tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post114494776150245507..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: Sweden Nuclear UpdateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1145234524243680172006-04-16T20:42:00.000-04:002006-04-16T20:42:00.000-04:00Yeah, but, I have to tell you, Denmark isn't exact...Yeah, but, I have to tell you, Denmark isn't exactly my idea of a large country spread over an entire continent, cranking out the kind of industrial might that the US does (or at least used to). We can't let the example of small countries on a compact continent mislead us into thinking that it is a generally applicable case (which you didn't do, but I have seen done by others, right here on this blog).<BR/><BR/>For the case of Sweden specially, it seems a questionable public policy to throw away a zero-emissions, reliable, economic energy source and dream about replacing it with ones we know up front won't be able to carry the load. That means either importing energy, or falling back on ancient technology like coal and oil burning, which isn't going to get you any credits on the global warming issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1145213346557400212006-04-16T14:49:00.000-04:002006-04-16T14:49:00.000-04:00While wind power is not the holy grail of energy, ...While wind power is not the holy grail of energy, one shouldn't dismiss it out of hand. <BR/><BR/>It has certain uses, especially if the grid has acess to easily adjustable power (like gas, hydro or pumped storage).<BR/><BR/>Some places have great wind potential. Denmark gets 20 % of their power from wind while other places might not be able to reach even 5 % of power demand.<BR/><BR/>Wind is a good complement but can never be the baseload power. <BR/><BR/>Ban coal, gas and oil and then let nuclear and renewables compete for electricity market share.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1145127024771642272006-04-15T14:50:00.000-04:002006-04-15T14:50:00.000-04:00If you have a 140 TWh demand and a 10 TWh potentia...If you have a 140 TWh demand and a 10 TWh potential, then by my ciphering it is clear that wind power, intermittant as it is, won't be able to carry the load. The people in California found this out the hard way. They bought the lies of the environmentalist wackos and trashed perfectly good generators at Rancho Seco and SONGS-1, and the idiots in Oregon threw away Trojan for no good reason, thinking these stupid ideas about "alternate" energy sources were going to "make up" for those they threw away. They ended up with blackouts, shortages and price spikes. Stupid is as stupid does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1145046597930620182006-04-14T16:29:00.000-04:002006-04-14T16:29:00.000-04:00anonymus: We have imported power before, but gener...anonymus: We have imported power before, but generally we are a power exporter. It depends on the hydrological balance, winter temperature etc.<BR/><BR/>Sweden uses about 140 TWh of electricity every year. Our wind power potential is 10 TWh. <BR/><BR/>Go figure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1145037164378997762006-04-14T13:52:00.000-04:002006-04-14T13:52:00.000-04:00I have heard that when the Swedes shutdown the Bar...I have heard that when the Swedes shutdown the Barseback reactors, the country became, for the first time, a net importer of electricity. Is that true? If so, that is kind of bucking the trend (in the wrong way) of countries trying to become more self-sufficient in various forms of energy. And being that about 40% of the country's electrical generating capacity comes from nuclear plants, it seems like a bad move, kind of like cutting your own throat. I got news: wind "power" ain't gonna carry the load (just ask the folks in California)...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1145026828543408112006-04-14T11:00:00.000-04:002006-04-14T11:00:00.000-04:00There's anecdotal evidence of growing support for ...There's anecdotal evidence of growing support for nuclear plants in the U.S. as well, particularly in struggling small towns eager for new industry and jobs. I'm writing about it today. www.greengop.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1145018138591744652006-04-14T08:35:00.000-04:002006-04-14T08:35:00.000-04:00What is most interesting is that 47 % of the suppo...What is most interesting is that 47 % of the supporters of the ruling Social democrat government support nuclear energy use in the long term while only 34 % of them oppose long term use. <BR/><BR/>Even the supporters of the government oppose the government nuclear phase-out policy.<BR/><BR/>Can a more profoundly anti-democratic policy be found anywhere in the world?<BR/><BR/>An interesting graph showing attitudes on nuclear energy split according to party lines can be found here: http://www.analys.se/opinion/op-bilder/opinion0511_3.gif<BR/><BR/>Purple means "build new additional reactors". <BR/><BR/>Green-blue means "replace the current reactors with new ones when they are to be scrapped due to old age, but don't build new reactors except for replacing the old ones".<BR/><BR/>Yellow means "use the current reactors for their full life time, but don't build any new".<BR/><BR/>Red means "decomission the current reactors by political edict before they are to be scrapped because of economical or safety factors".<BR/><BR/>The parties are, from left to right:<BR/><BR/>M: liberal-conservative<BR/>Fp: liberal<BR/>C: centrist/farmers a bit neoliberal<BR/>Kd: christian democrats<BR/><BR/>The above four parties constitue the center/right-wing opposition.<BR/><BR/>S: social democrats. Leads minority government.<BR/><BR/>V: more or less reformed communists.<BR/>Mp: "greens".<BR/>These two parties are not a part of the government but support it in parliament.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com