Archives for posts with tag: pris

– – – – For kilder og henvisninger:
– – – – Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.
– – – – Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.

__________________________________________________________________
z-energy storage.png
Klik på tabellen for at få fuld størrelse.

Naturligvis både forskes og tales om Syntetisk Gas
Det er muligt.
Så længe man ikke taler om prisen er det en strålende ide.
http://news.mit.edu/2017/turning-emissions-into-fuel-1128

OG

Hvis gas købes i Rusland er det meget billigere.
Sådan kun 20 %

I forbindelse med en grundig vurdering af Intermittent Grid Storage fås at (syntetisk?) methane round trip:
Electric energy to gas and back to electric energy.
Efficiency would be ~31%

Der Spiegel giver 2019 følgende oplysninger:
Effektiviteten bliver under 40 % ved “Vind -> El. -> Hydro -> Metan.”
Derudover kommer et lidt større tab ved metan til El.

I alt skal man ikke regne med over 25 % effektivitet ved denne form for energilagring.
Dertil kommer forrentning og vedligehold af dyre anlæg.

Nogle er gået så vidt som til at sige at vindkraften er vor tids terrorister.

Men lige meget hvad, så oplyses det at sol og vind producerer ca. 5 % af den elektriske energi i USA og til gengæld modtager 70 % af de federale subsidier.

Fra denne kilde citeres:
Because wind resources are often located far from existing transmission lines, expanding the grid is expensive, and the costs are passed on to taxpayers and consumers.
Conventional generators must be kept on call as backup to meet demand when wind is unable to do so, driving up the cost of electricity for consumers.

Dette betyder naturlilgvis at der er meget store skjulte udgifter til udbygningen af nettet.
Ikke bare i Tyskland.

Og så har jeg næsten glemt at i et forsøg på at omgå behov for A-kraft vil “de grønne” sende utallige mennesker sultne i seng.
Se om de grønne terrorister.

En illustrativ vurdering


y-power.png
På disse billeder ser man mere end det sædvanlige drømmesyn.
De grå arealer angiver forsyning med grundlast og forskellig form for back-up.

Jeg kommer med følgende (små) indvendinger.
– Der vil altid være nogen (lidt) tilgængelig vandkraft.
– På Europæisk plan vil der altid være nogen (lidt) tilgængelig vindkraft.

Men hvis “man går planken ud” og forudsætter at al energi skal være “grøn”.
Så bliver det let at forestille sig hvorledes der vil blive en hulens masse ubrugelig energi eller uudnyttet kapacitet.
Efter min mening skulle det have været vist på et femte billede.

@ Bentvels
From work at different universities, I have learned that future upgrades depend on:
“Write something about something or bee lost at the next line of promotions.”
Of course it is unwise to pee against the wind and often “university research” show the result.

Although I am afraid of being rejected beforehand, I dare to make reference to World Nuclear.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/radiation-and-health/nuclear-radiation-and-health-effects.aspx
From this I quote:
Some 75,000 children, born to parents who survived high radiation doses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, have been the subject of intensive examination.
This study confirms that no increase in genetic abnormalities in human populations is likely as a result of even quite high doses of radiation.
Similarly, no genetic effects are evident as a result of the Chernobyl accident.

For me the subject had enormous interest and it ended up with a WordPress site: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-ea
If you go in, you will see that I have plenty of references.
Similarly, I was shocked, when I realized, that there is very little correlation between radiation and cancer.
Also this resulted in a WordPress site: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1iq
The anti-nuclear fear may have culminated in the widespread belief that Plutonium is the most dangerous substance known to mankind.
Also this has no hold in realities. See http://wp.me/s1RKWc-46

Brugt 2017 08 21

@PHK

Active Measures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures

The Clean Energy Information Association has published a small leaflet with the following.
_________________________________________________________________________

ARGUMENTS

# 1 Low environmental impact

Nuclear power is just as environmentally friendly as wind, solar and hydro power.

The total environmental impact of nuclear energy, incl. the fuel cycle is in line with the load of wind and solar power.

# 2 Great Security

No people have ever been harmed by emissions from western nuclear plants.
Neither in the operation of the works nor in the transport and storage of the radioactive waste.
The experience gained from all Western nuclear power plants since 1956 is more than 16,000 operating years without injury to humans.
The accident in Fukushima March 2011 does not change this situation.
The UN Scientific Committee on the effect of radiation says:
“No visible increase in cancer or other diseases is expected.”

# 3 Nuclear power requires small amounts of fuel and produces small amounts of waste

To produce approx. 1/3 of Denmark’s annual consumption requires approx. 30 tons of fuel at a nuclear power plant or 3,000,000 tons of coal at a coal-fired power station.

The nuclear power plant leaves 1.2 tons (0.5 m ^ 3) of high-level radioactive waste after recycling and emits little CO2 from mining m. M.
The coal-fired power plant leaves 300,000 tonnes of ash and 8,500,000 tonnes of CO2.
Some countries have so far chosen not to recycle the spent fuel.
In that case, the amount of radioactive waste to be deposited increases.

# 4 Cheap and Stable Electricity Supply

Nuclear power is the cheapest CO2-free energy source for stable electricity generation.
New nuclear power plants will supply up to 35 øre / kWh, while wind power in Denmark will supply up to 105 øre / kWh.

Even with a wind power generation in Denmark corresponding to about 1/3 of the electricity consumption, winds in a total of approx. 1,000 hours (42 days) only cover less than 10% of our electricity consumption.
During these periods, the electricity supply comes from Norwegian hydropower of Swedish hydropower and nuclear power.
Large investments in wind power therefore require extra reserve power or security for imports and thus dependence on other countries.
The world’s nuclear power plants run an average of 75% of the time, but the best ones are above 90%
Therefore, nuclear power is a stable source of energy.
The existing nuclear power plants supply very cheap electricity.

# 5 Stor forsyningssikkerhed

The world’s uranium deposits last for hundreds of years.

With future reactor types or with thorium as fuel, the deposits last for several thousand years.
The majority of the world’s deposits of uranium and thorium are found in politically stable countries.
Is nuclear power plant can have fuel for 10 years of consumption in stock.

# 6 Denmark has one of the highest in the EU
CO2 emissions

In Sweden, where half of the electricity production comes from hydropower and half from nuclear power, the production of a kWh of electricity creates a CO2 emission of 15 grams.
In Denmark, emissions are 300 grams per. kWh

In 1971, the emissions per. almost native to Denmark and Sweden:
11.1 tonnes (DK) and 10.2 (S)
2010, the same numbers were 8.48 (DK) and 5.07 (S)
Sweden built 12 nuclear reactors in the period 1971 – 1985
Denmark’s emissions of CO2 could have been at least 25% less if the Folketing had not stopped the pre-1985 plan for building nuclear power plants in Denmark.

# 7 Nuclear power is good for the environment

With nuclear power, we can free ourselves from the dependence on fossil fuels and reduce our CO2 emissions by at least 25%

By 2030, Denmark can reduce the proportion of fossil fuels in the electricity supply from 66% in 2010 to 10-20% by the construction of four nuclear power plants.
Alternatively, electricity generators in Denmark can participate in foreign nuclear projects.
In all cases, up to 30% of the supply could come from wind, biomass and waste incineration.
Wind power is highly fluctuating and therefore cannot supply the power that must always be available (base load)

MYTH

# 1 Nuclear waste is radioactive for more than 100,000 years

The actual waste will have lost much of its radioactivity after 50 years.

After 400 years, the waste will have the same radioactive level as uranium ore.
After 600 years will be as radioactive as garden soil.
If, however, the recycling of spent fuel from nuclear power plants fails, it will be radioactive for an extended period of time.

# 2 Radioactive waste cannot be stored safely

That’s not true.
The waste from over 50 years of use that nuclear power has so far been stored without a single case of hazardous release to the environment.

The amount of high radioactive waste is so small that it can easily be stored at the nuclear power plants or at recycling facilities.
The spent fuel from 40 years of operation of a reactor can stand in a building that is 100 m long 30 m wide and 23 m high.

# 3 Denmark does not use nuclear power

That’s not true. Denmark’s electricity supply today contains 10-20% nuclear power from our neighboring countries.

In the future, Denmark will import much more electricity when the wind is weak.
Because our coal and gas-fired power plants will be phased out.
That will mean an increasing share of nuclear power.
Denmark can invest in and receive power from new nuclear power plants being built in our neighboring countries.
They are being built anyway – so why not join?

# 4 People would rather be free of nuclear energy.
This is especially true for those living close to a nuclear power plant

That’s not right.
All studies on people’s attitudes to nuclear power show that the support for nuclear power increases the closer you live at a nuclear power plant and the more you know about and have personal experience with nuclear power. >

American writer Gwryneth Cravets was an opponent of nuclear power for many years.
After several visits to nuclear power plants and intensive research, he changed his mind and wrote the book:
“Power to save the World. The Truth about Nuclear Energy. ”
Similarly, James Lovelock (originator of the GAIA theory) and Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) have changed attitudes and are now supporters of nuclear power.

# 5 If you say yes to nuclear power, you also say yes to nuclear weapons

That’s not true.
Western nuclear power plants have nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

The link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons is a politically created fear that is unfounded.
Western nuclear power plants cannot be used in the development or production of nuclear weapons.
On the contrary, the nuclear power plants are used to burn (use) nuclear explosives, thereby removing the threat from the many nuclear bombs stored from the Cold War.

The writings above

is a copy of material authored and published by the association REO
(Clean Energy Enlightenment)
This association, of which I am a member, advocates a stable, environmentally friendly and economical electricity supply – ie. nuclear power.

If the above is not sufficient, more can be found on another block Thorkils Thoughts, for which I am responsible.
Use the search engine (Ctrl + f) and enter the topic you want to elaborate.
Click on the yellow one. Or on pictures to get full size.
I hope this can open up to factual understanding of the troublesome reality.

Greetings from Thorkil Lake
Phone 5117 1936
thorkilsoee@gmail.com

And more, almost similarly, from the University of Norway
https://titan.uio.no/node/2531 and https://titan.uio.no/node/2803

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
__________________________________________________________________________
For reasons not understood, energy from sun and wind is labeled as “Permanent” (vedvarende)
At the best it is a mistake.
Using available technology there is enough nuclear energy for
more than 100 years.
Using technology under development, there will be enough for
several 1000 years
If / when fusion-energy is harnessed:
Then there will be enough until the earth is swallowed by the sun as a read giant.

OK
Energy from sun and wind insist to use a false label.
Similar it was a false label, when the old East Germany was called “German DEMOCRATIC Republic”.
Outside DDR the country was often called “The So-called.”

Sun and Wind are not “Permanent” (Vedvarende)

Australia Considers Banning Wind Power Because It’s Causing Blackouts.
“We already seem to be reaching limits with respect to intermittent electricity supply.
The US Energy Information Administration may be reaching the same conclusion.
It was the issue by Steve Kean from Kinder Morgan (a pipeline company) as its keynote speaker at its July 2016 Annual Conference.
He made the following statements about renewable energy.
This view is very similar to mine.
Few people have stopped to realize that intermittent electricity isn’t worth very much.
It may even have negative value, when the cost of all of the adjustments needed to make it useful are considered.”

Stikket trækkesSoon it will be necessary to disconnect.
Somewhere.
Sure you know!

.
.
.
The graph below show prices for electricity in Europe related to installed capacity of power from sund and wind.
Although the graph is interesting, it should be noted that the prices given appear to be “Consumer prices” and not “Cost of production”
The countries marked with red are countries with “economic problems”
Pris for EL versus installeret VE.png
Further I want to mention that “Installed Capacity” is somehow misleading if not considering the “Utilization Ratio” (Produced power divided by maximum available)
Wind Denmark: 25 – 50 %
Wind Germany: les than 25 %
Sun Germany: about 18 %

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
__________________________________________________________________________
This attempt at a post is prompted by the inescapable fact that:

Electricity is the most perishable commodity that exists.

OK
We all want a stable and secure supply of El.
Of course we want it as cheaply as reasonably possible.

And we’re all together so roughly agreeing that we must do our utmost to reduce or preferably eliminate our pollution with CO2 and of course other polution.
We can also agree that there are two, almost independent challenges:

  • The instability of supply and demand.
  • How should the supply be established

Maybe we crazy around at each other because we out of bad habit mix those two things together.
Let’s try to look at instability – There is in reality a lot of consensus.
Problems relating to transport comes so almost all alone.
Problems associated with, thankfully extremely rare, sudden onset, with almost catastrophic, outcomes (with the risk of domino effect) is not discussed the following.

Instability in supply and demand.

No matter which system you choose, we must in some way or another act to maintain a stable supply.
This will not be that easy when, in the future it is desired to reduce our CO2 emissions, also from heating, by changing to the use of electricity, of course, in conjunction with heat pumps.
In addition, the goal is that our supply of electricity mainly to be based on sun and wind, which of course is not stable.

In the old days, with coal-fired power plants and the like, it was not so difficult to handle.
But it is no good continuing with our pollution.
Coal, oil, and much else must of course be eliminated.
As a result of the future, very vulnerable system – without all that much CO2 – we are slowly approaching to a situation where we say:
—————— “All hands to the pumps.”
There are many solutions, each of which will be totally inadequate, but in association has been found to work. But of course, can be done better.

We have at least the following “handles to turn on”:

  • International exchange.
  • Reserve Capacity, to be used when necessary.
  • No political limitations on the right to produce El.
  • Flexible pricing.
  • Open Prices: Everyone can see what is best here and now.

The last three are now being called ‘Smart Grit’, but is certainly neither smart or effective before it is implemented.
A Smart Grit can hardly be effective unless the many existing distorting arrangements are settled.

It will be difficult

We have to abandon old stereotypes.
Here we might disagree: Competition or top-down?
OK
One can well. Some 30 years ago it was technically possible to make what we spend so much time speaking so much about, but still will not do – not fully and completely:

Approximately following was outlined:

  • The supply system, it is often called the grid, will at any time set the current price (spot price) for the El traded. (Not only by international trade)
  • Prices vary stepwise by a factor of 1.20 or “20% up or down” for each step (Small enough to avoid sudden ‘shock in the net’)
  • Some prices are very low. Nearly: ‘Just give it away’.
    (Used by overproduction)
  • At other times, prices can be very high.
    (Used only in the case of near disaster)
  • Anyone can buy and sell without political constraints.
  • The network buys El for 80% of what it is to sell.
    (There should be something to cover costs – both maintenance and improvements)
  • Private suppliers and consumers can always see the spot price for the El, and can of course use automatics that exploit variations in the price.
  • The network guarantees, within wide limit,s how much time, on average, the spot prices will be of different levels.
    (Consumers and producers must be able to plan – Partially)
  • The weather forecast disclose the expected price of El

Then, the human ingenuity and resourcefulness will determine what might be done.
Of course everything will be considered on an economic weight that will hatch all the weeds from.

A little more today

Today you’d probably have added:

  • The tax for pollution should be imposed on polluters compared to how much CO2 and other is discharged.
    Thus, for example, coal with CCS (Carbon Capture Storage) could gain a competitive advantage if this ‘Storage’ can be said to be persistent.
    If policymakers want to be “More Green”, it will ‘just’ be enough to increase this tax.
  • As long as the quota system is maintained, quotas for CO2 should not be distributed as a kind of gift to the old established polluters, who ‘smart enough’ can sell and obtain profits based upon old sins.
    Quotas should be purchased on completely equal terms, in a sort of a CO2-pool. (Ideally internationally)
  • Political favoritism of special productions should be abandoned as swiftly as possible. (Existing contracts must obviously be respected)
  • Taxes distributed fairly equally.
    Not per kWh but compared to net payment.
    (Without political favoritism of specific forms of production but favoring the conscious consumer.)
  • Distortion from the old rules should be settled – Not too slowly.
  • International competition is presumably to be countered by offsets, which must not get out of hand.
  • Grants for experimentation and creation of new forms of supply must be limited and must under no circumstances degenerate into an almost permanent pillow for inefficiency.
  • Keep the discussion away from discussing electric vehicles, wind and sun versus nuclear, wave energy, biomass and everything else.
    This is certainly not irrelevant to the discussion. But it should not destroy a meaningful dialogue on this matter.
  • The political situation will determine if ‘society’ or ‘net’ should continue to maintain extra back-up-capacity.

And what can be supposed to be a triviality:

  • Equal conditions for different power sources.
  • No political emphasized taxes. As where Germany and Sweden have special taxes on nuclear power.
  • No politically motivated closure of power plants.
  • Long and irrevocable agreements that enable long-term contracts and predictable private investment.

The human and political inertia has been great and it is perhaps even more.

Cogeneration and Heat Pump

At a very early stage Denmark took the lead and developed the world’s most efficient combined heat and power, so that the waste heat from the many voracious power plants did not go to waste.

And now some 60% of Danish households are equipped with various types of district heating. This figure is on the rise.

But there are indications that the development is overtaking this solution.
Today, heat pumps are so efficient that, without political favoritism, it will be a serious competitor to the district heating.
One major reason for this is that it is much easier to distribute electricity in the wires than heat pipes.
By pure electricity (without heating) it is now possible to ‘squise the last kW out of fuel’ when electricity is generated by combustion in thermal plants. (You can get about 10% more).
But at the same time the waste heat will not be in the form of the nearly 100 degree hot water, which is now used for district heating. Instead, you just get some ‘warm water’ that is not suitable for the old district heating, but still can be used as a heat source for heat pumps, for fish farms or horticulture.
As development progresses, until the old district heating pipe is worn, it will certainly be sensible so that use electricity for heat pumps with what is shown enough will call ‘cold district heating’.

Too much of the good is bad

The above considerations are basically valid as long as the varying and partly unpredictable power from solar and wind sticks to mere bagatelle and do not exceed five, maybe 10% of the load.

German solar variation From the US sunshine states we have the expression “the Duck Curve”.
First we see how the large percentage of new solar power have destroyed the original good profits in 2012.
Then one asks:
Who provides backup in the early hours of the night?
Finally we see, what we already knew, that in the US pricing is (partially) governed by market forces.

In Germany, which mainly focuses on solar energy (PV), the situation is most a future challenge.
BUT with the desired phase out coal and nuclear power would appear to be impossible to maintain the supply.
Germany has reached “The Bureaucracy Monster”:
From Der Spiegel October 2013 quoted:
“And let’s not forget that the German bureaucrats to have come up with more than 4,000 different subsidy categories for renewable energy, apparently adhering til principle att what is particular expensive kill two be lavishly subsidized.”

All beginnings are difficult

It would be naive to think that the ‘smart grid’ just emidiately can change consumption pattern, the ‘ordinary people’.

It will take time and even political courage.
Politicians and officials must free themselves from the last level economic conventional thinking.
Manufacturers must develop automation for management, effective gauges and much more.
BUT
Let’s get started.
What the hell are we waiting for?

Yours Thorkil Søe
thorkilsoee@gmail.com

Postscript

There are apparently something about to happen: On the island Bornholm a pilot project is underway.
Although little is better than nothing, it has unfortunately been found that it does not become neither fish nor fowl before all manufacturers of EL are subject to market conditions.

The later development

Despite all good intensions, developments strongly suggests that the European energy system is in the process of working itself into a dead end.
I have tried to gather some of the many data and information in a different post.
Unfortunately, it will be difficult to achieve a free market for electricity and heat without making up with decades of opposition to nuclear (nuclear power) and a systematic demonization.

Hostile action

One possible unresolved challenge can be the destruction of the system by means of false signals transmitted in the intention to attack the infrastructure. (Cyberattack)
If this is to be counteracted, it will probably be necessary to exclude immediate major changes in tariffs and thus could not relieve the system by any outcome of larger units.

Thank you

Thanks to Søren Fosberg for words of encouragement and suggestions for changes.
And to Sören Kjärsgaard for his extreemely good work.

http://www.theenergycollective.com/aqgilbert/2382456/solar-to-wreck-economics-of-existing-power-markets

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
_______________________________________________________________________

Først lidt illustrative facts

Mere KK mindre forureningDet fremgår af ovenstående at Tyskland, der arbejder hårdt på at blive grøn og fri for forurening – Ja de kan ikke se baghjulet fra “Atom-Frankrig”.
Klik for flere detaljer på et interaktivt kort. Det er langsomt, men interessant.

Alt for ofte bruges udtrykket grøn som et nøgleord, der åbner op for tilskud.
MEN
Hvis “Grøn” betyder “Med lidt CO2” er der ingen tvivl om at A-kraft er vinderen. CO2 per kWh

Verdens energiforsyning, fordelt på kraftkilder fremgår af diagrammet
på denne side.
Desværre taler det sit klare sprog.
Den globale udledning af CO2 angives til »et historisk højdepunkt« på 32,5 milliarder ton. (2017)

Baggrund for det følgende

Udtryk som ”Grøn”, “Ambitiøst” og “Bæredygtigt” har været brugt og misbrugt i den offentlige debat, nok mest når det drejer sig om produktionsformer og energi.
Der er store økonomiske interesser i at blive defineret som grøn og til tider bliver den opmærksomme læser mistroisk når udtrykkene bruges, næsten per automatik, hvis et produkt skal promoveres.

Naturligvis skal der arbejdes imod mindre forurening og bedre udnyttelse af resurserne.
Dette, som så meget andet, kan ikke klares ved slagord og fraser.

I det følgende har jeg forsøgt at vurdere muligheder og udfordringer. Desværre mest det sidste.

Tilbageblik

1979/1980 udsendte OOA, en pjece på 12 sider i farver.
Den havde overskriften:
”OOA’s FOLKEPJECE: Danmark uden atomkraft.”
I pjecen hedder det: ”Danmark har masser af olie og naturgas”, og ”Kul til flere hundrede år”.
– – – ”For at kunne dække mere end 1/3 af strømforbruget med vindkraft, må man kunne oplagre energien.
Det kan man bl.a. gøre med trykluftlagre, som vi kender allerede i dag. Eller med svinghjulslagre, som nu er under udvikling.”
Nu 40 år senere må vi indse at teknologi til lagring af vindkraft i stor skala stadigvæk ikke er lige om hjørnet.

Vindkraft

Diskussionen vedrørende vindkraft deler sig mellem on-shore og
off-shore.

For on-shore er den væsentligste udfordring støjproblemer.
Men også lysglimt og tabte landskabsværdier bør ikke negligeres.
Jeg har forsøgt en vurdering på en anden side.

For off-shore er prisen tilsyneladende den væsentligste udfordring.
Også dette er forsøgt vurderet på en anden side.

Helt generelt skal det huskes at vindkraft er en varierende og ustabil energikilde, der afhænger af hjælp fra andre energikilder til backup.
Denne alvorlige udfordring er forsøgt behandlet på en anden side.

Naturligvis tales der om at bruge den overskydende kraft fra sol og vind til at lave forskellige former for flydende brændsel.
Som det ses af følgende er der langt mellem de fine ambitioner og den barske virkelighed.
Konvertering af vindenergi til metan er muligt.
Men omkostningerne vil bringe prisen frem til mere end fem gange det vi betaler for russisk gas.
Lagring af store gasmængder vil være både dyrt og farligt.

Sol

På verdensplan er der store håb om at solens energi kan løse en væsentlig del af klodens problemer med udledning af drivhusgasser.
Specielt i Tyskland er der en enorm boom for nye solceller, finansieret gennem fordelagtige støtteordninger.

Så længe der er tilstrækkeligt med “regulerbar energi” (vandkraft), er det muligt at udjævne de naturlige døgnvariationer.
Foreløbigt har der været muligt at holde skindet på næsen.
Men der skal meget mere til for at udjævne årstidsvariationer og umiddelbart ser det ud som om Tyskland arbejder sig ind i en håbløs blindgyde.

Foreløbigt har Kina tilstrækkelig andel af reguleret vandkraft og kan således absorbere den varierende energi fra sol og vind.
De lange højspændingsledninger er naturligvis ikke gratis og det har været nødvendigt at begrænse produktion af vindkraft i Nordkina. (2017)

Solenergi USA påvirker priser

Duck curve result (2)I USA er der en tydelig forskydning mod maximum behov for anden forsyning fra midt på dagen til hen imod eftermiddag og aften.

På det næste diagram ses at solenergi (gult) og vindenergi (blå) ved middagstid må deles om markedet.
Om aftenen må den forurenende backup skrue op for at dække behovet.

Det kan undre at den forurenende energi alligevel må køre videre midt på dagen.
Det skyldes at de traditionelle kraftværker (Kul og specielt Nuclear) ikke “sådan bare” kan ændre belastningen som det passer værdguderne.

Netavisen The Energy Collective skriver (2017 feb) at privat solenergi er for dyrt til at måles!
Denne kryptiske udtalelse dækker over et gavmildt og vel karmufleret system af tilskud.

For mere henviser jeg til en anden post: Sol og Vind.

Bio

Naturligvis er det ønskeligt at affald udnyttes som grundlag for energi.
Fx biogas eller forbrænding af affald.

Desværre er der mange tilfælde hvor myten om “det organiske” er blevet den kanin, der trækkes op af hatten, når der skal søges nye tilskud.
Fx ville landbrugsjorden have gavn af den halm, der nu afbrændes.
Men det kan ikke diskuteres at det stigende forbrug af træflis er et uholdbart misbrug af andre landes resurser.

April 2016 er problemet behandlet af Sören Kjärsgaard, der giver en meget grundig vurdering af energisituationen, specielt i Danmark og Tyskland.
Fra denne report citeres følgende:
– – – Imported bio mass is the fastest growing energy supply.
– – – Already in 2007 it surpassed wind+sun.
– – – In 2014 the import corresponded to 1726 MW against the
– – – wind power, 1496 MW.
– – – Hardly sustainable in the long run.

Produktion af bio-ethanol til brug som brændstof har allerede sendt fattige mennesker sultne i seng.
Senest (2016) hævdes at den forventede klimabeskyttelse vil være negativ.

Jeg har prøvet at samle det, jeg mener er relevant, på en anden side.

MEN
Hvad med Kernekraft ?

Så snart det drejer sig om produktion af energi (elektricitet) er der meget store økonomiske interesser forbundet med definitionen af hvad der er ”GRØNT”.

Hvis man går tilbage til den oprindelige definition vil kernekraft være lige så grøn som både sol og vind.
Naturligvis fordi der ikke udledes CO2 og lignende ved driften.

I Danmark er det imidlertid lykkedes at udelukke kernekraft fra ”det gode selskab”.
Måske fordi den igangværende misinformation er gået så vidt at:
– – – Halvdelen af den danske befolkning ikke engang ved at der
– – – ikke udledes skadelige drivhusgasser ved driften af reaktorer
– – – for kernekraft.
(April 2016)

I England har man tilsyneladende besluttet at de planlagte nye reaktorer (EPR) vil levere ”grøn energi”.
Eller måske snare: Man har set at de ikke forurener og ikke afhænger af naturens luner.
Med megen kritik fra “de grønne” gives et årligt tilskud til de stabile kraftkilder – herunder kernekraft.

Baseret på tvivlsomme argumenter har Greenpeace anlagt sag ved
EU-domstolen.

Her er Greenpeace gået sammen med tyske firmaer, hvor forretningsmodellen afhænger af tilskud til sol og vind.
Man fristes til at sige at “de grønne” naturligvis vil bevare de gode tilskud for dem selv.
(Greenpeace, der modtager årlige bidrag på over to milliarder kroner, er naturligvis ikke interesseret i for megen konkurrence.)

Vi glemte mere end halvdelen

Når der optimistisk tales om at vi nærmer os målet og at størstedelen af vor energi – – –
Ja så forbigås det at en meget stor del af vores energi bruges til opvarmning.
Dette er forsøgt behandlet på netavisen Euroactiv.

“Vedvarende Energi”

For at undgå misforståelser vil jeg nævne at der er store kendte resurser af uran og thorium.
Nok til de første par tusind år.
Således er det vildledende når det forudsættes at sol og vind kan tage patent på at være “Vedvarende”.

Forurening

Medens vi i “Vesten” sidder og overvejer om vi skal have kernekraft,
ja så dør millioner på griund af luftforurening.

Pris

Det diskuteres meget og der påstås endnu mere.
En tilhænger af kernekraft vil naturligvis henvise til at Frankrig har en
stor eksport af energi.
Formodentligt fordi de er billigere.

Efterskrift

Martin Kruse, Forsker ved Instituttet for Fremtidsforskning skriver:
Det store spørgsmål om lagring
El er en vare, der skal bruges, når den bliver produceret.
Det gælder naturligvis også for vedvarende energi, som er udset til kullets afløser for at mindske udledning af klimagasser.
For at skabe en stabil leverance af alternativ energi, er man nødsaget til at have en lagringsteknologi.
Ifølge IFO vil det i Tyskland kræve over 3000 pumpekraftanlæg, eller hvad der svarer til en 100-dobling af eksisterende kapacitet, for at opnå en stabil leverance fra sol og vind.
Udfordringen med den type energireservoir, ud over de store omkostninger, er NIMBY problemet (Not In My Back Yard).
Selv en kapacitetsudbygning svarende til 4/7 af det nødvendige ville være politisk umuligt i Tyskland.
Tilsyneladende er det egentlige problem forbigået: Årstidsvariationer.
Batterier
Det ville kræve 164 mio. batteripakker af typen brugt i BMW3i.
De 1 mio. elektriske biler, som forventet vil være på vejen i Tyskland i 2020, og som kan bruges som distribueret lagring, ville kun levere batterikapacitet svarende til 0,6 procent.
Hydrogen har med eksisterende teknologi meget store konverteringstab.
Dette forbundet med lagringen, der bestemt ikke er ufarlig, vil kræve store anlæg.
Alt dette bevirker at denne teknologi heller ikke er en god løsning.
Men lige meget hvad, så vil jeg mene at brint-biler ikke bør parkeres i en lukket garage.
Fra Pennsylvania
“Citizens Against Nuclear Bailouts” repræsenter forurenende virksomheder i Pennsylvania.
De er imod at A-kraft bliver accepteret som “grøn” og derved få samme vilkår som sol og vind.
Typisk for “grønne sider”, slutter det med at bede om tilskud.

Netavisen The Energy Collective gør op med flere grønne “løsninger”.

Ved at regne lidt på tallene er det let at se at “Det Grønne Europa” ikke er andet end et luftkastel.

CO2-fri energi.png
Hvis man er stabil og
ikke udleder skadelige
drivhusgasser.

Hvis der er nok til
flere tusind år.

Hvad mere for at
blive grøn?

Hilsner og god tænkepause
Thorkil Søe

Drøm eller virkelighed ?

Der var engang et kongerige, der godt nok havde en dronning.
Alle de fine mænd og kvinder i landet tænkte kun på et:
”Vi skal være verdens bedste land med forureningsfri energi”.

Nogle ihærdige mennesker, og efterhånden også andre forstod hvorledes de havde fundet frem til det helt rigtige, de blev ved med at forklare at hvis man bare – – – – –
Ja så ville alt blive grønt og godt.

Disse dygtige profeter, de lukkede sig inde som en sluttet skare og skrev mange lange forklaringer, med mange tal, om deres drømmesyn sammen med fine hensigtserklæringer og flot illustrerede hjemmesider.
Og alle, der ikke kunne forstå disse geniale tanker, de var ikke egnede til at føre sig frem i den offentlige debat.

Naturligvis. Sådanne drømmesyn er ikke gratis.
De mange skiftende regeringer, de ville jo ikke stå frem som uegnede til deres høje embede, så de støttede med store bidrag, som gik til mange glorværdige projekter.

Nu en dag, det var vist kort efter nytår, skulle en ny stor handlingsplan fremlægges, og derfor var alle de kloge mennesker mødt frem for at vise hvordan de forstod det hele og hvordan alt snart skulle blive Åh så godt, så godt, så godt.
Disse mange mennesker klappede og råbte Hurra Hura. For det skal man jo gøre.

Indtil en gammel afdanket ingeniør, der måtte støtte sig til sine stokke, spurgte: ”Hvad med pris og forsyningssikkerhed?”
Straks blev der tavshed. Men så var der en ung mand, der sagde – nej han næsten råbte – ”Der er ikke sammenhæng i de mange fine forklaringer”.

Langsomt, meget langsomt, begyndte folk at synge – først meget stille.

Hvem har lavet Hvem har lavet alt det der?
Hvem har lavet Det skal vi betale
Hvem har lavet Har man råd til det?

Til sidst var der en lille pige – måske var hun ikke helt så lille – hun spurgte spagfærdigt om noget, der var meget uartigt.
Dette kan naturligvis ikke siges højt i det pæne selskab – det kan kun hviskes: A***kraft.

Men andre begyndte at sige at man da ikke kunne komme nu og sådan sige at vi har taget fejl i 40 år – ”Det er jo længe før jeg blev født.”
Det var dog svært at høre for nu var alt blevet et stort virvar, stole og borde blev lavet til pejsebrænde og computere skulle genstartes.

Men den kloge mand, han blev ved med at tale om bæredygtighed og læse højt af de mange tal, som han nok ikke engang selv forstod.
De gode tilhørere, de kunne ikke mere høre hvad der blev sagt, men skulle alligevel gerne vise hvor dygtige man var, så de fortsatte med at nikke og klappe.

Selv dette fine pejsebrænde kan bruges som træpiller – bæredygtigt genbrug, for det var begyndt at blive koldt.

God nat og god tænkepause.
Hilsner fra Thorkil Søe https://wp.me/s1RKWc-87

https://wp.me/p1RKWc-1jH