Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

15. "Where the economics clash, the plants shut down" is not a given.

Reply to NickB79 (Reply #14)

Fri Oct 18, 2013, 10:15 PM

Oct 2013

If you want a slow, haphazard, expensive, sloppy, transition that decreases reliability on the grid then your strictly economically driven 'shut down' method would be the preferred approach.

If you prefer to accelerate a least cost process while enhancing grid reliability however, then, you might prefer to plan and make an investment in the proper foundational infrastructure to facilitate those goals - which is what Germany has been doing for 20 years.

And you STILL haven't answered my question - can you point me to the country with a better plan than Germany for getting away from carbon?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Japan on gas, coal power building spree to fill nuclear void [View all] GliderGuider Oct 2013 OP

winning! phantom power Oct 2013 #1

No worries, eh? pscot Oct 2013 #2

Japan seems to have had no short term options except to jump from the frying pan into the fire. nt GliderGuider Oct 2013 #3

There was at least one much better option phantom power Oct 2013 #4

The domain of "short term options" is defined by political as well as technical feasability. nt GliderGuider Oct 2013 #5

Nuclear isn't at all compatible with renewables. kristopher Oct 2013 #8

So, the solution is...more coal-fired plants? NickB79 Oct 2013 #11

Interesting article from the Grauniad, thanks! GliderGuider Oct 2013 #12

You can build coal plants optimized to support variable generation. kristopher Oct 2013 #13

Where the economics clash, the plants shut down NickB79 Oct 2013 #14

"Where the economics clash, the plants shut down" is not a given. kristopher Oct 2013 #15

Its not so much radiation that people are terrified of madokie Oct 2013 #17

We frack here dbackjon Oct 2013 #6

Great example of why spending on nuclear is counterproductive to fighting GHG emissions kristopher Oct 2013 #7

Sure, sure... PamW Oct 2013 #9

That is pretty simplistic thinking that ignores many dimensions of the issue kristopher Oct 2013 #10

You know and I know that doesn't matter to this poster who you are replying too madokie Oct 2013 #18

I don't know about you.. PamW Oct 2013 #20

Pam you can be anyone or anything you want to be, I don't really care madokie Oct 2013 #21

I never understand... PamW Oct 2013 #23

Its the way you present madokie Oct 2013 #25

If you think I've made a scientific error - Please point it out... PamW Oct 2013 #28

Scientifically WRONG!!! again PamW Oct 2013 #19

There you go again madokie Oct 2013 #22

The animals are doing fine.. PamW Oct 2013 #24

The animals aren't doing fine, thats bullshit madokie Oct 2013 #26

The reason is that animals are thriving... PamW Oct 2013 #29

Mainly because animals have short lifespans NickB79 Oct 2013 #31

You really don't see what you say, do you? kristopher Oct 2013 #27

BAD nonscientific assumption being made. PamW Oct 2013 #30

No DrGreg, I didn't make a bad assumption. kristopher Oct 2013 #32

Lets talk about this a little bit madokie Oct 2013 #16