Dutch Energy Company Announces the Doubling of its Nuclear Build Proposal.

Dutch-owned Energy Resources Holding (ERH) has launched the application process for a new nuclear plant at the Netherlands' Borssele site. The plan is completely separate from another plan for new build at the site launched last year by Delta.

In notifying the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) of its plans, ERH has embarked on the procedure to gain authorization to build a new nuclear power plant. In its 41-page submission, the company outlines its vision for up to a maximum capacity of 2500 MWe from third-generation nuclear units, possibly one or two Westinghouse AP1000 units, a single EPR or a single boiling water reactor (BWR). According to the company's indicative planning outline, construction could start on the plant in 2015 with electricity supply from 2019.

ERH owns 50% of EPZ, operator of the existing 485 MWe single-unit PWR Borssele nuclear power station. The other 50% of EPZ is owned by Dutch utility Delta, which last year submitted a so-called 'start memorandum' to VROM for approvals for a new 1600-2500 MWe plant at Borssele, with construction starting in 2013 and a 2018 operation date. ERH points out that its application is completely separate from Delta's.

...in the iEA’s view, the use of renewable energy must be increased in order to improve energy security and reduce climate change. The iEA’s Energy Technology perspective included a blue Scenario, which envisages reducing global co2 emissions by 50% compared with 2005 levels by 2050. when combined with deep cuts in other greenhouse gas emissions, this scenario is consistent with a temperature rise limited to 2-3°c. in this scenario renewable energy will be a key contributor to co2 abatement, contributing 21% of the required reductions. Electricity will be the most important sector, with the proportion from renewables rising from the current 18 to 46%. Since total electricity production doubles during this period, this implies a four-fold increase in renewable power production. Currently a more ambitious renewables scenario is under development, in which 75% of global electricity production comes from renewable sources.

Realising these ambitious goals will be difficult. Technical challenges will need to be overcome. The technologies also need to become progressively more cost competitive. To ensure large scale investment and deployment in the electricity, heating and cooling and transport sectors, the required policy framework needs to be developed and implemented, including appropriate financial incentives and measures to tackle the other non economic barriers. Furthermore, the physical infrastructure will need to be adapted.

RE-thinking 2050 presents a pathway towards a 100% renewable energy system for the EU, examining the effects on Europe’s energy supply system and on co2 emissions, while at the same time portraying the economic, environmental and social benefits of such a system. Moreover, the report provides policy recommendations for what is needed to fully exploit the EU’s vast renewable energy potential.

Reinventing the EU's energy system on a sustainable energy model is one of the critical challenges of the 21st century. Renewable energy can become the backbone of Europe’s energy and economic system within this century. The challenge ahead of us is an enormous one, but tackling it will open up a far reaching sea of opportunities.

Talking about reincarnation or rebirth is automatically talking about the life cycles of the human soul: Long time ago, our souls left their divine origin to gain some experiences in the material world. It was clear from the very beginning that the souls would eventually return back to their divine origin, however. Therefore all our souls have the strong desire to return back to where they originally came from, respectively to their original divine state.

A return to the divine origin will only be possible when the souls have reached a state of wholeness again similar to the above mentioned divine state. Concretely, this state is about personality traits, which are best described with unconditional love, (self-) honesty, happiness, modesty, humbleness, etc. Alternatively, you can describe this divine state with respecting the basic rights of existence.

...

What are the proves for reincarnation and rebirth of human souls?

Can we prove the truthfulness of our statements? No, we can't. It is not possible to substantiate reincarnation. On the other hand, it is not possible to prove the non-existence of reincarnation either. (Emphasis by that bastard Dogmudgeon.)

...

Count on your inner voice and don't let other people persuade you (not even us!). However when you have found out that the meaning of our life is developing personality traits like unconditional love, happiness, self honesty and humbleness, respectively to respect the basic rights of existence - then please do act accordingly. Draw the consequences for you own life. Take advantage of this incarnation. Life is about you. It is your own life. It might well be time for change.

...

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%.

(Bold in original)

Citigroup Global Markets European Nuclear Generation 2 December 2008

Article 25.
•(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control

The nuclear industry has hitched a ride on the climate change bandwagon, proclaiming that nuclear power will solve the world's global warming and energy problems in one sweeping "nuclear renaissance."

As you might expect, there's a catch. Nuclear energy faces escalating capital costs, a radioactive waste backlog, security and insurance gaps, nuclear weapons proliferation, and expensive reactor decommissioning that will magnify the waste problem.

The contention that nuclear energy is "carbon free" and therefore a global warming solution, fails to account for the nuclear fuel cycle - mining, milling, enriching, and transporting uranium; forging steel for pressurised vessels; building massive, complex plants; and handling, shipping, reprocessing, and storing waste - requiring substantial fossil fuel supplies. Nuclear fuel processing also employs halogenated compounds that both erode the ozone and simultaneously produce more global warming impact per volume than carbon dioxide.

This fall, at Stanford University, Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson published a "Review of Global Warming Solutions," comparing the lifetime CO2-equivalent emissions of energy sources. Wind and concentrated solar emit between about 3 to 11 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity. Geothermal and conventional solar emit between 16 and 64 grams; wave, tidal and hydro power emit 34 to 71 grams. Nuclear electricity emits between 68 and 180 grams per kWh. Jacobson concludes that "Coal … and nuclear offer less benefit represent an opportunity cost loss."

A dollar invested in nuclear power increases global warming because it consumes scarce resources required by real solutions.

Nuclear economics

This year, billionaire investment wizard Warren Buffett withdrew financial support for a US nuclear reactor in Idaho, killing the project. Why? Nuclear power is not economical.

A full accounting of nuclear power remains obscured by...

Mr. Lovins’s other clients have included Accenture, Allstate, AMD, Anglo American, Anheuser-Busch, Bank of America, Baxter, Borg-Warner, BP, HP Bulmer, Carrier, Chevron, Ciba-Geigy, CLSA, ConocoPhillips, Corning, Dow, Equitable, GM, HP, Invensys, Lockheed Martin, Mitsubishi, Monsanto, Motorola, Norsk Hydro, Petrobras, Prudential, Rio Tinto, Royal Dutch/Shell, Shearson Lehman Amex, STMicroelectronics, Sun Oil, Suncor, Texas Instruments, UBS, Unilever, Westinghouse, Xerox, major developers, and over 100 energy utilities. His public-sector clients have included the OECD, the UN, and RFF; the Australian, Canadian, Dutch, German, and Italian governments; 13 states; Congress, and the U.S. Energy and Defense Departments.

Solutions are not going to pop out the ground like mushrooms.

Why would we need 5,000 reactors? Where did you learn arithmetic?

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.