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.
Absolutely irrelevant. What matters is not how high the ratio of too weak an existing capacity in a different country. It's how long would be a realistic schedule for having a grid with only wind and PV in the UK.
That would take a long while. Yes, I do include the fact that British law makes it harder to deliver quick large scale projects. And remember that to have 100% from wind and PV would need other adjustments than just having the new plants online.
Of course, a new nuclear plant would have major issues too, I'm not saying it should be built, just that PV costs falling does not make it obvious that any other energy source should be scrapped immediately. And I dispute "Given that we are using what's already built until retirement time". If it's coal, it's got to go. If it's oil or gas, to be reduced if possible.
Nobody here disputes that the UK has a lot of wind potential and could do a lot more. Pointing that out does not refute that the country is a very long way from having a grid that uses no other energy source than wind and PV. I find it quite insulting that you gave the impression that it did.
Now the point about nuclear waste actually is an incentive to build a plant -provided it is a fast reactor, using the waste as fuel. Hitachi offered to do it for free if they did not manage to build it within 5 years. How about letting them prove their point while building all the wind turbines that we can in the meantime? Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
But to have wind a very high penetration in the grid, i also stated is now EASY to do FAST in a mature industry, which wind has already proven. I stated the UK could ramp up to 6 gigs a year within 3 years, that's huge. Wind's current capacity total in the UK is 6.5 gigs, equal to 4.5% of annual demand. So i claim 4.5% of new demand met each year by 2015.
Further, it could be even higher, AND it all begins with using already existing under capacity "shovel-ready."
Yes coal must go away fast, and fossils as well. But it's a huge step forward to just use them as old-style base load, and some others for spinning reserve or cold start reserve.
As for Hitachi saving us from coal, that's another discussion. Of course i understand that introducing new technology in our civilization is problem free, with the very first plants working flawlessly over their lifetime, but i can't seem to name another technology of such a scale which hasn't had any number of whoops.
including wind, with regular whoops.... though our whoops ain't all that bad.
Airbus wing cracks anyone?
Fazit: a renewable powered grid is completely feasible, and the 15 year aggressive time frame is more than long enough to make the proper changes.
Yes, and doing it actually comes with real jobs. And the power comes from the energy source that gave us life, which could have some additional benefits for a sick civilization. Without the Hubris of thinking your civilization is capable of building miniature suns yet.
And i mentioned Romania to show that a far less industrialized area has already done it, so perhaps the UK might also be capable of following Romania's lead. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Maybe it was the wrong word -I meant to say that I felt insulted at the idea that I would have said something so dumb.
Anyway, I take your word that you did not imply that.
"First I am not arguing for an all wind and PV grid, as i've stated over and over."
Well, then we're agreed -I must admit that I had read some (not all) of your posts as arguing for that. I must have misunderstood them.
"But to have wind a very high penetration in the grid, i also stated is now EASY to do FAST in a mature industry, which wind has already proven. I stated the UK could ramp up to 6 gigs a year within 3 years, that's huge. Wind's current capacity total in the UK is 6.5 gigs, equal to 4.5% of annual demand. So i claim 4.5% of new demand met each year by 2015."
I don't dispute that as far as the supply chain is concerned. I'm less sanguine about that happening in the UK because of British law. But even if it were on a slightly smaller scale, I'm a big supporter of ramping up thick and fast. Please read anything I ever write about energy with that in mind: I am fully convinced of the possibility and opportunity (from an energetic, environmental and economic perspective) of strongly ramping up renewables.
"Of course i understand that introducing new technology in our civilization is problem free"
Well, I did not say that. But we will have to do something about nuclear waste. Using it as fuel is not the dumbest idea a priori. It may be that we should not do it, but then we need to show how the alternatives are better.
"Without the Hubris of thinking your civilization is capable of building miniature suns yet."
Let's not go there though, please. This kind of arguments have been used against many a scientific progress, especially IVF, without which my first son would not have been born. Let's discuss scientific endeavours on their merits, rather than introducing this kind of moral taboo. Renewables don't need that to sound good -I mean, the name alone is inspiring. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
by gmoke - Apr 22 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 23 3 comments
by gmoke - Apr 30
by Oui - May 15
by Oui - May 14
by Oui - May 135 comments
by gmoke - May 13
by Oui - May 1321 comments
by Oui - May 12
by Oui - May 119 comments
by Oui - May 11
by Oui - May 109 comments
by Oui - May 10
by Oui - May 921 comments
by Oui - May 9
by Oui - May 81 comment
by Oui - May 73 comments
by Oui - May 7
by Oui - May 63 comments
by Oui - May 61 comment
by Oui - May 5
by Oui - May 58 comments