alone:

As the number of wind turbines increases over large geographic regions, power extraction first increases linearly, but then converges to a saturation potential not identified previously from physical principles or turbine properties. These saturation potentials are >250 terawatts (TW) at 100 m globally, approximately 80 TW at 100 m over land plus coastal ocean outside Antarctica, and approximately 380 TW at 10 km in the jet streams.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/39/15679.full.pdf+html

Global energy demand is considerably lower than 80 TW.

SeanW wrote: »

Have to be subsidised.

I’ve already addressed this. Every form of power generation is subsidised.

SeanW wrote: »

Only work when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, which has a serious effect on grid stability.

I’d like to see your justification for that latter statement.

SeanW wrote: »

Because of the problems posed by 3, leave us more reliant on a single fossil fuel source - gas, much of which has to be imported from Russia.

Why can’t we use anything other than gas?

SeanW wrote: »

If we as a people are to seriously those problems that are real (national and energy security etc) and those we are told are real (Anthropogenic Climate Change) then we need solutions that actually work. If you are claiming that we can do this (as a continent, or as a species) without a nuclear component, that is simply not credible.

I never said anything about removing nuclear from the system completely. What I did say, and what you failed to address, was:

You're advocating that Europe go nuclear. You're also stating that renewables are expensive. I have to conclude that you're asserting that a mass roll-out of nuclear generation across Europe would be cheaper than a mass roll-out of renewables. Ignoring for a moment the feasibility or practicality of either scenario and the simplicity of such a binary choice, given the ever-increasing cost of nuclear and the continuous fall in the cost of renewables, I'm finding it difficult to understand how renewables could be considered "expensive", relative to nuclear.

steddyeddy

We need to develop the hydrogen engine and develop better mechanisms for hydrogen storage and release.

SeanW

Point to a form of electricity generation that has never been subsidised.

I can only speak to what is happening now. In the Irish context, we pay for electricity in the rate, which also includes grid maintenance, VAT etc. But we subsidise certain things in the PSO levy. Peat power (why on Earth we're paying for that) renewables, and the CCGT plants that are required to compensate for their instability.

djpbarry wrote: »

These kind of childish comments do nothing to help your argument.

But that's exactly what I've been seen.

The cost of renewable energy has been falling dramatically for decades:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/03/16/smaller-cheaper-faster-does-moores-law-apply-to-solar-cells
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_spring2007.web.dir/Kevin_Taylor/uaf1.htm

Even if that's true, the environmental-left has been opposing nuclear power since the '70s and earlier. So as questionable as renewables are now, they must have been seriously off the wall back in '78.

You really need to do some more research before coming out with this kind of nonsense. Several studies have demonstrated that global energy demand could be met, in theory, by wind power alone:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/39/15679.full.pdf+html

Estimates obviously differ, I saw a video from a high-up professor in Caltech claiming that onshore wind could only offer a fraction of that.

http://fora.tv/2011/10/26/Reinventing_the_Leaf_Future_Sources_of_Fuel

Global energy demand is considerably lower than 80 TW.

Correct.

I’d like to see your justification for that latter statement.
Why can’t we use anything other than gas?

I'm glad you asked, these two questions are interrelated. Traditional power plants, including nuclear work on the simple premise of using a heat source to boil water to steam, to turn a turbine, to generate electricity. Sounds simple, but by convention it is not very flexible. You can plan to have a boiler running cooler at some times than others, but at some cost to efficiency, usually planning ahead a least a few hours, or based on known patterns.
So the first problem is the normal cycle of higher usage at peak, say weekday evenings, versus a low of usage in the very early morning. That can be dealt with a certain level of spinning down of steam fired plant, hyrdoelectricity and peaking plant to deal with large but expected increases in demand. Even still, the end price paid by the utilities and in some juristictions the consumer, will vary with the changes in supply and demand.
The problem gets worse when large scale renewables are added to the grid because the output of these has no relation whatsoever with demand. You could have, for example, a fall-off in production due to dieing down winds or overcast conditions, right at the moment everyone wakes up and turns on their kettles for the morning tea/coffee, or comes home from work to turn on the PC/TV. Converselyyou could have a sudden surge in renewables output as the wind picks up when everyone is going to bed, or the sun comes out and everyone decides to go out for a drive/picnic/the beach or whatever.

So now you've pushed the demand for flexibility on the part of baseline generators well beyond what they're capable of, or were designed to provide. The Germans have shown us how problematic this can be - their wholesale rates fluctuate violently - as low as -€100MW and the overpowering in their grids which they've tried to dump on their Eastern neighbors leading countries like Poland, the Czech and Slovak republic, to put massive "OFF" switches on their German border.

The only practical way to resolve this as far as I am aware, is to use a gas fuel in a type of plant called CCGT, or Combined Cycle Gas Turbines, which is a good deal more flexible than most other dispatchable plant types. I have 3 issues with this:

1. It wastes gas that should be saved for future use in transport, home heating, cooking, peaking plant etc. (opportunity cost)
2. The CCGT plants themselves are not cheap and in the Irish context, Tynagh has a CCGT plant of ~400MW, but it has to take a part of the PSO levy.
3. Doing this on continent-wide basis leaves Western Europe more dependent than it should be on imported gas, e.g. Russia, Qatar etc.

I never said anything about removing nuclear from the system completely.

Mainstream environmentalists want both - full de-nuclearisation of the world, along with large scale cuts in CO2.

What I did say, and what you failed to address, was:

My view is simple:

1. The French seem to be doing something right, and I believe they provide a template for other large nations to follow.
2. I am implacably opposed to ANY energy strategy that increases the power systems' reliance on gas. Because of both the opportunity cost of saving it for a better use in the future, and implications of imports for national and energy security.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Estimates obviously differ, I saw a video from a high-up professor in Caltech claiming that onshore wind could only offer a fraction of that.

“High-up professors” are right about everything?

SeanW wrote: »

The problem gets worse when large scale renewables are added to the grid because the output of these has no relation whatsoever with demand. You could have, for example, a fall-off in production due to dieing down winds or overcast conditions, right at the moment everyone wakes up and turns on their kettles for the morning tea/coffee, or comes home from work to turn on the PC/TV. Converselyyou could have a sudden surge in renewables output as the wind picks up when everyone is going to bed, or the sun comes out and everyone decides to go out for a drive/picnic/the beach or whatever.

Yes, this could happen, but it is extremely unlikely. The wind, for example, doesn’t just suddenly appear or disappear on a grid-wide level – the forecasts are pretty accurate.

SeanW wrote: »

The only practical way to resolve this as far as I am aware, is to use a gas fuel in a type of plant called CCGT, or Combined Cycle Gas Turbines, which is a good deal more flexible than most other dispatchable plant types.

Yes, but there’s always a minimum level of generation required and this can be met with less flexible plant types.

SeanW wrote: »

It wastes gas that should be saved for future use in transport, home heating, cooking, peaking plant etc. (opportunity cost)
[*]The CCGT plants themselves are not cheap and in the Irish context, Tynagh has a CCGT plant of ~400MW, but it has to take a part of the PSO levy.
[*]Doing this on continent-wide basis leaves Western Europe more dependent than it should be on imported gas, e.g. Russia, Qatar etc.

So you’re only against importing Russian gas if it’s used in electricity production?

SeanW wrote: »

The French seem to be doing something right, and I believe they provide a template for other large nations to follow.

But is it practical for everyone to do so? How much will it cost? Is there enough uranium to go ‘round?

Probably also worth pointing out that a very sizeable chunk of the world’s uranium production occurs in the Russian sphere of influence.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

“High-up professors” are right about everything?

Having watched the video, the fellow seemed to be fairly clued in, so yes, I had reason t believe him.

Yes, this could happen, but it is extremely unlikely. The wind,
for example, doesn’t just suddenly appear or disappear on a grid-wide level – the forecasts are pretty accurate.

These things do happen though, if not in the short space of time you had in mind, but they do all need to be provided for. Hence the unavoidable need for fast reacting CCGT, and the more fluctuation between supply and demand - for any reason - the more is needed.

Yes, but there’s always a minimum level of generation required and this can be met with less flexible plant types.

True, most likely, but that's only part of the problem.

So you’re only against importing Russian gas if it’s used in electricity production?

I'd prefer we were able to avoid it altogether but I am a realist. We could avoid using gas for power generation people might still need the stuff to heat their homes, and some bright spark in some government might think "Hey, why don't we promote using gas in cars?" Not much I could do if that happened. My focus is therefore on those things that can be fixed quickly.

But is it practical for everyone to do so? How much will it cost? Is there enough uranium to go ‘round?

The French have most of the answers. They have a 95% non-fossil power system. They recycle all their fuel, making whatever they have go much further, whereas most other nuclear power countries waste their fuel on a "once through" basis. Their electricity prices are among the lowest in Europe. They export to willing neighbours, unlike Germany, there are no giant off switches on other country French borders to keep the unstable national grid for overpowering and crashing neighbouring systems. The supply is reliable for critical industrial uses, and presumably the wholesale price stays within a tighter range as well.

Probably also worth pointing out that a very sizeable chunk of the world’s uranium production occurs in the Russian sphere of influence.

Perhaps, but a lot of it is not. More to the point, you can hoard Uranium but you can't gas.