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

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
47. I'm sorry, but are you equating a single minor battle with an entire war?
Mon Oct 31, 2016, 01:27 PM
Oct 2016

That is an absurd position. I mean, it literally is meaningless as a functional thought.

I was coming back to ask what, specifically, you were referring to with the reference to the program in the UK. Because if it was the energy efficiency program aimed at residential building upgrades, I'd love to discuss the particulars.

The UK's residential program was a stellar success for a number of years until the pronuclear bloc took control of government and sabotaged it by changing the design of the program.

The reasons for the sabotage are found in the numbers laid out in a 2008 Citigroup report on investment in nuclear.

What the market should not take for granted

GDP impact on demand and load factors

Consensus view is that electricity demand in the wide European region will grow by 1.5% p.a. over the next couple of decades. This is a view shared by UCTE in its latest System Adequacy Report. Although it is virtually impossible to produce irrefutable electricity demand forecast we are tempted to argue that the risks are on the downside since:

1. During the boom years of 2003-07, when GDP growth was strong and infrastructure investment high on the back of very liquid debt markets and due to the convergence of the new EU joiners, electricity consumption grew by 2.1% p.a.

2. Energy efficiency is likely to become a bigger driver as technology advances and as awareness rises. It is important to highlight that such measures also fall under the Climate Change agenda of governments, which has been one of the driving forces behind the renaissance of new nuclear.

As a result, we would expect electricity demand growth to be in the 0-1% range for at least the next 5 years, before returning to more normal pace of 1.5-2%. We therefore see scope for an extra 346TWh of electricity that needs to be covered by 2020 vs. 2008 levels.

Should EU countries go half way towards meeting their renewables target of 20% by 2020 that would be an extra ca. 440TWh. Even if EU went only half way, which by all means is a very conservative estimate, that would still be ca. 220TWh of additional generation. Under its conservative ‘scenario A’ forecast, UCTE expects 28GW of net new fossil fuel capacity to be constructed by 2020. On an average load factor of 45% for those plants that’s an extra 110TWh.

Therefore under very conservative assumptions on renewables, we can reliably expect an extra 330TWh of electricity to be generated by 2020, leaving a shortfall of 16TWh to be made up by either energy efficiency or new nuclear.

There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.
Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%.


Such a reduction is actually already underway, with load factors for nuclear plants in Europe falling from 85% on average during the beginning of the decade to below 80% as renewables increase their share in the fuel mix. In our opinion a slow down or fall in demand could have an even bigger effect, substantially affecting the economics of new plants.
Citigroup European Nuclear Generation
2 December 2008

Recommendations

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

Ethanol Dr.Jones Oct 2016 #1
The numbers might change your view... kristopher Oct 2016 #4
Fertilization? Dr.Jones Oct 2016 #5
That's a comparison of two methods for producing (bio)fuels for ICEs kristopher Oct 2016 #6
Robbing Peter to pay Paul Dr.Jones Oct 2016 #7
Actually they do consider the nature and role of the feedstocks.... kristopher Oct 2016 #9
Ummmm... Dr.Jones Oct 2016 #11
Ummmmm.... kristopher Oct 2016 #12
Maybe you grabbed the wrong link? Dr.Jones Oct 2016 #13
So you aren't referencing sustainability practices ... kristopher Oct 2016 #14
? Dr.Jones Oct 2016 #15
It isn't complicated kristopher Oct 2016 #16
DOA Dr.Jones Oct 2016 #17
You are making the unwarranted assumption that it isn't included. kristopher Oct 2016 #18
Biology 101 Dr.Jones Oct 2016 #19
Which has nothing at all to do with the specious nature of the criticism. kristopher Oct 2016 #20
WTF? Dr.Jones Oct 2016 #21
. kristopher Oct 2016 #22
Food vs. Fuel Dr.Jones Oct 2016 #23
"Since you're hell bent on playing stupid..." kristopher Oct 2016 #24
Food vs. Fuel....again Dr.Jones Oct 2016 #25
Subject kristopher Oct 2016 #26
Food vs. Fuel.....take 3 Dr.Jones Oct 2016 #27
The fact that you think you're offering cogent criticism is astounding. kristopher Oct 2016 #28
Food vs. Fuel.....take IV Dr.Jones Oct 2016 #29
If you want to have a discussion about ethanol start another thread. kristopher Oct 2016 #30
My bad. Dr.Jones Oct 2016 #31
Yes, it is. kristopher Oct 2016 #32
My F150 gets about 4 mpg less with E85 than E10. When I pull my trailer is goes to about 5.5 less. tonyt53 Oct 2016 #52
e-cars just shift the dirt around if powered by coal generated electricity instead of petroleum nt msongs Oct 2016 #2
I don't think that's accurate, but... kristopher Oct 2016 #3
Have we won? progressoid Oct 2016 #8
Good to know. kristopher Oct 2016 #10
"What could derail the revolution?" NickB79 Oct 2016 #33
Saying it will fail because it will fail is a fail in itself. kristopher Oct 2016 #34
Yeah, I'm sure things will work out just fine for us NickB79 Oct 2016 #39
How is that related to the OP? kristopher Oct 2016 #40
The idea of a 'trajectory' implies 'momentum' or 'inertia' muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #35
That's an interesting thought... kristopher Oct 2016 #36
I don't see at all that "we as a species" have deliberately chosen renewables muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #37
It sounds like you're describing the inertia of the existing fossil system. kristopher Oct 2016 #38
I'd like to cover one point I neglected to address earlier kristopher Oct 2016 #42
Shot down because as a whole, people don't care enough about it muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #44
I'm sorry but "the same thing" did not happen in the UK. kristopher Oct 2016 #45
"the challenge is to make that work" - you were saying the revolution was already won muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #46
I'm sorry, but are you equating a single minor battle with an entire war? kristopher Oct 2016 #47
Here's what I was referring to muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #48
"The article says that victory is inevitable. It's wrong." kristopher Oct 2016 #49
The support is the figures. We have fuck all renewables so far. muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #50
"And, as I said, there is no 'inertia' in economics. That's wishful thinking." kristopher Oct 2016 #51
No, I'm not claming inertia there muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #53
You haven't made a single legitimate argument yet. kristopher Oct 2016 #54
No, you've misread that. I attacked you for knowing *less* muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #55
Nope. kristopher Oct 2016 #56
Your complacency is worrying muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #57
Great way to "win" by false framing. kristopher Oct 2016 #58
UK drops to new low in global renewable energy league table kristopher Nov 2016 #60
Inertia and trajectory kristopher Nov 2016 #59
I believe big oil has realized it Victor_c3 Oct 2016 #41
It hasn't been OPEC so much as it's been Saudi Arabia. kristopher Oct 2016 #43
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Have We Already Won the R...»Reply #47