When “cheap” energy will not come cheap

[rangerrebew]

When “cheap” energy will not come cheap
 
Last month, our Green Minister of Energy approved the doubling of the grid tariff (a charge for network use that the grid manager charges to the electricity users). The reason for this increase is the massive investment that the grid manager wants to do in the next decade.

These investments are expected to cost around 7 billion euro over the next decade. A big part of the investments goes to a sea cable to Denmarkand and to the UK, also cables to Germany, France and the Netherlands. Another part of the investment is the strengthening of the backbone that brings the Denmark/UK/offshore electricity inland (Ventilus). So, these investments have directly to do with the energy transition.

These costs will be billed to the end users (families and industry). There was some protest against this increase from the energy watchdog, consumer associations and the industry, but the Minister pushes through (translated from Dutch):


Minister of Energy Tinne Van der Straeten (Flemish Green Party) is now pushing through. “The cost of doing nothing is many times higher,” she says. “We see that in the Netherlands, where the grid is congested and industry can no longer expand. The costs of global warming also amount to a multiple of the investment costs, which translate into extra employment, security of supply and more cheap energy”.

I was not familiar with the situation in the Netherlands. It looks like she claims that the Dutch grid is congested and industry in the Netherlands can’t expand anymore. That looks like a strong claim. Looking it up, there are two Dutch provinces (Brabant and Limburg, both along the Belgian border) that don’t allow new heavy electricity users to connect to the electricity grid because the grid can’t handle it anymore, they will have to wait until that part of the grid is strengthened. The reason for this congestion is the rapid growth of heat pumps, charging stations, new companies and the electrification of the industry.

https://trustyetverify.wordpress.com/2023/06/24/when-cheap-energy-will-not-come-cheap/

[Bigun]

How dangerous is nuclear waste?

[Kamaji]

How dangerous is nuclear waste?

Transcript

Whenever I talk to people about the benefits of nuclear power—how dependable, how efficient, how clean it is—I’m always challenged with this: Yeah, but what about the waste?

Their question is hardly surprising.

The New York Times claims that the U.S. is “awash in radioactive waste.”

The Los Angeles Times writes that “figuring out where and how to safely store radioactive waste is one of the biggest obstacles to nuclear power…”

And Wired magazine warns that even our next generation of reactors “may still have a big nuclear waste problem.”

And so it goes.

Even though the greenest of Greens will admit that nuclear power is a clean source of abundant, reliable energy, many stop short of supporting it.

The nuclear “waste” problem ends discussion before it begins. 

After all, why develop this great source of energy if it’s going to poison our air and water with deadly radioactivity?

There’s only one problem with this well-worn disaster scenario. It’s not true.

The nuclear “waste” problem is a myth.

How so?

Let’s start with what nuclear waste actually is or to be more precise what it isn’t.

*  *  *

[DefiantMassRINO]

What about all the environmental disruption caused by building and maintaining offshore wind farms?

If we replace "offshore wind turbines" with "offshore oil rigs", they'd be chaining themslves to whales.

What do the construction and mainteance ships use for marine fuel?  What about all the toxic materials used to build wind turbines?

Also, isn't the North Sea known for being stormy?