Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Andreas

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,888

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Andreas

    Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    I'm surprised at that Andreas, and I can only think the debate needs to move on another 5 years and people will seriously be talking about replacing all primary energy (except perhaps aviation) generation needs with nuclear power. To achieve Kyoto agreement targets, ensure security of supply and to bring the cost of initial installation per MW down.

    That's just not possible, technically. Anything beyond 50% is getting you into trouble from a grid-management perspective.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Sorry, I can't see that statement so clearly anywhere in the article. Unless you interpret Piebalgs in that way, but he could also be talking about forward-looking analysis, i.e. reducing the increase in gas dependence that would otherwise take place. I would point out that he also says nuclear will reduce dependence on oil - which tells me all I need to know about the statement. It is political, not analytical. Piebalgs is a smart guy, he understands the issue - this comment is for public consumption.

    So let me rephrase my original statement - nobody who participates in a serious discussion thinks that nuclear will replace gas. Happy now?

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    There should be an interview on Finnish public radio with me in the near future, on the question of nuclear, EU energy policy, etc. (no, I am not kidding). Let me know if you listen to it, I'd like to get some feedback - I tried hard to give the journalist some very nice soundbites.

    This article is quite interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/business/19wind.html?em&ex=1216699200&en=4a3afc175ae1dbbb&ei=5087%0A

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Freeking hilarious.

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Now you have to bear in mind Manchester is cold. Penguins frollick in the canals during the summer and you cant go five feet in the city centre without an eskimo trying to sell you the big issue so the heat was a shock I must admit. There was also an alarming lack of rain.

    Awesome!

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    New Zealand is special because hydro and wind are the perfect combination. You can easily use hydro to smooth out your wind variations, and you can use surplus wind to run pumped storage in reverse. It does not get any better than that in terms of economics.

    While electricity can be used to heat and cook, switching to it has very serious economic and environmental impacts. On both of these counts, under the current conditions electricity is much less attractive in Europe than gas. While there is a link at system-level, it is tenous, so tenous not to matter in policy-making.

    Nobody in Europe is thinking that nuclear will replace gas. Currently proposed new nuclear built (with the probable exception of Finland) will replace either:

    a) retiring nuclear plant (France, UK, Bulgaria)

    B) retiring coal plant (UK)

    c) service additional demand (France, Italy, this is also driving the discussion in Ireland)

    And will also be used to drive down the carbon content of the electricity systems. But regardless of how much new nuclear is being proposed (and it is not a lot), new gas plant is still being built at a rapid clip.

    What has prompted the resurgence in nuclear is not Russia cutting off gas to Ukraine for one day two and half years ago, it is the realisation that Kyoto targets and post-Kyoto ambitions are going to be impossible to realise without nuclear.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    For those who are interested, the Spanish grid operator has wind data, current and historical, easily accessible. Spain is the second-biggest wind operating country in Europe, maybe the world (never quite sure where the US is on any given day).

    https://demanda.ree.es/eolica.html

    You need minimal Spanish. Just pick a date on the calendar, click "consultar oltra fecha", and you see what the key issue with wind is.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    AIUI, we're one of the very few places that can use hydro for a significant portion. Low popn density, and tiny overall popn, may also come into it. Also, the market is essentially a monopy (which worked pretty well, up till about ten years ago :mad: )

    But yeah, more wind means less carbon.

    Norway is most comparable to your situation, is my guess. For another small island nation without a hydro endowment, try Ireland. Geography matters, is the conclusion to draw from it.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Because...we have more wind? Less wind? Different electricity???? We dream of electric sheep??

    I suggest you study the characteristics of your own electricity supply industry and compare them with others, if you do not want to take my word for it. Sarcasm born out of ignorance is never a pretty sight.

    The general principles are the same - if wind is generating part of your requirements then that's less oil/coal/gas you have to burn or water you can leave in lakes.

    Yes, but there is a cost to it. It maybe worth paying it, it may not.

    If you are a net importer of hydrocarbons then using less of them hits right on the "bottom line" - especially if you are' date=' say, Europe importing billions of cubic feet of gas from Russia...[/quote']

    Most of this gas is not actually used for electricity production, so wind is not going to help with it. As was pointed out above, wind will not do a lot to gas use, you still need gas to smooth out variations. It'll pretty much kill coal in Europe if the 20% target for renewables (which translates into ca. 35% in electricity) is achieved. But not gas, it won't make a (edit: significant) dent in that.

    Let's check in 2020.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Ironclad proof we're being screwed by the oil companies

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    The seven sisters no longer exist, since a lot of them have merged with each other.

    Two of the seven were not US companies, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP and its predecessors.

    Today there are the big six, half of them again not US.

    Royal Dutch Shell is a joint British/Netherlands company, which used to have HQs in both Den Haag and London.

    BP/Amoco is a British-American company, with HQ in Britain.

    Total is, like, totally French.

    Exxon/Mobile is US.

    Chevron is US.

    ConocoPhilips is US.

    If you want to make it seven, throw in Statoil/Hydro, state-owned Norwegian company, biggest offshore operator in the world, with revenues of about 105 bn USD.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Iranian nuclear power, illegal how?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Adam

    Article III(1) is the key to the verification system, but this is based on rules not in the treaty, but instead developed by the IAEA.

    Basically if you sign you have to allow to verify.

    I read the safeguards for material leaving the facility simply that so that it is subject to another inspection regime (presumably a tougher one), not that it is without the jurisdiction of the treaty.

    You can only leave the treaty if you can cite and demonstrate "extraordinary events". For NK that might not have been an issue, since the ruling nutbar there seems not to mind international sanctions, but Iran is a different kettle of fish, they can not afford to be an outcast, and leaving may cost them support they still have. So it is a diplomatic problem for them, because of their heavy dependence on external trade. They are neither big enough (India), nor small enough (NK), nor allied enough to the US (Pakistan), to just leave or ignore the treaty.

    Article IV only concerns peaceful use. Article II rules out developing military use material for non-nuclear nations. That is the basis on which the Iranians are being told to knock it off.

    The full text is here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Andreas,

    Hope the summer finds you in good health.

    I was wondering if you've read into T. Boone Pickens' Wind plan, and if so your thoughts.

    Regards,

    Hi Kerry

    No I haven't. The fundamental point remains though, wind is not a panacea, it has its own issues. The most important one of them at the moment is that if you order a turbine today, you'll get it in 2010.

    These are not insurmountable, but they need to be addressed.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    I dont' see why wind being able to supply only a proportion of power requirements is an argument not to use wind at all' date=' as seems to the the direction some are taking here.[/quote']

    I don't think that wind has no role to play, but one should be careful in assessing how much it can contribute, and not get carried away.

    New Zealand is a special case by the way, it is hardly comparable to other electricity markets, especially not larger ones.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0
×
×
  • Create New...