Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Dec 11, 2017 4:24 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Jun 03, 2011 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1954
Location: Montreal
German Nuclear Closure Decision Causes EU Carbon To Jump
Aviation Week & Space Technology Jun 06 , 2011 , p. 17
Russell J. Dinnage, Platts/London

Prices for European Union Allowance (EUA) carbon credits traded in the 27-member state bloc’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) jumped at the end of May to above €17 ($24.47) per metric ton following a decision by the German government to shut down all of the country’s nuclear power plants by 2022.

Image
The German government announced May 30 that it will close down its nuclear power sector because of long-term safety risks associated with atomic energy and in response to the recent earthquake disaster in Japan, which left the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility there facing near meltdown.

EU carbon market analysts from investment banks Barclays Capital and Societe Generale said in research notes May 31 that long-term, coal- and gas-fired power will have to replace the electricity capacity lost when the German nuclear plants go offline forever. The country’s renewable energy sector of wind farms and solar power is also expected to pick up some of the lost generating capacity. But the analysts said Germany could add 406-450 million metric tons of previously unplanned carbon dioxide emissions to the EU’s overall CO2 emissions levels before 2020, if the nuclear plants are switched off as planned.

Germany has the second-largest nuclear power sector in Europe, next to France.

December 2011 delivery EUA prices closed at €17.03 per metric ton on May 31, after a long vacation weekend in the U.K. ending May 30, up €0.18 from the close of trading May 27. The 2011 EUA briefly touched a 2.5-year high May 31 for the front-year contract in the EUA forward curve, jumping briefly in intra-day trading up to €18.18 per metric ton in response to the German government’s announcement the day before.

Earlier in May, 2011 EUA prices came under bearish pressure, falling from the heights of €17.30 per metric ton April 4 to €16.40 per metric ton May 20 amid rumors of supply-side pressures that could emerge before the end of 2011 with the start of the monetization of the so-called NER300 block of carbon credits, a collection of 300 million metric tons of unused EUAs owned by the EU that the European Commission wants to sell in the ETS to support renewable energy development to the tune of at least €4.5 billion. The EC may sell some of the credits in 2012 before ETS Phase III, which is set to begin in 2013, making some traders worry about the surplus of EUAs in Phase II.

But, with an estimated 10 gigawatts of new, non-nuclear generating capacity needed in Germany out to 2022, many carbon traders said the market for EUAs will likely be more bullish over the rest of 2011 and through 2012.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 04, 2011 11:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2237
You have to decide between energy alternatives.
1. Renewable s, The diffuse large area and materials of installations. Still liable to damage by natural forces.
2. Fossil or other chemical fuels. Digging up large areas and depths for fuel. Reliable due to established systems.
large human losses from time to time due to natural factors or human failure.
3. Nuclear energy. Compact. Dense. Lower human cost. Requires highly skilled personnel. High (and rising) initial cost due to safety requirements and regulations.
You can go for the best or for the lesser evil. Most governments go for a mix.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 15, 2011 6:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 15, 2010 3:34 pm
Posts: 19
Location: Toronto, Canada
Merkel Says Germany Needs 20GW of Fossil-Fuel Power Plants Over Next 10 Years
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/06 ... plants.php


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 16, 2011 12:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Oct 18, 2008 5:48 am
Posts: 49
Location: Durham, UK
An article back in April in the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza (here's a Google translation) explains why German environmentalists are so fanatically hostile to nuclear power.

BUND (the German wing of Friends of the Earth), WWF Deutschland and Naturschutzbund Deutschland (also known as NABU) between them received €10 million from the Foundation for Nature Conservation in the German Baltic. The sole sponsor of that foundation is Gazprom-controlled Nord Stream AG.

Is this the clearest case yet of Green groups taking dirty fossil fuel money?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 16, 2011 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mar 20, 2011 3:03 pm
Posts: 5
I foresee a lot of demand for Russian gas and French nuclear-generated electricity in Germany's future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 16, 2011 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 508
This could work quite well. Germany closes old nuclear plants and replaces them with fossil fuels. They buy credits on the market. This pushes up the price of credits, making nuclear more attractive in other countries.

The nuclear in other countries is also needed for export to Germany.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 10, 2017 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3348
Location: Alabama
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2 ... te-target/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 11, 2017 3:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2237
I feel like a carbon agnostic. The world has survived worse carbon dioxide levels. The real danger of fossil fuels is suspended particles.
Still, the Germans have been managing their nuclear plants well enough. They could and should avoid panicky early closing of running nuclear plants and continue running them till economic and gain time to set up storage to cover up intermittent quality of solar and wind.
Also, the Russia, India or China will prove the feasibility of a closed nuclear cycle in a decade or two and used fuel will stop multiplying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 21, 2017 6:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 14, 2006 1:01 pm
Posts: 380
The U.S. seems to have geopolitical reasons to avoid world use of nuclear power. The U.S. has a huge supply of fossil fuels: fracked natural gas, fracked oil and coal. This is a continuing source of wealth. Politicians like wealth: They can get some of it themselves, and tax some of it to give away benefits.

There's more here: https://atomicinsights.com/fossil-fuel-competition/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group