The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Remember, using resistance heaters with clean power is better than having a gas furnace, despite being an insanely wasteful use of electricity, and not everyone can use heat pumps.
In a (part-)nuclear grid, central heating can obviate this requirement.
For that matter, there is no good reason why we have to replace all current uses of fossil fuels with electricity: Heating requirements can be wholly obviated via appropriate architecture, even in Northern Finland in the winter; the need for transportation can be greatly abridged with improved city planning and settlement patterns; shipping can, for all non-perishable commodities, be powered by sail. The only major uses of fossil fuels I can think of off-hand are air travel (which will need to be replaced by trains and ships), industrial heat sources like furnaces and electricity generation for existing electricity demand.
This will kill the suburbs and radically alter the rural areas, of course. But our way of life is negotiable - the laws of physics are not.
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
What's really interesting is that Swedish power consumption has been pretty flat since 1985 (when the latest nukes came online), but the amount of electrical heating has steadily fallen, after the initial surge in use.
Essentially, the growth in power demand due to economic growth has been hidden by the constant draw-down of electric heaters. Now that that low value-added use of power has more or less been phased out, new generating capacity will be needed to fuel future economic growth.
The idea that the linkage in growth in GDP and power consumption in Sweden has been fundamentally broken, is going to be shown to be an empty shell. This means the projected power surplus of the future will fail to materialise.
Did I mention it would be totally cool to make a study where one can try to falsify this hypothesis? ;)
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
If you are interested in trying to make such a study, I would guess this institution might be interested:
Chalmers: Energi och miljö: Fysisk resursteori
På avdelningen för fysisk resursteori bedriver vi tvärvetenskaplig forskning och utbildning inom områden som hållbar utveckling, energisystem i ett klimatperspektiv, industriell ekologi samt komplexa system.
by Migeru - Jun 26 60 comments
by Bernard - Jun 26 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 27 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 25 85 comments
by rifek - Jun 27 10 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 24 72 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 23 38 comments
by tyronen - Jun 22 38 comments
by rifek - Jun 2710 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 2716 comments
by Bernard - Jun 268 comments
by Migeru - Jun 2660 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 2585 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 2472 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 2338 comments
by tyronen - Jun 2238 comments
by John Redmond - Jun 1726 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1734 comments
by gmoke - Jun 155 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1362 comments
by DoDo - Jun 1231 comments
by Democrats Ramshield - Jun 104 comments
by generic - Jun 81 comment
by fjallstrom - Jun 81 comment
by DoDo - Jun 647 comments
by ARGeezer - Jun 617 comments
by DoDo - Jun 568 comments
by ARGeezer - Jun 270 comments