Two countries Two energy paths A lesson learned

[signalfire6]

This is propaganda for the Nuke industry. You have yet to solve the spent fuel problem which is a deadly mistake. What kind of industry requires mass evacuation of it's customers if something goes wrong? Got Cancer Yet?

[GCarty80]

@Berlinergruenen

True, but I'm not sure how you compare renewables (naturally measured in power per unit area) with non-renewables (naturally measured in energy per unit mass). Perhaps biofuels (which could theoretically be measured on either basis) could be used to provide a conversion factor?

[ChileEric]

@sunbakedrooster. Also note that even Saudi Arabia, with huge oil reserves and sunny, largely empty deserts, is going nuclear. They are investing 100 Billion US into nuclear and 3 Billion into solar. See a December 9 story at the "Arabian Business" website.

Expect to see similar investment ratios in the future. For every dollar invested in solar, expect 33 dollars to be invested in nuclear.

[ChileEric]

@sunbakedrooster. Renewables are not dominating anything. The only renewable that produces any significant amount of power is hydro-electric. Wind and solar combined produce less than 2% of world electricity. See "Electricity Generation" in Wikipedia. Nuclear is a growing part of the energy mix and Fukushima has hardly slowed that down. Get used to it.

[GCarty80]

Nuclear power has gone through a bad patch recently with the tragedy in Japan, and renewables are still very POLITICALLY popular.

PHYSICAL reality always bats last in the end though. Being popular doesn't necessarily make you _right_.

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 Yeah - you got something right at last! Nukes have gone thru a "bad patch" for the last 30 years -- because of the reality of massive costs.

Renewables are now dominating globally because they are already cheap and keep getting cheaper ...... which is why they dominate global investment now.

That being right streak didn't last long for you!! Being globally popular is making renewable energy the winner..... and nuclear the loser. Get used to it, bub.

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

It was cheap natural gas, not renewables, which outcompeted nuclear in the 1980s and '90s. Helped of course by lawsuits by anti-nuclear campaigners (as well as corrupt politicians in the pocket of fossil fuel interests), which burdened nuclear with expensive and unnecessary regulations.

And energy production is still (unfortunately) dominated by fossil fuels, despite the wind and solar window-dressing.

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 Yuou got something else right. Good for you. Nukes could not compete against cheap coal and gas and now they cannot compete against renewables. It's tought being a nuke cheerleader aint she?!!

Take a day off son and look at reality to see where they world is headed...... clue - it aint nukes.

[mkarnerfors]

@SunBakedRooster The biggest fault in your reasoning is that you're doing the fanboi rant... as if you "win" something by promoting your darling. That's just plain silly. We need a broad and diverse energy mix with all clean sources... with nuclear and renewables side by side.

[mkarnerfors]

@SunBakedRooster That's even less relevant. Trends(!) is just that... an eyeblink's worth of current change. Trends - as you know - can change in an instant. Again: nuclear demonstrates this. What makes you think your favorite trend will last in perpetuity?

[mkarnerfors]

@SunBakedRooster Current market shares are as significant to the energy issue as is the "Top Ten Most Played Right Now" list is to culture. According to the same reasoning, nuclear power is GREAT, when looking at the 1970's energy pop list. Fossils hold 80%... so they are wonderful, right?

[SunBakedRooster]

@mkarnerfors Not "market share", market trend - renewables rapidly growing, nukes are in decline. Nukes keep getting more expensive and renewables keep getting cheaper. The nuke fan club needs to get used to feeling disappointed.

[GCarty80]

Even if wind turbines and solar panels get way cheaper than they are now, can we really afford the LAND that these diffuse renewables require? The fact that you refused to even answer when I asked to see if you knew how much land you'd need to cover with solar panels to get 1 gigawatt of electricity says everything to me.

The disadvantages of nuclear power are mostly from politics. The disadvantages of wind and solar are mostly from PHYSICS.

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 looks like you got your learning from Fox News, bubba! You just keep listing out all the dumbest anti renewable talking points.

Makes no matter to reality - renewables on the up, nukes on the down. That aint going to change no matter how many of these silly little videos you make.

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

I don't even get Fox News in my country (the UK).

[SunBakedRooster]

This video is full of fail.

Grams CO2 / kWh: Denmark = 308; France = 83. (IEA CO2 EMISSIONS FROM FUEL COMBUSTION, 2010) - not 650 and 90.

But citing that number is highly misleading because it tells us nothing about how energy is used or how much electricity is consumed or what the *trend* is.

Tons CO2 / per capita: Denmark = 8 (and falling as they continue to deploy renewables); France = 6 (and stagnant for 20 years).

France are now making massive investments in renewables. Who failed?

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

If there isn't much difference in total CO2 per capita then it can only be because Denmark is far more efficient in its use of NON-electrical energy. Some of this would be hard for France to counter (it's one of Europe's more automobile-dependent countries), but a lot of that is probably down to heating. New French nuclear plants should be designed to provide district heating in order to deal with this inefficiency.

Wind and solar are just useless toys.

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80

Efficiency is part of the reason - lots of CHP. Also, 24% wind - projected to be 50% by 2025.

France has an excellent rail network + public transport. They are no more car dependent than any other country. Unless you have *evidence* for your convenient claim?

You think the French should build nukes in the middle of their cities?! lol.

You got the name wrong - it is the 'Directive on Electricity Production from Renewable Energy Sources' and France are investing far more than needed

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

No, Denmark is about 20% wind, and almost all of it has to be dumped onto Norway's grid, with Denmark buying back Norwegian electricity (generated by hydroelectric turbines -- the one type of renewable energy that is actually worth using IMHO) at a far higher price. Because of this electricity in Denmark costs twice as much as in France.

As for nuclear district heating -- they shouldn't build nukes in the MIDDLE of their cities, as the land's too pricey there ;)

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80

You nuke nuts just make up any nonsense that sounds good to you.

27% of Denmark's total electricity consumption came from renewables in 2009 (Google 'Danish Key Figures'). Of course they buy and sell to neighbouring countries - just as France does with it's nuclear electricity. That is how the European grid is *designed* to work. Duh.

Denmark's electricity is more expensive than France's because they *choose* to set the price high to promote efficiency.

Any more stupidity?

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

Setting electricity prices artificially high may promote efficiency, but it also causes company bosses to think "sod this for a lark -- let's move to China where electricity is cheap."

Expensive electricity was one of the main factors in wrecking California's economy.

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80

Note the way you move from one bullshit claim and distraction to another? Denmark's economy is not "wrecked". Duh.

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

I was talking about California, not Denmark (which had a friendlier climate, and was never a country with lots of heavy industry).

Anyway, did you know that David MacKay's "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air" calculated that it would impossible to power Europe on renewables alone, unless it imported large amounts of solar power from Africa? In my book, that would be neo-colonialism of the worst kind...

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 You still obsessing over this dude? Oookaaay then. Cali's economy was "wrecked" for lots of reasons. It's dumb and false to try and tie it all to energy policy.

I've heard of David MacKay and that he is a nuke shill who has been widely debunked. I also know Germany, Denmark, Spain, Italy and many other countries are going 100% renewable. I trust entire countries putting serious money and their entire economy on the table over some nuke shill who claims they can't do it.

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

Politicians tell lies all the time. Physics never lies.

And where is your evidence that David MacKay has been paid by the nuclear industry? (That's what a "shill" is after all -- someone paid to tell lies.)

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 who said anything about politicians except you? You need to read more widely. there are many analysis from many sources that show how 100% renewable power can be achieved. If you were interested in learning you would have googled to find them and educated yourself -- but the fact you havent shows you don't want to learn.

I believe the scientists and engineers of entire countries -- but you believe whoever you want, bub.

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

Here's a question to see if you know what's involved...

Assuming you had a perfectly efficient energy storage system, roughly what area of solar panels would you need to replace a single 1-gigawatt nuclear power station?

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 Your question demonstrates two things. Your simplistic understanding of energy production....... and the fact that you try to distract with dumb questions when you lose the current argument.

Nukes are losing market share globally and clean energy is on the rise..... thats a process that is not slowing down..... no matter how many idiotic videos you make.

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

Nukes are losing market share because politicians wish to appeal to pro-renewables romantics such as yourself, not because renewables are objectively better.

In what way exactly is my question "dumb", or displaying a "simplistic understanding of energy production"? Please educate me...

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 When you refer to entire countries like Germany as "pro-renewables romantics" it shows how desperate your are to rationalize why your nuke fantasy is not coming true. The Chinese are also deploying far more renewables than nukes.

With solar now hitting grid parity in the sunniest areas and still falling in cost the future is going to be owned by solar - and nukes are going to suffer even more. We don't need this old, expensive, dangerous technology .... and that is why it is dying.

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

It won't be the first time that the German nation has marched itself off a cliff in pursuit of a romantic fantasy. As for the Chinese, they're building nukes for themselves (limited mainly by the need to train up engineers), and wind turbines and solar panels to sell to gullible Westerners.

What do you mean by solar energy "hitting grid parity"? Presumably you're not adding the cost of storing energy for night-time use...

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 There's nothing your not confused about is there. Germany is powering ahead with renewables and China is deploying more wind power than any country in the world - and recently passed USA on solar.

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 its unlikely any new coal plants will be built - that's just more Fox News koolaid you're spraying ...... but even if a couple do get built the trend and longterm goals are clear for Germany: 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY.

ps. its appropriate that your comments are being flagged as spam!! LOL.

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

As I said, I don't get Fox News in my country. And I'll eat my underpants and post a video of THAT on YouTube if Germany ever DOES manage to go 100% renewable. I know that wind and solar (other renewables -- especially hydro are genuinely useful for grid electricity) are just a distraction for continued fossil fuel domination.

Maybe it's you who is flagging my comments as spam?

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 You just dont have the first clue, bub. Germany now over 20% renewables and climbing fast. Nukes declining globally. its clear to anyone not fooled by the fossil + nuke propaganda that renewables are the solution.

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 so much projection. You have been fooled by the fossil / nuke corporations with their lies. you can ignore reality but it aint going nowhere, bub - nukes are declining globally as renewables increase. You need to stop getting your knowledge from Fox News and the fossil / nuke liars.

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

If the mighty fossil fuel companies were allied with nuclear as you seem to believe (rather than with renewables AGAINST nuclear, as is REALLY the case), then we'd have a hell of a lot more nuclear plants than we actually do. Green anti-nuclear activists are ONLY powerful because they have millions of dollars of fossil fuel money behind them.

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 Renewable energy threatens fossils, nukes and the grid operators. If you understood the first thing about this subject you'd know why that is...... but all you got is ignorance and opinions, bub.

You can keep repeating your Fox News dumbass info but it don't change the reality of the situation that nukes are in decline while renewables are now rapidly growing.

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

Why did you refuse to answer my question about how many solar panels you'd need to replace each nuclear power station? If that's what you desire, at least you should be willing to do the maths!

And the reason why grid operators don't like wind and solar is because they are so unreliable and make maintaining electricity supply a nightmare! (Same reason why Big Oil loves them -- they need to be backed up by natural gas.)

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 Why do you ignore _reality_? It's because it exposes your ignorance and flawed beliefs. Nukes are dying, renewables are growing.

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

China is planning to invest over a trillion dollars in 300 gigawatts' worth of nuclear power over the next ten years, as reported in the China Daily. The headline is "Nuclear power to become 'foundation' of country's electrical system" -- look it up!

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 China are investing even more in renewables... but don't be so foolish to believe a single news report from a biased source. Announcements for new nukes are cheap and easy. China has scaled back plans for new nukes following the Fukushima disaster. You need to educate yourself from many credible source - not accept the first one because you like what it says!!

Even with China the global share of nukes continues to fall because it cannot compete against renewable energy.

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

China Daily isn't affiliated with the nuclear industry AFAIK, so I can't see why it would be biased. I'd be interested to know which sources you'd regard as unbiased.

And if renewables were so cheap and easy, why is China currently dominated by filthy coal-fired power stations?

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80 Your making it easy to see why you're so confused about all of this when you can't work out the difference between the past and the future!!

Also you need to loose your obsession with China just because it's about the only place in the world that is building nukes. China is building everything because they need all the energy they can get -- but theyre investing much more in renewables. Get a clue from that, bub.

[GCarty80]

@GCarty80

Since (as expected) SunBakedRooster refused to answer, I'll just let people know that the answer (based on the Hoya de los Vicentes -- world's largest solar PV facility) is of the order of 200 square kilometres.

[SunBakedRooster]

@GCarty80

"Wind and solar are just useless toys."

It's stupid statements like that that make you nuke fan boys look so ridiculous.

France are investing €10 billion in offshore wind "toys" and €1.35 billion in a renewable energy program.

Also, the majority of the French people want a full exit from nuclear. That *should* be a big clue for you if you weren't so blinded by your nuke religion.

[GCarty80]

@SunBakedRooster

Oh, and if France is wasting money on renewables, it's probably because the EU is forcing it to via the Renewable Energy Obligation.

[norskasbj1]

in France 80% of their energy come from nuclear power, this country is the 2de in the world with the most nuclear reactor after the US. but with the Japanese nuclear crisis I don't think that the others countries will follow the France way.

[Lubieland]

I am all for Nuclear Power, but the one thing that all pro-nuclear advocates NEVER mention is the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant at end of life. The only estimate I have seen say that the decommissioning cost is around the same as the construction cost, and that doesnt include returning the site to green field status. The only solution I have heard is to fill it with concrete and build a new power plant next to it. Whats your comments on this?

[Myliberationbaby]

@Lubieland I wouldn't consider myself a nuclear advocate as such, I am an advocate of those technologies which produce the least emissions/kWh of electricity generated. Nevertheless, as a “least emissions advocate” here's my answer your question.

Decommissioning is ALWAYS included in any reputable costing of nuclear power. So when a “pro-nuclear advocate” quotes a cost for nuclear power from a reputable source (eg IEA) then they ARE mentioning the cost of decommissioning. Also...

[Myliberationbaby]

@Lubieland France has clearly not been bankrupt by their decision to go with nuclear power (NP). Neither did it slow them down. It took just ten years to for NP to replace oil as the predominant generator. NP now makes-up almost 80% of their electricity generation and their CO2 emissions are many times lower than any developed nation who is pursuing intermittent renewables like wind or solar. Meanwhile, non-hydro renewables have failed to replace a single fossil fuel power plant worldwide.

[Lubieland]

@Myliberationbaby Thanks for the reply, I didnt know that.

[BraveNewClimate]

Thanks for the responses. Updated version is listed in the Description above.

The updated version has the Denmark chart as electric rather than primary energy. Message is unchanged.

[1293drive]

Why doesn't anyone connected with nuclear power ever mention that we will be creating highly dangerous waste that we will have to put somewhere for tens of thousands of years? Figure out a way to process the waste so you wouldn't mind having it dumped in your back yard and then come back and talk to us. This idea is right up there with the Republican initiative to sell unpasteurized milk to Minnesota children at farmers markets! PS: I have worked at the Prairie Island Nuke plant in Minnesota.

[Myliberationbaby]

@1293drive

The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), uses nuclear waste as it's fuel. The tiny amount of waste produced by an IFR has a half life of 25-30 yrs and degrades to natural levels in around 300 years. So how about, instead of dumping it, we recycle the waste and make an enormous amount of continuous, CO2 free electricity out of it.

[Lubieland]

@Myliberationbaby Is the IFR an actuality on the ground, or is it still in development?

[GCarty80]

@Myliberationbaby

Unfortunately, the IFR was cancelled during the Clinton Administration, by a corrupt Energy Secretary who was in the natural gas industry's pocket. Another politician who opposed nuclear energy for corrupt reasons was former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who got a cushy job for Gazprom straight after leaving office. Dirty stinking traitor (but admittedly helped by the nuclear phobia of the German public).

[gulliverb]

Yes, but Sweden also produces their electricity from nuclear and hydro. It's just that they have more hydro than France. As for Denmark producing 20% of their electricity from wind, that's a very misleading statistic. In reality, while the number of kWh of electricity generated amounts to about 20% of demand, much of it is produced when they can't use it and they give it away to Norway, Sweden or elsewhere. Sometimes as little as 4-5% of their electricity comes from wind, the rest being dumped.

[zassounotsukushi]

0:20

You compared electricity in France to primary energy in Denmark. That's GWh to mtoe. Not a correct comparison. Denmark get upwards of 20% from wind, which isn't as good as France's CO2 free power, but not fairly represented in your video. Of course, energy flows over national borders makes the issue significantly more complicated. France net exports power but I don't know about Denmark.

[zassounotsukushi]

0:20

You lost me here. To begin with, you're showing electricity generation for France (see Wikipedia 'nuclear power in france') and then primary energy production in Denmark. You're comparing GWh to mtoe. Apples and oranges? That's like comparing apples to avocados.

You have a good video, I just wish it was more balanced. By GWh Denmark actually is producing upwards of 20% wind. But flows over national borders make the picture more complicated.

[Video2Webb]

I think it is good except somehow the music not working for me. Don't want to hear lyrics that are not written for the actual content grafted onto this very different material. Would prefer no voice. That said - excellent that this has been done. Keep going!

[NuclearPowerYesPleas]

Hey there! A lovely video, and it's good to see the NPYP graphic coming to good use. :)

I'd like to correct you on one thing though: there is (at least) one OECD country that has lower CO2/kWh emissions than France. According to the WWF (numbers which they tried to obfuscate by the way), Sweden emits 47 g/kWh while they put France at 86.

But ok, we cheat: about 50% of our electricity comes from hydro power. Norway and Iceland does the same... hydro and geothermal respectively.