Is "Energy Reality" New , for the New Year? Necessity Beckons?
Brussels proposes green label for nuclear and natural gas!
Brussels proposes green label for nuclear and natural gas European Commission paves way for investments despite concerns over waste and CO2 emissions The decision was taken after a vocal group of pro-nuclear and pro-gas governments demanded the taxonomy should not punish energy sources that provide a bulk of their power generation © Reuters
Brussels proposes green label for nuclear and natural gas European Commission paves way for investments despite concerns over waste and CO2 emissions The decision was taken after a vocal group of pro-nuclear and pro-gas governments demanded the taxonomy should not punish energy sources that provide a bulk of their power generation © Reuters
Brussels wants to recognise nuclear power and forms of natural gas as “green” activity as part of a landmark EU classification scheme to help financial markets decide what counts as sustainable investment. In long-awaited plans, the European Commission has paved the way for investment in new nuclear power plants for at least the next two decades and natural gas for at least a decade, under a green labelling system known as the “taxonomy for sustainable finance”. The labelling system, which will cover industries that generate about 80 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the EU, is the first attempt by a major global regulator to decide what counts as truly sustainable economic activity and help stamp out so-called greenwashing in the financial sector. A draft legal text, seen by the Financial Times, says the EU’s green label should be awarded to controversial energy sources including nuclear power and natural gas under certain circumstances. The decision was taken after a vocal group of pro-nuclear countries, led by France, and pro-gas governments in southern and eastern Europe, demanded the taxonomy should not punish energy sources that provide a bulk of their power generation. Nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases but produces toxic waste that requires safe disposal and can pose radiation risks. Natural gas does produce carbon dioxide but its supporters say it is far less polluting than traditional fossil fuels and is a vital way to help pave the way for lower emissions. Brussels was forced to delay a decision on how to classify the two energy sources earlier this year after disputes inside the college of commissioners over whether they should be awarded the green label. The battle to recognise nuclear power and natural gas as green has intensified in recent months as EU countries have faced record electricity prices this winter, driven by soaring demand for natural gas imports. The draft taxonomy text says nuclear power should be considered a sustainable economic activity as long as EU countries that host power stations can safely dispose of toxic waste and meet a criteria to cause “no significant harm” to the environment. The construction of new nuclear plants will be recognised as green for permits granted until 2045, says the text. Natural gas investment is also included in the green label as a “transitional” energy but must meet a more detailed set of conditions, including producing emissions less than 270g of CO2 per kilowatt and if it is replacing traditional fossil fuels such as coal generation. The EU imports around three quarters of its natural gas needs, most of which is supplied by Russia. The bloc’s energy crisis has sparked criticism from some member states that Moscow is artificially driving up gas prices and the EU should accelerate away from gas imports to renewable energy. The taxonomy text will need approval from a majority of EU member states and members of the European Parliament. EU diplomats said the text was likely to win widespread support from governments but the green classification for gas and nuclear was criticised by environmental groups. France’s EU commissioner Thierry Breton has said he is in favour of labelling both technologies as green as it would help the EU meet a goal of cutting CO2 emissions to net zero by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. “Gas is not the best to achieve our goal because you generate some CO2 but at least it’s better as a transition than coal,” Breton told reporters last month. “We need to have the right financing in the taxonomy, including nuclear energy".
Financial Times
Views: 254
Comment
-
Comment by Willem Post on January 8, 2022 at 7:39am
-
MAKE NEW ENGLAND GREAT AGAIN
THIS SIMILAR TO DEFORESTATION OF THE 1800s, but nothing grows back for at least 25 years!!!
-
-
On Dec 31, 2021, Germany, on ENERGIEWENDE auto-pilot regarding wind and solar, mindlessly shut down 3 of its 6 nuclear plants
However, EU bureaucrats have finally come to their senses
They declared: "Nuclear and gas are good enough for the EU"
Let us look at New England choosing nuclear
A 1,000 MW nuclear plant would produce 1000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.9, CF = 7.8894 billion kWh of electricity/y
15 of such plants would produce 118.3411 billion kWh of electricity/y
All of New England consumed 115 billion kWh in 2020
But, 15,000 MW would not be enough to serve a 25,000 MW peak demand.
Thus 10,000 MW of OTHER generating plants would be required
Plus at least 15% reserve MW would be required, to cover scheduled and unscheduled outages.
If 16 reactors were located on 8 sites, the land area would be 8 sites x 800 acres/site = 6,400 acres.
If South Korea were to build them (they are the best, next to China and Russia), the turnkey capital cost would be 16 x 1000 MW x $6 million/MW = $96 billion, spread out over 20 years, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost.
The plants would last 60 to 80 years.
Let us look at New England choosing wind and solar
Wind
If onshore wind were to produce 50%, 59 billion kWh, about (59 billion kWh/1000)/(8766 h/y x 0.30, CF) = 7,478, 3-MW wind turbines would be required on 1,246 miles of PRISTINE, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE ridge lines, a TOTALLY unacceptable destruction.
The turnkey capital cost would be 3 x 7478 MW x $2.5 million/MW = $56 billion, plus financing costs, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
The wind turbines would last at most 25 years, i.e., 3 sets of wind turbines would be required over 60 to 80 years.
Solar
If field-mounted solar systems were to produce 50%, 59 billion kWh, about 59 billion/(8766 x 0.14 x 1000) = 48,075 MW of panels would be required on 336,528 acres, a TOTALLY unacceptable destruction.
The turnkey capital cost would be 48,075 MW x $3 million /MW = $144 billion, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
The solar systems would last 25 years, i.e., 3 systems would be required over 60 to 80 years.
Wind plus Solar
Total cost for wind and solar would be $56 b + $144 b = $200 billion, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
All that wind plus solar MW would be useless to serve a 25,000 MW peak demand, because wind + solar often is minimal in late-afternoon/early-evening.
Thus, at least 20,000 MW of OTHER generating plants would be required to serve the peak demand
In New England, there are frequent periods with minimal wind and minimal solar that last 5 to 7 days, according to weather data.
WHERE WOULD THE SHORTFALL OF ELECTRICITY COME FROM?
Conclusion
It is high time the RE ignoramuses in New England finally acquire some common sense, because many $billions and years have been wasted on THEIR very expensive "global warming solutions".
“All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...Table 5/VT & NE sources
Paid to
Subsidy
Grid
GMP
Added
ISO-NE
Total
NE
Times
paid to
support
to rate
RNS+
utility
owner
towner
cost
adder
base
FCM
cost
cost
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
Solar, rooftop, net-metered, new
17.4
5.2
2.1
3.5
20.9
1.6
29.8
7.6
3.92
Solar, rooftop, net-metered, legacy
18.2
5.4
2.1
3.5
21.7
1.6
30.8
7.6
4.05
Solar, standard offer, combo
11.0
6.74
2.1
11.0
1.6
21.44
7.6
2.82
Solar, standard offer, legacy
21.7
10.5
2.1
21.7
1.6
35.9
7.6
4.72
Wind, ridge line, new
9.0
4.1
2.4
9.0
1.6
17.1
7.6
2.25
Wind, offshore, new
12.1
5.4
2.8
12.1
1.6
21.9
7.6
2.88
Sample calculation; NE utility cost = 6, Purchased + 1.6, (RNS + FCM) = 7.6 c/kWh
Sample calculation; Added to utility base = 17.4 + 3.5 = 20.9 c/kWh
Sample calculation; Total cost = 17.4 + 5.2 + 2.1 + 3.5 + 1.6 = 29.8 c/kWh
Excludes costs for very expensive battery systems
Excludes costs for very expensive floating, offshore wind systems
Excludes cost for dealing with shortfalls during multi-day wind/solar lulls. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide...
“Added to rate base” is for recent 20-y electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in NE.
“Added to rate base” would be much higher without subsidies and cost shifting.
Areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW have lower c/MWh, than NE
PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH RELIABLE ELECTRICITY SERVICE IN NEW ENGLAND
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/playing-russian-roulet...
New England is an Energy Crisis Waiting to Happen
https://doomberg.substack.com/p/new-england-is-an-energy-crisis-wai...
NOTE: In 2021, the federal government proposed to subsidize the installation of 30,000 MW of offshore wind systems by 2030, just 8 years from now, which is a total impossibility, because the EU managed to install only 25,000 MW of offshore wind turbines from 1991 to 2020, or 39 years. See URLs
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Denmar...
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/having-fun-watching-wi...
NOTE:
Warren Buffett Quote: "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate," Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. "For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/e...
Offshore Wind Systems
Denmark
installed the first offshore wind system in 1983; Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, etc., followed.
National grids were connected with high-voltage DC lines. Electricity is distributed/curtailed, during high winds, as needed.
European companies have installed more than 25,000 MW of offshore wind systems (the US has 35 MW) during the past 40 years, about 1,000 MW/y during recent years.
Massachusetts, Connecticut
It took several years for Massachusetts and Connecticut to sign contracts with EU/US wind consortia for about 1,000 MW of NE offshore wind systems
Almost all of the NE offshore wind systems would be supplied and installed by European companies, during the next 20 years.
See Appendix
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/having-fun-watching-wi...
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...
Maine
Maine RE folks have a goal to install hundreds of 12 MW, 850-ft-high, offshore FLOATING wind turbines.
However, that approach would be much more expensive per MW, than normal offshore wind systems, and would require major extension/augmentation of the NE grid.
At present, there are no major wind companies with any experience, other than minor experience by Norway having a demonstration system off the coast of Scotland.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deep-water-floating-off...
-
-
In France, they reprocess their spent nuclear fuel. "Through recycling, up to 96% of the reusable material in spent fuel can be recovered."
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-the-nucl...
-
-
Thank you Willem. Now if I could just understand your acronyms and units. What is 8766 x 0.9? I assume the .9 is an efficiency level. What is the 8766?
I am trying to calculate the energy produced by a straight linear mile of solar panels and the $ value of that production.
-
-
"All of them would be located on 15 x 500 acres = 7,500 acres, if one reactor per site, or 15 x 800 acres = 12,000 acres, if two reactors per site "
With 15 reactors, I think you would have (7) 800-acre sites and (1) 500-acre site OR 6100 acres.
-
Comment by Dan McKay on January 2, 2022 at 8:16am
-
Necessity begets sanity. Spent nuclear fuel diminished to its smallest unusable amount can become cargo on Musk's or Bezos rockets and given a ride to the sun. Poof!
-
-
A tree plantation isn't a forest. Nature doesn't rebound as a single species plantation. (I just read the prequel to the YouTube video, will watch it later, but certain things stood out and made me think "Agenda 21".)
Glad that nuclear is back on the table. People like and rely upon electricity a bit too much to have to go without, which would and already has happened with the unreliable renewables.
-
-
I know of no energy source that doesn't produce CO2 either as a result of burning it as a fuel or in the manufacture of the infrastructure that makes it work. "GREEN" seems to exclude that last bit of cost - that of building the devices, refining the materials, shaping, melting, digging, transporting, repairing, maintaining and so on. In the big picture there are no free lunches - anywhere. Check out this very long but enjoyable video From the Long Now Foundation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U3z6QYZOIM"Nature is Rebounding: Land & Ocean sparing through Concentrating Human Activities"| Jesse Ausubel
Maine as Third World Country:
CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power
Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.
Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT
******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********
(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/
Not yet a member?
Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?
We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi
Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!
Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law
Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future
"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."
https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/
© 2025 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine