The EU report Eric mentions below was released today. Reuters reports,
Also predictable was criticism from the no-solutions gang. Jan Kowalzig, a spokesman from Friends of the Earth Europe, said
While it doesn't give targets for nuclear generation, the Commission's report said
The report also proposed that, even though the current generation target of 12% renewables by 2012 will likely not be met, renewable sources make up 20% of the EU's energy mix by 2020. To do that with intermittent sources like solar or wind, they will surely have to spend a lot of money to improve the transmission and distribution system as last year's blackout demonstrated. In Alberta, Canada $1 billion is already being spent to upgrade the transmission system in order to handle just 900 MW of wind power.
In any case, I wonder if this opens the door for restarts of nuclear power plants that the EU recently forced to close?
The European Commission has announced what it says are the world's most ambitious targets for fighting climate change, proposing the bloc cut greenhouse gases by at least 20 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels.And in a global game of "I'll jump if you jump,"
Brussels also challenged developed nations around the world to cut emissions by 30 percent by 2020, a move the EU would match if others joined in.In addition to addressing climate change concerns the vision for the common energy policy
seek[s] to ease dependence on foreign suppliers and reduce the dominance of big utilities.Predictably, France and Germany had something to say about that and there are a couple of options in the report.
Also predictable was criticism from the no-solutions gang. Jan Kowalzig, a spokesman from Friends of the Earth Europe, said
Scientific findings show that it simply won't be enough for the EU to only reduce CO2 emissions by 20 percent by 2020 if we want to avoid catastrophic climate changeThese are the same people that oppose nuclear power. The EU is already going to miss its target of reducing carbon emissions 8% from 1990 levels by 2012. Yet the gang wants a bigger reduction in carbon emissions AND they want to phase out nuclear power. It just doesn't make sense.
While it doesn't give targets for nuclear generation, the Commission's report said
shutting nuclear reactors will make cutting greenhouse gas emissions harderYou betcha.
The report also proposed that, even though the current generation target of 12% renewables by 2012 will likely not be met, renewable sources make up 20% of the EU's energy mix by 2020. To do that with intermittent sources like solar or wind, they will surely have to spend a lot of money to improve the transmission and distribution system as last year's blackout demonstrated. In Alberta, Canada $1 billion is already being spent to upgrade the transmission system in order to handle just 900 MW of wind power.
In any case, I wonder if this opens the door for restarts of nuclear power plants that the EU recently forced to close?
Comments
In short, an interesting technology but it's hard to see it as economical in large scale without a major increase in electricity cost.
Nuclear is another resource to cause wars and invasions as in Iraq.
A German study has shown that the Sahara Desert could supply many times over all the world's electricity with no emissions using technology developed in California in the 80s, namely 'Concentrating Solar Power'.
That's the safe way forward, then we could criticise Iran for developing nuclear power!
I agree with KenG: your spiel on CSP is interesting stuff, but what does it have to do your claim that "it is not only in Europe that nuclear power would be the wrong choice"? You completely failed to follow up on that one.
I suggest that both technologies be allowed to follow up on their own merits without preemptively ruling one out (as you seem to suggest). There is plenty of energy from coal plants that needs to be replaced; more than enough to go around.
Of course, of the two (nuclear and solar), I have my own opinion of which technology will end up with the lion's share (guess which, or just look at current generation statistics), which I derive from technical and economic considerations. Furthermore, I would personally prefer not to have a significant portion of the Mojave desert, with it's fragile desert ecology, covered from end to end with mirrors, which will do untold ecological damage.
If we are still talking about Europe, I would also like to note that Europe receives far less sunlight than the Mojave desert (or the Sahara desert, Dr. Foreman). Take it from someone who lives there. So what does CSP have to do with Europe?
By the way, efficient transmission lines do nothing to improve the position of piddle power with respect to nuclear power. Assuming gerry wolf is right, you can also place nuclear plants in the desert, taking up only a few acres and fraction of the raw materials and human power needed for a CSP plant, and transmit the power to Europe.
Sorry, but I cannot let that pass without a little criticism. If you think it's difficult to protect the oil wells concentrated in specific key parts of the Middle East, how do you think that western powers will protect the many many fragile mirrors and towers that would be spread all over the dessert for CSP? Talk about an easy target!
Okay ... sheesh ... the "s" key got stuck on my keyboard (the second time was from cut and paste). Sorry, I was in a hurry and the spellchecker doesn't catch that.
After all, his decentralized power generation concept says it's impractical and uneconomic to have large 1000 MW nuclear plants feeding population centers a few hundred miles apart.
I wonder how he would react to huge solar stations in North Africa somehow feeding northern Europe?
Diffuse power sources such as solar and wind will always be piddly compared to nuclear power. After decades of direct subsidies, solar power contributes 0.3% of California's electricity (NNadir's Journal). So you can imagine how little potential solar power has in, say, Michigan or Germany. The technology is ancient, with no breakthroughs on the horizon.
Piddle power (the term comes from sepp.org) fans like gerry wolf don't just say that diffuse power sources can help out a bit; they claim that wind and solar can completely eliminate nuclear power. This silly notion must be beaten down as often as possible.