[BabyPeanut]

71 nuclear plants x 1600 MW = 114 GW continuous power
116000 turbines x 2 MW = 232 GW
1050 km2 solar panels x 50 W/m2 = 525 GW intermittent power

[smiley]

71 nuclear plants x 1600 MW = 114 GW continuous power
116000 turbines x 2 MW = 232 GW
1050 km2 solar panels x 50 W/m2 = 525 GW intermittent power

That is true, windmills and solar have a varying output, but the way they compensate for that is incorrect. You never backup a windmill with more windmills or one solar panel with more solar panels. At night you won't get any power from solar, whether you have 1 or 100.000 panels. When there is no wind you won't get any power from windmills (For a small country like the Netherlands it doesn't matter where you are geographically).

It is absurd to assume that all the energy needs can be satisfied with solar or wind energy alone. Therefore it is equally absurd to calculate the number of wind turbines or solar panels that are needed for such a feat.
In other words: The numbers they have chosen are completely arbitrary and it is my impression that they just chose and impressively big number to make nuclear energy look good.

[BabyPeanut]

That is true, windmills and solar have a varying output, but the way they compensate for that is incorrect.

Who is the "they" that are doing the compensating?

see the links on this post link

[smiley]

Who is the "they" that are doing the compensating?

My apologies, I might have been a bit unclear. With "they" I referred to the writers of this article who tried to compensate for the varying output of the windturbines by just blindly adding more wind turbines.

Fair enough if you only want to use wind turbines to provide all the electricity in the Netherlands then you need a very large overcapacity, perhaps twice the peak load. But that is not the way you use wind energy.

Firstly at the moment storage is not a viable option for large scale applications. You need a pretty large swimming pool filled with electrolyte to back up one 2MW turbine. An alternative would be the conversion into hydrogen, which is then fed into a fuel cell. You also have to realize that energy storage (in whatever form) generates losses.

The most efficient solution is to have an energy mix of continuous and intermittent power generation. For instance solar, wind and biomass go very well together. About 10% of the electricity that I get from my provider consists of these 3 forms of energy. Of course you have to build in overcapacity, but not by the factors that are suggested in this article.

Durable energy is a mix from different energy forms. When you want to compare that to nuclear energy you have to compare it with that mix, not with a single form of durable energy.

It is also not that I'm nuclear phobic, I am willing to consider nuclear as a part of a solution. However after a few run-ins with the nuclear lobby at various conferences, I have gotten the impression they seem to be set on discrediting every other source of energy to promote their own.

[gg3]

Seems to me a reasonable mix would be 50% nuclear, 20% wind, 20% solar, 10% biomass (total 100%). Adjust for variable outputs due to plant maintenance, intermittency, day/night demand cycles, and local conditions. To this, add massive conservation efforts to reduce overall demand, thereby producing an oversupply.

The oversupply would allow the generating resources can be run at less than full capacity, extending their lifespan somewhat. Also it would provide a safety margin for use while ramping up construction.

[Nano]

The Dutch central planning bureau, CPB, has made a huge blunder in it's economic forecast for 2006 for Dutch economic growth. The agency has projected 2.5% economic growth in 2006, based upon a crude oil price of 35$ in 2006! Absurd!

http://www.cpb.nl/nl/news/2005_08.html

This is in Dutch of course, but this is the critical sentence:

"Voor volgend jaar verwacht het CPB dat de olieprijs lager zal uitkomen, op gemiddeld 35 dollar per vat."

Which means: "For next year the CPB expects that the crude oil price will fall to around 35$ per barrel"

This is dangerous, almost criminal incompetence! It's puts needless pressure on the development of alternative energies as investers shy away from biodiesel and other's because of the CPB projected "cheap" crude in 2006.

Heaven help the Dutch!

[Sys1]

Same case in France. Explosion of violence statistics over there, something like 5 out 60 millions people are living just because of government help. Every year, more and more homeless in streets. There's also a bubble houses.

Government thought 2,5% growth for 2005 with a... 35-40$ barrel. LOL.

[clv101]

Here are the key points from last weeks budget in the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4354159.stm

Growth for 2004 was 3.1%, as forecast, and Mr Brown predicted the economy would grow by 3% to 3.5% this year and 2.5% to 3% next year.

[maverickdoc]

clv101, what is your take on G. Brown?

[clv101]

Right place at the right time, there just happens to have been favourable economic conditions on his watch, not because of anything he's done. Over the last 7 years interest rates have been low, fuelling the housing boom which has generated a lot of consumer confidence and a lot of extra money on the high street from equity release. In 2000 he had a £21Bn windfall from the auction of 3rd generation mobile telecoms licences and in the last couple of years the high oil price has netted him several £Bn extra in tax receipts from BP and the like. He's also managed to raise taxes without anyone getting too bothered by it.

It can't last though - interest rates are going up, that'll bring the housing market down and with it consumer spending and then jobs. And there's a little thing called peak oil and of more immediate concern in the UK there's our 38% electricity and 70% domestic heating from natural gas, with a falling domestic production and no storage to speak of and 22% from nuclear, with all but one power plant being decommissioned within 15 years due to oil age.

Gordon Brown wants to be next Prime Minister - he must be mad!

[maverickdoc]

yes, yes i know all that. but what do you think of him as a person? say compared to TB?

[clv101]

Well I don't know him personally, I don't really have any criticism of his personality though (or whatever personality we see through TV and newspapers). Compared to Tony Blair, GB come across IMO as more straight talking, honest and genuine. He's very confident which is an easy trick to pull when things are going well; I guess we'll know what he's really made of when things start to turn down over the next few years.

[lorenzo]

How come the economy of the Netherlands is in such a sh!tty state? It used to be one of Europe's most competitive economies a few years back (under the purple government).
I know your neighbors (Belgium) are doing much much better.
How come?

[Eteonian]

Oh boy I am glad to hear the New Zealand government is not more moronic than their peers. Very similar stats and deluded projections. Not that it helps but ..

So I assume the guy's who come up with this sort of nonsense work in their respective treasury departments. Could be a case of wishful thinking. Something like: If PO is remotely possible state income will fall and since our income can't fall it's got to be rosy??

[CarlinsDarlin]

This thread reminded me of a part of the recent DOE report.

For the U.S., each 50 percent sustained increase in the price of oil will lower real U.S. GDP by about 0.5 percent, and a doubling of oil prices would reduce GDP by a full percentage point. Depending on the U.S. economic growth rate at the time, this could be a sufficient negative impact to drive the country into recession. Thus, assuming an oil price in the $25 per barrel range -- the 2002-2003 average, an increase of the price of oil to $50 per barrel would cost the economy a reduction in GDP of around $125 billion.

...edited...

A $10/bbl. increase in oil prices, if sustained for a year, will reduce global GDP by 0.6 percent, ignoring the secondary effects on confidence, stock markets, and policy responses; see Bird, op. cit. A sustained increase of $10/bbl. would reduce economic growth by 0.5 percent in the industrialized countries and by 0.75 percent or more in the developing countries; see Ibid., OECD Standing Group on Long-Term Cooperation, op. cit., and International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook, September 2003. Larger oil price increases will have even more severe economic effects.

These countries that are forecasting growth could actually be beginning recession, one which apparently will hit them out of "nowhere."
K

[Njegosh]

How come the economy of the Netherlands is in such a sh!tty state? It used to be one of Europe's most competitive economies a few years back (under the purple government).
I know your neighbors (Belgium) are doing much much better.
How come?

A faith-based government that has managed to go from a cooperative model of governance to a protagonistic one.
for the past decades The Netherlands have been one the most Americanized countries on the Continent.
So it doesn't surprise me, that this would be one of the traits we picked up from the other side of the Atlantic.
Bussiness as usual i guess!

[Chocky]

Bloody Americans, now they're responsible for the Dutch government making poor estimates of the price of oil in 2006. Is there anything they aren't responsible for? Anything bad, that is

[Eteonian]

Bloody Americans, now they're responsible for the Dutch government making poor estimates of the price of oil in 2006. Is there anything they aren't responsible for? Anything bad, that is

Chocky, I trust you don't identify with your government or the USGS. Anyway, they are the good guys. That's the problem. All of our governments believe them.

[lorenzo]

Bloody Americans, now they're responsible for the Dutch government making poor estimates of the price of oil in 2006. Is there anything they aren't responsible for? Anything bad, that is

No, he has a point. The Dutch economy is now under control of fanatic Protestants, just like that of the US. And disaster strikes.

Just compare the Netherlands and Belgium: both had a "purple" (socialists + liberals) government and their economies did well. Today, Belgium still has a purple government, and it's the strongest economy in the eurozone, while the Dutch now have a religious Protestant government, and their economy is down the drain.

There must be a link here.

[MJ]

Bloody Americans, now they're responsible for the Dutch government making poor estimates of the price of oil in 2006. Is there anything they aren't responsible for? Anything bad, that is

No, he has a point. The Dutch economy is now under control of fanatic Protestants, just like that of the US. And disaster strikes.

Just compare the Netherlands and Belgium: both had a "purple" (socialists + liberals) government and their economies did well. Today, Belgium still has a purple government, and it's the strongest economy in the eurozone, while the Dutch now have a religious Protestant government, and their economy is down the drain.

There must be a link here.

There's a turnside however. I agree, we do have one of the strongest economies in the eurozone, but oddly enough, growth does not translate in jobs or investments this time, at the contrary, life is getting pretty expensive for everyone. When looking around, all you see and hear is that we're gonna have to work longer, earn less, strikes, lay-offs and bankruptcy rates have never been higher, neither are unemployement figures.
Still, 2004 has been by far the most profitable year since ages for firms. It's pretty demotivating seeing your management board giving themself yet again a bonus, while laying off their older (and most expensive) workers or making them work longer for the same salary...

As a result, many voters (voting is mandatory overhere) turn away from purple-green (it's not a purple liberal/socialist coalition, there's also the green party with (admitted: very little) influence) government.
Latest polls shows a cartel of christian democratics (CD&V) and middle-right wing nationalistic party as the biggest candidate if elections were to be held now... and actually, that's a good thing, because previous polls showed an extreme-right party (Vlaams Blok) as being the big favorites.