The Japanese disaster occurs while in Italy we discuss two important measures for nuclear energy and photovoltaics. However a number of reasons, it is true that if you give up the electrical capacity of nuclear power, you can compensate by installing more panels. For example, the PV does not work at night and in winter it produces less electricity than in summer. So to compensate, you need to enable electricity generation plants 'traditional'. Not to mention incentives. But there are also for nuclear, even if other: we tend to grant tax rebates to invest or maintain a certain price level for electricity sold. Eventually, if we do not want nuclear power, we know that can not be replaced by photovoltaic, but rather by an increased use of gas or coal.
an earthquake in Japan unprecedented in the century is causing a nuclear accident in scope at present still not clear. But we must point out that the disaster of the central Fukushima happens randomly while in Italy we discuss two important measures for nuclear energy photovoltaics. Japan could influence them, but to what extent it is right to go in the criticism?
The world is shaken Italian renewable and (rightly) angry about the uncertain trading on the decree that will set the limits in the development of the sector. The Ministry of Economic Development wants to ensure that the current incentive plan is drastically reduced after reaching 8 gigawatts of photovoltaic systems installed. This level was originally placed in 2020, but it could already be reached by the end of 2012. The criticism of many environmental organizations and some trade associations is that they want to reduce the incentives to photovoltaic to encourage the development of nuclear power. According to some, it is not coincidence that the debate on renewables has been opened in conjunction with final approval of the nuclear order, to be completed by next March 23.
Fukushima now demonstrate that nuclear power is a dangerous technology, unstable and outdated, and that we should invest money in renewable energy for the atom. It is now just one point clear: this is not is a piece of nuclear weapons. The writer is also in favor of renewable, provided that the introduction of photovoltaic and wind power is made based on a shared plan, not according to the vehemence of merry invasion at the expense of taxpayers. Reasons to criticize the nuclear and promote renewables, there can be many. What I do not agree, however, is the assumption that between the nuclear and renewable energy policies in Italy are separated by a perverse and evil link, as some would have you believe.
The first reason is technical . The PV at night does not work, produces less electricity in winter than in summer. It has the advantage, however, that if properly installed (and produced in the right places) saves CO2 emissions. This does not preclude the need for photovoltaic systems back-up : If electricity is used after dark, for example in the winter afternoons, you must enable power generation plants "traditional" to make up the panels off. According to some researchers, the need for "doubling" of solar power would be 1:1, so deep is installed photovoltaic power, just as I need backup "traditional".
This aspect has special value for the ratio of solar and nuclear is not true that if you give up nuclear power capacity, you can compensate by installing more panels. It may seem strange, but even the nuclear power could act as back-up when there is no sun at the level of emissions would be preferable to coal, technology which still rely on almost 18% of our electricity, or gas, which represents more than 65 percent. The other aspect of an apparent inconsistency in the argument of trade-off between nuclear and renewable On the cost of the two technologies. The electricity generation based on photovoltaics is still very expensive: about 30-40 cents per kilowatt hour produced. Without the incentive plan for consumers, photovoltaics would not hold up economically.
Nuclear power is cheaper : production costs are calculated between 10 and 12 cents per kilowatt hour. For this reason, nuclear electricity could be sold to the electricity market without going through the incentive plan. If the plan s'interrompesse incentives for photovoltaics, this would not benefit directly from the nuclear structure change, dynamics and extent of the payment. An investor in nuclear power may simply reward their investment by selling electricity.
In fact, there are also incentives for the nuclear but are otherwise. We tend to grant tax rebates to those who invest in the sector, or to ensure a certain level of electricity price sold, because the nuclear requires investment of large scale and long returns in time - that everything is justifiable or not. The estimated cost per kilowatt hour for nuclear power considered, depending on who produced the figures, the costs of decommissioning and waste management. We are free to question these estimates, it is difficult to predict the disbursement related to processes that may require hundreds of years. If we do not want nuclear power, but it can not be replaced by photovoltaic, but rather by an increased use of gas or coal. Okay support renewables, and I understand those who criticize the nuclear: just do not go too far in putting the two issues in conjunction.
* Professor of Economics and Politics at the University of Potsdam and Senior Fellow of bigs-potsdam.org
0 comments:
Post a Comment