Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

The Swedish commission against oil dependence delivers its report

by Starvid Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 04:54:30 AM EST

As you might know, due to the worries over peak oil the Swedish government created a "commission against the oil dependence" (chaired by the PM himself), which has held several televised hearings on oil and alternative energy. It has now released its report on these subjects.

From the diaries - whataboutbob


The target has been an elimination of the oil dependence in 2020. By this one has not meant that no oil should be used in Sweden in 2020 but that there should be adequate alternatives should the price of oil increase further.

The commission has been led by prime minister Göran Persson and has consisted of people from academia and executives of large corporations (like Volvo), a former boss of the powerful metalworker's union and powerful lobbies (especially the farmers and forestry lobbies). In my opinion this has coloured the findings of the commission quite a bit.

But before we look at their solutions, let's look at their opinion of peak oil.

Peak oil?

  • According to the international oil industry there were originally 6000-8000 billion barrels of oil in the ground, of which 3000-4000 billion should be exploitable, and of these 1000 barrels have been produced. On top of this comes maybe 1000 billion barrels of unconventional oil. At the current rate of consumption this should be adequate for 100 years.

  • IEA says that oil will peak in 2020-2030 but BP says 2015-2020. The experts of ASPO (The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas) says oil will peak in 2010 and that production will decline fast after that.

  • The commission agrees with the results of the study made by the Royal Academy of Science, which in short is that:

  • For every barrel found three are consumed, global demand is increasing by 2 % per annum while most producing countries show decreasing production.

  • Known reserves are 900-1200 billion barrels, maybe a total of 1300 billion barrels might yet be found.

  • The Mideast is a key area with 60 % of the worlds oil reserves. These and some of the other big producing countries are characterised by political unrest.

  • Oil prices will remain high due to increasing demand in industrialised countries and increasing demand in industrialising countries like India and China.

All in all, the commission believes in peak oil and seems to think it might happen pretty soon.

Solutions?
Then, what does the commission tell us we should do? First of all they tell us that what we do must not endanger the sustainable growth of the Swedish economy nor that the solutions sought by Sweden are optimal for all other countries. By this they mean that Sweden is a large forested country with a small population and hence has a very good potential for biofuels, which they call "the green gold of Sweden".


The prime minister hugs some gold

Then what concrete measures do they advocate?

  • Energy consumption should be cut by 20 % through efficiency in 2020.

  • Oil heating should be completely eliminated in 2020.

  • Gasoline and diesel use by road transports, including the transports required by farming, forestry, fishing and construction should be cut by 40-50 % until 2020.

  • Industry should cut its oil use by 25-40 % until 2020.

Reaching these "extraordinary ambitious" goals will require "very powerful investments" in the three sectors of heating, industry and transportation.

Giant push for biofuels
Due to the special Swedish situation with few people on lots of land (and the influence of the farm and forest lobby...) a special focus has been put on biofuels.

  • Forest growth should be increased by 15-20 % by more efficient forestry and highly intensive production on a few percent of the forest area.

  • Energy crops should be planted on 300.000-500.000 hectares of used and unused farm land.

  • Pilot and demonstration plants for "second generation" biofuels like forest ethanol should be built.

The only conflict among the members of the report is that the professor of resource theory argue that import restrictions on foreign biofuels (Brazilian ethanol) should be eliminated while the forest and farm lobbies of course think that they should remain.

Electricity
While Sweden use almost no oil (or other fossil fuel) for power generation, Sweden is a part of the European grid which is to a high degree powered by fossil fuels. Reducing electricity consumption in Sweden will mean exports of clean power to the Continent will increase and hence  total CO2 emissions will decrease. The commission strenously focuses on that the power demands of industry must be met in a secure way.

The commission propose that state and industry cooperate to:

  • Reduce power consumption by 40 % in the non energy intensive industry.

  • Increase domestic renewable power generation. Wind power should be expanded to 10 TWh in 2015 (current power consumption is 150 TWh). Combined heat and power plants should generate 25 TWh of power in 2010. Already exploited rivers could be further exploited for hydroelectricity.

  • Electrical heating of houses should be reduced.

Energy gases
The commission does not think there should be any large scale introduction of natural gas in the Swedish energy system. It would reduce security of supply, increase emissions of CO2 and (most importantly) become a threat to the biofuels industry (hmm, who wrote this report again?).

The current small system of natural gas on the western coast should be used in a rational way, and if industries want to use natural gas instead of oil they should use train, truck or ship transported LNG. No more pipelines should be built.

Transportation
To reach the target of reducing the consumption of diesel and gasoline by 40-50 % there are two main plans. One is making lots of biofuels and is described above. The other is efficiency and new technology.

  • More diesel vehicles as they are 25-30 % more efficient than their gasoline equivalents. Like in the US, in Sweden diesel vehicles are rare compared to the situation on the Continent.

  • Hybrid vehicles in general and plug-in hybrids in particular.

  • Swedish cars are old and inefficient. The Swedish car fleet should become younger.

  • Cars should be lighter.

  • More goods should be transported by ship and rail, less on truck.

  • Make mass transit cheaper and more attractive.

  • Build high speed rail.

  • Reduce air travel.

  • Increase telecommuting.

There are lots of other stuff in the report but I can't bother to write all the tax and regulations changes. Sadly the report has not been translated into English.

Criticism of the report
While the report is very welcome as it puts more light on the vitally important energy issues, it's not in any way perfect.

The focus on biofuels is understandable as Sweden is a large forested country, but it is also heavily influenced by the farm and forestry lobbies. The report does nothing to help say, Belgium, to get out of the oil trap. This focus on Sweden as an isolated island is another important problem with this report. What will happen with the global economy when we hit peak oil? How will it affect the regional security or Sweden's extremely export oriented economy? Questions like these are not even touched.

Issues I find very important like trains, trams and plug-in hybrids are only superficially mentioned, at best. There is nothing about changing the layout of cities so cars are less needed ("new urbanism"). There are no risk analyses of any kind. There are very few concrete ideas. "Build more railroads", yeah, but where and when?

Another issue is the focus on reducing electricity consumption. That might be good on its own merits, but it has nothing to do with using less oil. An especially glaring omission of the report is nuclear power, which generate more than half of all power in Sweden. It is only named one(1) time in the entire report, namely when they say that the hydrogen economy would require as much power as the Swedish nuclear power plants generate.

So, all in all it was a necessary but rambling report (hence my rambling review of it) that the members of the ET would have done much better.  

Display:
Great summary!

Are there any hard facts about biofuels that could be used to our budding investigation of biofuels? How about references to the literature on biofuels?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 12:48:07 PM EST
propose to burn waste paper instead of recycling it.

There are very efficient systems which reduce the escape of pollutants (inks, fillers etc) from used paper to zero.

Finland makes many millions of tons of paper a year, but thanks to EU directives, is obliged to recycle it. The collection system is efficient, and a high proportion of recovered, but the process of de-inking is energy intensive. That is viable in middle and southern Europe where the 5 - 7 times that paper can be recycled produces more than marginal energy savings. Rhein Papier in Germany is a good example of a newsprint producer that uses 100% recovered fibre.

But 'virgin' paper is always needed to replenish fibre stocks. It makes more sense therefore (so the heretics say) to burn paper in Finland (and Sweden) and get energy from it, rather than spend energy recycling an unneccesary product.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 01:14:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW at least two or three trees are planted in Finland for every tree cut down - by law. We now have 22,150,982 hectares of certified forest - meaning, basically, managed plantation forest.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 01:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are some, but it's all in Swedish I am afraid. And I am not that good at biofuels.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 01:31:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll see how far my rusty German and my 2 years of Danish 6 years ago can get me. With imagination everything is possible.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 01:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A couple of steins and a mouthful of hot potato should help.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 02:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I must say I do like coming here as you can always count on carefully reasoned argument. Bork, bork, bork!


-----
sapere aude
by Number 6 on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 12:53:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Swedish Road Administration website has a pair of reports (with references) on biofuels in english: WELL-TO-WHEEL EFFICIENCY for alternative fuels from natural gas or biomass from 2001 and Sustainable Fuels, Introduction of biofuels from 2002.

Also, hello all. Longtime reader, first time poster. Amazingly good stuff here, this site takes a lot of time to get through every day, and is worth every minute.

by Omada on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 06:32:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hello, Omada, and welcome (as a poster)! Thanks especially for the two references!
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 01:34:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Welcome!
Interesting links.


-----
sapere aude
by Number 6 on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 12:54:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not at all - you seem to have summarised it well, though I haven't read it.

Finland is choosing a different route, thru nuclear power, and the deep facilities to dispose of the waste (discussed in an ealier diary)

I am doing my bit by outworking as much as possible. I've only been once to the office in the last 10 days, though I have had a couple of longer trips to see my daughter perform in a play, and to enjoy midsummer in the countryside. I reckon I can get office trips to Helsinki (65 kms there and back) down to once a week, and fit in all my other capital business on the same day.

I never visit the bank as everything can be done online. I shop locally, except once a month I stock up at the Indian and Vietnamese stores in town.

I am in communication with most clients daily, by mobile or email, but meet maybe once a month more for social reasons. But I do miss the brainstorm sessions which now only happen once or twice a week.

But we have very good bus and train connections which I use when planning social evenings thanks to the heavy (quite rightly) Finnish drinkdrive laws

I'd be interested to know how many other ETers manage to outwork...

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 01:01:21 PM EST
How badly designed are Swedish urban areas?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 01:09:01 PM EST
The old parts are all right, but people got all insane in the 60's and 70's and built vast outlying areas. Either suburbia or banlieus. At best they were connected with subway to the city cores, but often cars were needed. Today the pendulum has swung back and dense square blocks are popular again. Not that anyone ever wanted to live in the suburbs anyway. Only the planners, architects and utopianists wanted them.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 01:19:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Boy, they built some ugly stuff in the 60's. Oh, and just before and after.

-----
sapere aude
by Number 6 on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 12:58:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Finland is choosing a different route, thru nuclear power, and the deep facilities to dispose of the waste

So is Sweden, except it's not politically correct to say that. Right now we are doing the biggest investments in nuclear power since 1985. Capacity is being increased 1550 MW. The new Finnish reactor is 1600 MW.

Not writing that in the report is just spin.


Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 01:22:56 PM EST
The report is widely reported on in the Swedish media, on the evening news and on the major papers webpages.

For those of you who reads Swedish, check this.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 01:54:02 PM EST
Or this.

Leader of the Moderate Party [and leader of the opposition] Fredrik Reinfeldt thinks the Oil commissions targets for reducing the oil dependence are viable.

  • We must use energy more efficiently, we must change from using oil and encourage the use of other transport fuels than gasoline, he says.

  • But Göran Persson should stop claiming that you on top of this can force a phase-out of nuclear power, he continues.



Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 02:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for this summary, Starvid.

I know you say that you're not a biofuels specialist, but do you know if this is true? I have read somewhere (can't find the reference for the moment) that current Swedish consumption of biofuels is 80% imported Brazilian ethanol. Any idea on that?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 03:28:57 PM EST
That is definitely wrong as biofuels generate almost 50 % more energy than nuclear power does in Sweden, and Sweden is the highest per capita user of nuclear power in the world. These biofuels are mainly used for heating.

What might be true is that imported Brazilian ethanol could be 80 % of all biofuels used in the transportation sector. Maybe, I don't know.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 03:50:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
usually refer only to gasoline/diesel substitutes, and should not be included in power production.

Biomass is the (wider term) used for wood and other natural crops used as energy - usually to be burned in home heaters or, increasingly, in industrial power plants.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 05:14:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then, what does the commission tell us we should do? First of all they tell us that what we [do] must not endanger the sustainable growth of the Swedish economy

Growth first, peak oil and global warming be damned. Why GDP growth?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 03:13:32 AM EST
Because they don't know anything else and they're scared shitless.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 03:34:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you, Colman. I feel much better now.

Now seriously, it's great that Sweden is taking this stance because it will force the EU to get serious on energy policy (unanimity at the council, and all that).

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 04:44:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There I am again with my questions about growth and all that. So, please, can anyone tell me what the alternative of GDP growth is?
by Nomad on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 05:02:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Serious questions to ponder...
  1. What does GDP measure?
  2. Why does it need to grow?
  3. Does the need for GDP growth outweigh any other policy goal?


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 05:04:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Did we ever do a really serious analysis of this? If not, maybe we should...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 05:10:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I suggest a front-page post that can go into the debate box. The series tile (for it is a series) should be "socratic economics". Socratic because we would use irony and maieutics.

irony feigning ignorance in order to expose the weakness of another's position.

The Greek word eironeia--ειρωνεία applied particularly to understatement in the nature of dissimulation. Such irony occurred especially and notably in the assumed ignorance which Socrates adopted as a method of dialectic, the "Socratic irony." Socratic irony involves a profession of ignorance that disguises a skeptical, non-committed attitude towards some dogma or universal opinion that lacks a basis in reason or in logic. Socrates' "innocent" inquiries expose step by step the vanity or illogicality of the proposition by unsettling the assumptions of his dialogue partner by questioning or simply not sharing his basic assumptions. The irony entertains those onlookers who know that Socrates is wiser than he permits himself to appear and who may perceive slightly in advance the direction the "naïve" questioning will take. Fowler describes it:

The two parties in his audience were, first, the dogmatist, moved by pity and contempt to enlighten this ignorance, and, secondly, those who knew their Socrates and set themselves to watch the familiar game in which learning should be turned inside out by simplicity.
Many have interpreted Socrates as not feigning ignorance so much as expressing a form of philosophical skepticism.
maieutics a method of teaching introduced by Socrates. It is one of the four parts of socratic method. It is based on the idea that the truth is latent in the mind of every human being due to his innate reason but has to be "given birth" by questions asked by the teacher and answers given by the student.

The word is derived from the Greek "maieutikos", pertaining to midwifery.

Could you do me this favour? I don't like to post diaries from work anyway.

The title of the first instalment should be Socratic Economics I: Why GDP growth above all else?

For more evidence of this kind of thinking, just look at Jerome's diary "simply dreaming" yesterday on Martin Wolf's article.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 05:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Increase domestic renewable power generation. Wind power should be expanded to 10 TWh in 2015

Laughably unambitious.

Issues I find very important like trains, trams and plug-in hybrids are only superficially mentioned, at best. There is nothing about changing the layout of cities so cars are less needed ("new urbanism"). There are no risk analyses of any kind. There are very few concrete ideas.

Well said.

"Build more railroads", yeah, but where and when?

And by whom? (Let the new privates find the money?)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 05:41:58 AM EST
I think it was Starvid who pointed out on an earlier occasion that Sweden is not too good for wind...

However, from Stanford's map it seems that at least Götaland and especially the west and south coast should have good wind potential.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 05:47:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you inspect the map, Sweden appears better suited for wind than Spain or Germany, both of which now produce above the 10 TWh/year level, and didn't stop further growth.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 07:47:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Southern third of sweden, certainly. Especially the West coast (facing Denmark and the incoming Atlantic winds).

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 07:50:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Especially considering that this is where the population is...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 07:54:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Göteborg and Malmö don't seem to have an excuse not to have large municipal offshore wind farms.

Unless, of course, Sweden is happy giving away all the wind between the Storebælt and the Lillebælt to Denmark...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 07:56:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One reason wind has not been prioritised is that we have vast amounts of hydroelectricity, which is dirt cheap, and even more nukes with the capital already payed off which is also dirt cheap now. The absolutely cheapest new power generation available is uprating the nukes which is just what is being done.

Electricity generation is exciting and very important but it should not have been included in the report. More nuclear power or wind mills will do nothing about oil dependence.

Even if all cars became plug-in hybrids it would only increase Swedish power consumption 5 % (which happen to be just the amount of power generated by the prematurely closed Barsebäck nuclear power plant...), while reducing needs for liquid fuels 70 % (according to professor Mats Alaküla at the university of Lund, the guy who built Saab's E100 hybrid convertible).

On a tangent, I broke the 1000 km barrier on my electric scooter today. Hooray!

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 10:12:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But that is just it. Where lots of people live, you have a lot of NIMBY and political power.

Something that really bugs me about the NIMBY attitude towards wind-power is that the environmental consequences are so negliable compared with the huge hydropower plants. Of course the hydro power was built in the political periphery of Sweden. The northern part.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Jun 30th, 2006 at 12:21:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are they? Think of the effects of say a 900 MW hydroplant (like Harsprånget) operating at 50 % capacity factor. One big dam and one partly flooded valley.

That's equivalent to 1800 MW windpower operating at 25 % capacity factor. If we use the 3,6 MW GE turbine (104 metres rotor diameter on a maybe 70 metre high tower, total height maybe 120 metres). Then we need exactly 500 of these big turbines. These turbines will cover a quite large area. And the power will be more expensive and intermittent instead of easily regulated.

And that's just for one hydroplant.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 08:08:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Clearly you did't have your great-grandfather's village flooded by a dam.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 08:11:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is not just the valley that has been flooded, the river both downstreams and upstreams has been changed. So I would say you are talking about some 400 kilometers of river changed.

The ecosystem of the rivers has been changed. Local variants of fish has been viped out and replaced  by the power companies planting out other variants of those species in the lakes where they have been ordered to keep the fish levels constant. Compared with a few birds who would have flown into a window anyway.

And the beauty of the mighty falls has been eradicated. Sure you can argue the beauty of a powerplant dam, but then you can also argue the beauty of wind power.

There was a lot of resistance against for example Harsprånget. Lot of which has since been more or less forgotten.

År 1918 inleddes utbyggnaden av Harsprånget – ett bygge som mötte mycket motstånd på vägen och avbröts under en lång period. Inte förrän 1952 invigdes kraftstationen

In 1918 the building of Harsprånget began - a project that ran into a lot of resistance and was aborted for a long period. The plant was not opened until 1952

Source (in swedish, the translation is mine):
The museum of technological history



Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 10:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
  • The biggest planned wind energy installation in Sweden, Kriegers Flak, has received green light from the government. 128 turbines will be built offshore Trelleborg near Denmark. The yearly power production will be 2 TWh and the cost of the plant will be 10-12 billion crowns. As a comparison, the new Finnish reactor will cost 25-30 billion crowns and generate 13 TWh per year.

  • The ban on nuclear power reasearch, in effect since 1986 when it was touted as "eternal legislation", will be lifted on July 1 2006.

  • The Royal Academy of Science (the people who made the oil report the oil commission based their conclusions on) has issued a report on nuclear energy.


Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 11:23:55 AM EST
The yearly power production will be 2 TWh and the cost of the plant will be 10-12 billion crowns. As a comparison, the new Finnish reactor will cost 25-30 billion crowns and generate 13 TWh per year.
What is the estimeted cost of fuel and of fuel, fuel dispsal and decomissioning of the nuclear plant?

What is the estimated running cost of the wind farm and whatever the appropriate "end of life" cost is?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 11:27:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
what a mess. I meant "fuel, fuel disposal and decommissioning"...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 11:27:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nuclear and wind have pretty much the same fuel, O&M costs etc. Both have high capital costs and are a lot like each other. Only wind have even higher capital costs.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 01:17:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope. Wind has no fuel cost, lower maintenance costs, higher capital costs (due to government guarantees for nuclear) and much lower external costs. The price you quote for the Finnish reactor is an introducory price, the Franco-German developers' (heavily subsidized) research costs aren't included, not to mention the cost-savings-related deficiencies of the EPR.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 01:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Great diary. Thanks!

-----
sapere aude
by Number 6 on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 01:06:06 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries

Impeachment gets real

by ARGeezer - Jan 17
18 comments

A Final Warning

by Oui - Jan 10
106 comments

Environment Anarchists

by Oui - Jan 13
4 comments

More Spanish repression

by IdiotSavant - Jan 6
8 comments