In Belgium, the local chapter of Greenpeace is calling on the government to close that nation's nuclear power plants earlier than scheduled.
Luckily, not everyone is buying it. One professor ran the numbers, and had this to say:
Professor Jacques De Ruyck, specialist in renewable energy, disagrees with the reasoning that Greenpeace puts forward to encourage the closing of the old nuclear power plants. The oldest nuclear power plants are producing just a small share of the electric energy we use, he says. Meanwhile, Greenpeace is not taking the rising demand for electricity into account. Instead, they estimate that the consumer will cut down on usage by 2.5 to 3 percent a year. “That gigantic percentage is unrealistic”, De Ruyck says.Currently, nuclear energy accounts for 55 percent of Belgium's electricity. Meanwhile, the Belgian Entrepreneurs Union has already asked the government to build a new nuclear power plant.
If we try to both decrease our CO2 production and close the nuclear plants, we may face serious shortages. Electricity will become five times more expensive, De Ruyck says.
2 comments:
I predict that Belgium will continue to derive the vast majority of its electricity from nuclear power. The only question is whether the nuclear power stations are located in Belgium, where they will pay Belgian taxes and enhance the Belgian economy, or whether they will be located in France, paying French taxes and enhancing the French economy.
I wonder how many of those 255 "clean energy projects" that Greenpeace is advocating are gas-fired cogeneration. Elsewhere I've seen that the classic renewable schemes have the potential to address only about 3-4% of Belgium's 2020 electricity requirements.
Post a Comment