|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 1, 2012 14:23:19 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 1, 2012 23:51:11 GMT 9.5
It certainly makes one more argument for local low tech. solutions. The options should be more than nuclear and fossil fuel. The whole mega-state perpetual growth perspective needs to be challenged.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 2, 2012 10:00:59 GMT 9.5
It certainly makes one more argument for local low tech. solutions. Such as? Just saying that solutions should be local and low tech doesn't mean anything, you have to propose a specific solution if you want to be taken seriously. The options should be more than nuclear and fossil fuel. So what? The universe doesn't care what you (or anyone else) thinks. The whole mega-state perpetual growth perspective needs to be challenged. No, actually it needs to be defended as it is our only hope for things to get better in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 3, 2012 15:31:57 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 3, 2012 16:45:25 GMT 9.5
it is obvious that the solution to the japanese problem is solar power. No it isn't. Actually it is far more obvious the the solution is to get rid of the anti-nuclear movement (then they could restart all those idled carbon neutral generators). Besides, Japan doesn't have enough land area to be 100% renewable. In Japan, solar is the obvious answer to the danger of summer outages and it would combine much better with additional need for cooling climate systems. The even more obvious answer is to not shut down perfectly safe (in fact the safest on the grid) generators when they could be producing power. |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 3, 2012 22:07:44 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 3, 2012 22:25:39 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 3, 2012 23:19:33 GMT 9.5
It's been shown that the UK can't live on its own renewables ( Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air) and the UK has a lower population density than Japan. I can't see any difference in renewable energy density between the two countries big enough to make it somehow possible (and the burden of proof is on those who claim it can be done). On power source safety, see nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html for how rooftop solar compares with nuclear (at least one type of solar (one of the most common in fact) is more dangerous than nuclear power). On the issue of solar subsidies, feed in tariffs force the grid operator to buy the power whether or not they actually need it (and regardless of whether it causes them other problems). Besides, if solar really were at grid parity you could get rid of all the subsidies and feed in tariffs, so why hasn't that happened? Or is it that solar really isn't at grid parity? |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 6, 2012 18:31:49 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 6, 2012 19:36:23 GMT 9.5
Anon, can you please explain to me, how "nextbig future" comes up with his death numbers for solar? it looks like a pure guess to me! Have you considered reading it? this is no surprise to me. Japans people have been told, that their reactors were the safest. (same story everywhere..) How many members of the public did the Fukushima reactors kill? Oh right, no one. Now everybody pretends that the problem of little oversight was clear to everyone. Japan has bigger problems than that (though their nuclear industry has appeared to be underperforming for some time, like it hadn't gone through the reforms (at least the beneficial ones) of the US nuclear industry after the TMI-2 write-off and subsequent media beatup). You don t win back the confidence of the people, by restarting reactors before the new regulating commitee has In all likelihood Japan the Japanese government is using the nuclear industry as a scapegoat to distract from their shortcomings (it wasn't just nuclear power plants which weren't prepared for that earthquake). the reasons given for the restart of Oi reactor is the fear of blackouts.but people have doubts whether the real fear is by the industry, which doesn t want a demonstration that the country can handle the problem by saving power. It's pretty much already been demonstrated that Japan can't handle it by saving power, it's import more fossil fuels or split atoms (and your third choice of renewable energy really means import fossil fuels which are indeed a delayed form of solar). the best way to handle summer peaks is solar, and japan will make a big move towards solar soon. Japan is not well placed for solar power (though even the countries which are probably won't make all that much of it). Though if you define solar power to mean the energy came from the sun at any point in its 4.5 billion year life then you've just turned fossil fuels into solar energy (I'm becoming convinced that this is what the slogan "solar not nuclear" really means). |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 6, 2012 20:56:22 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 6, 2012 20:58:42 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Jun 6, 2012 23:14:22 GMT 9.5
sod,
I fail to see what point you are trying to make, other than the obvious that you don't like nuclear power.
According to IEA Monthly Electricity Stats, electricity consumption in Japan was down just 2.7% in 2011 as compared to 2010. Despite apparently widespread and sincere efforts to cut consumption. And this in a year with curtailment of industrial production due to the devastation caused by the earthquake. I can't see any evidence to suggest that this year will be much different. While Japan may get by without nuclear power this year, the principal mechanism will be burning fossil fuels and not by energy saving.
Japan may deploy enough PV over the next few years to meet a sizeable chunk of peak summer demand on many days - but not all days when they will have to crank up the gas. So what? Despite the much cited day in Germany where PV met half of demand for a few hours and generated as much power as "15-20 nuclear power plants", PV generates how much of Germany's electricity? Maybe 4%. It's effect on emissions is minor. It is stating the obvious, but this is not where we need to be. If you want to seriously cut emissions then getting rid of the baseload fossil fuel burners is the name of the game. Meeting peak summer demand is a very separate and not that important issue for serious emissions abatement.
Meanwhile, perfectly good low emission baseload capacity sits idle with a huge jump in fossil fuel use that will take many years to decline to 2010 levels if nuclear is not restarted. Japan will not meet previously stated emissions reductions targets. That is really the bottom line.
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 7, 2012 2:43:33 GMT 9.5
i agree with several points you made! Germany has about 2% of solar power, so it can save a maximum of about 2% CO2. BUT: Germany has now 20% renewables, cutting about 20% of CO2 (which starts to be a junk!) Japan has lost about 30% of power supply. It is clear that only existing old fossil could replace it so fast. But if you look at the discussion about restarting nuclear power plants, you will rarely hear the CO2 argument. This is all about money (the real reason behind it) and stopping blackouts (the way it is sold to the public). and as i said above, solar can prevent summer blackouts quite easily. germany has added 6TWh last year. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_GermanyJapan could have done more and could have gotten more output, due to much more sunshine. So with an effort, it could have easily avoided the blackouts. (but as i said above, they aren t the real reason for the restart anyway) so what i am saying is. do not use a false argument to support nuclear power, because people will find out and you wont win back their minds! ps. the saving of 2.7% looks small, but if (like with solar power) you adjust to summer peak by multiplying with 2 (summer focus) and 2 again (daytime) and again with 2 (6 hours peak) you end at an impressive 20%. (in the real world, peak time "saving" is mostly done by shifting demand to different times) |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 7, 2012 5:40:50 GMT 9.5
Are you really trying to claim that installing solar panels is somehow safer than other types of work on roofs? Because if you are it is you who needs to provide the evidence. i also can t figure out the total he used for the nuclear number! It's basically the highest estimate of deaths from Chernobyl which doesn't blatantly contradict reality (based on safety of the rest of the nuclear power industry that's almost all the deaths, especially when you consider that the high estimate for Chernobyl deaths is almost certainly an overestimate). Germany has about 2% of solar power, so it can save a maximum of about 2% CO2. BUT: Germany has now 20% renewables, cutting about 20% of CO2 (which starts to be a junk!) Except when they have to use gas to back them up (and it's already straining their grid). Japan has lost about 30% of power supply. It is clear that only existing old fossil could replace it so fast. It isn't clear that anything else could even over the longer term. Look, with current technology you can choose between nuclear or fossil fuels, saying that you don't want either means you get fossil fuels. But if you look at the discussion about restarting nuclear power plants, you will rarely hear the CO2 argument. This is all about money (the real reason behind it) and stopping blackouts (the way it is sold to the public). People (or at least the majority) care more about the economy than the environment, get over it. Not using paid off (or scraping before paying off) low marginal cost generators which are the safest ones you've got is bad economic policy (the higher fuel costs of fossil fuels are already hurting the Japanese economy, if Japan wants to have industry stay there they must deal with energy costs). Stopping blackouts can be done by building more generators but restarting existing ones happens to be quicker. and as i said above, solar can prevent summer blackouts quite easily. If you've got enough gas backup just in case a cloud rolls in. Besides, you don't prevent blackouts with unreliable sources like solar and wind, it is reliable sources like fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro which prevent blackouts (in many cases by covering up for the deficiencies of the fashionable ones). Japan could have done more and could have gotten more output, due to much more sunshine. So with an effort, it could have easily avoided the blackouts. (but as i said above, they aren t the real reason for the restart anyway) Japan has a major earthquake and tsunami to rebuild from, wasting money on solar when they have a bunch of nuclear reactors lying around (which would need much less spent on safety upgrades to cover the deficiencies discovered at Fukushima) means less money to spend on rebuilding the rest of the country. so what i am saying is. do not use a false argument to support nuclear power, because people will find out and you wont win back their minds! You haven't shown it's false. ps. the saving of 2.7% looks small, but if (like with solar power) you adjust to summer peak by multiplying with 2 (summer focus) and 2 again (daytime) and again with 2 (6 hours peak) you end at an impressive 20%. If you just arbitrarily multiply numbers together you can get anything you damn well want. (in the real world, peak time "saving" is mostly done by shifting demand to different times) Which itself can cause problems (though offering lower off-peak rates as an incentive for those who won't have problems moving their demand around is a good idea). |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 7, 2012 17:15:05 GMT 9.5
|
|
