<Nielsen: The Oil Drum is the #4 Sustainability Site on the WebThe Oil DrumDrumBeat: May 5, 2008>
<The Coal Crunch is MaterializingThe Oil Drum: EuropeCountdown to $200 oil (3) - no gas tax needed...erm, right...>

109 comments on Energy Strategy for ETH Zurich: A Critical Review

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Pitt the Elder on May 6, 2008 - 12:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I was more thinking in terms of Rumsfeld's "old" Europe

Thanks to CAP, the EU was a major food exporter at least as far back as 2000, before most of "new Europe" joined.

You are simply wrong in your assertion that Europe - new or old - cannot feed itself.

Once Europe can no longer import as much fossil fuel as we would like, we won't have as much fertilizers available any longer (as producing them consumes lots of energy)

World nitrogen fertilizer production requires a paltry 4% of world natural gas consumption, and fertilizer is much easier to ship over water than LNG for power plants. Natural gas will be available to produce fertilizer for a long time.

Not, of course, that it's necessary - the natural gas is just used as a cheap source of hydrogen, and nuclear-fired electrolysis could be used for that (and currently is, in small amounts). Making all the world's fertilizer via electrolysis would require just 4% of the world's electricity, and it's a perfect application for soaking up intermittent power from wind or solar.

There is no evidence that rich countries will be suffering a long-term fertilizer shortage any time soon.

I know for a fact that Switzerland cannot feed its current population

(a) You don't know that for a fact, because you don't know what the effect of 65 years of agricultural technological advances is. Per-hectare yields have grown enormously since WWII.

It's important to be able to realize what you don't know, since that's the most fertile area for learning.

(b) It doesn't matter anyway. Switzerland is in the middle of a massive food exporter, and there's no evidence trade by electrified rail is going to go away any time soon.

Between the massive nuclear sector in France and the heavy investment in wind and solar by Germany (and now Spain), only about half of "old Europe"'s electricity comes from fossil fuels, meaning reductions in fossil fuels alone aren't enough to black out Europe.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Francois Cellier on May 6, 2008 - 9:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Between the massive nuclear sector in France and the heavy investment in wind and solar by Germany (and now Spain), only about half of "old Europe"'s electricity comes from fossil fuels, meaning reductions in fossil fuels alone aren't enough to black out Europe.

Let us check on some data.

Here is what Switzerland has to say:

"Switzerland’s electricity consumption is continually increasing and, from 2012 shortfalls in the supply are likely in the winter."

Here is some relevant information from the UK:

"Britain is likely to face a shortfall in electricity generation within five to seven years."

Here are some predictions from Germany with its heavy investment in solar and wind energy:

"Electricity will become scarce and far more costly than it already is today. We could face a power shortfall of between 12,000 and 21,000 megawatts".

Finally, some interesting data from nuclear France are reported here:

"France was recently forced to import 2,000 megawatts of energy as the heatwave that swept across Europe saw a big increase in the use of air conditioning units."

Why the predicted shortfall of electricity in much of Europe starting around 2012?

In part, it can be explained by the generally growing economy. People are wealthier on average, and they buy additional items that consume electricity, such as air conditioners and second homes.

However, a big part is also a beginning pattern of replacement energy that can be observed. More people replace their central oil heaters by heat pumps that consume electricity.

As the fossil fuels are being phased out, the demand for electricity will be growing sharply, and there are currently no power plants in place to satisfy this growth in demand. Even worse in many countries, new power plants won't be built in time to meet the rising demand when it is predicted to occur.

As we've seen, things that you believe are not always true. Accordingly, a rational observer is unable to take your personal faith as evidence of the truth of a proposition, and must ask you for external corroboration.

That you believe something does not make it true, no matter how "right" it sounds to you.

It's important to be able to realize what you don't know, since that's the most fertile area for learning.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Pitt the Elder on May 6, 2008 - 10:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Between the massive nuclear sector in France and the heavy investment in wind and solar by Germany (and now Spain), only about half of "old Europe"'s electricity comes from fossil fuels, meaning reductions in fossil fuels alone aren't enough to black out Europe.

Why the predicted shortfall of electricity in much of Europe starting around 2012?

Because they haven't been building enough capacity, of course.

Which is irrelevant to my point about large-scale non-fossil generating capacity already existing in Europe, so I can only assume you've jumped into this non sequitur in order to "prove" me "wrong" about something.

Unfortunately for you, your links don't support what you seem to be saying - they make it clear that the collapse of the European grid is highly unlikely. Let's take your link for Germany, for example, and show the context you so carefully omitted:

In addition to the heads of Germany's major energy utilities, who have until now shamelessly earned billions from their oligopoly, strategists at alternative providers, like German renewable energy company Lichtblick, are also now saying that, unless something changes, Germany is headed for a "power shortfall."

When that happens, electricity will become scarce and far more costly than it already is today. "We could face a power shortfall of between 12,000 and 21,000 megawatts," predicts Wulf Bernotat, the CEO of major German utility company E.on. The figure corresponds to the amount of power generated by at least a dozen large nuclear or coal power plants.

Gabriel insists, at every opportunity, that there is "no power shortfall." All that he means by this is that Germany is unlikely to be plagued by major blackouts. But he does agree that a lack of investment will lead to supply bottlenecks and sharp increases in the cost of electricity, unless Germany builds new power plants and an adequate network of new power lines.

Key features here:

  • Power shortfall unless something changes. You're making the same "nothing changes" mistake again.
  • "Germany is unlikely to be plagued by major blackouts"

As we've seen, things that you believe are not always true.

I'm sure such beliefs exist, but you've so far failed to point out any instances.

I'd be glad if you had, since then I'd learn something, but considering how you seem to be more focussed on getting back at me for pointing out your mistakes rather than actually learning from them, it's not clear you're up to it.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Francois Cellier on May 7, 2008 - 3:32am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I can only assume you've jumped into this non sequitur in order to "prove" me "wrong" about something.

Not at all. I only applied a technique of mirroring (Winnicott/Spotnitz) to show to you how condescending you sound.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.