Manuel Lozano Leyva, a professor at the University of Sevilla, says in his book "Nuclear, why not? "
Despite the firmness with which Manuel Lozano Leyva make this assertion is not correct. There is this relationship between nuclear energy and oil.
Nuclear plants generate electricity and if we REE data we see that the amount electricity generated from oil is negligible. In so far this year only 0.36%. These data are from the peninsula, in the Canary Islands and diesel Fuel continues to provide an important part of electricity and that are not nuclear.
is clear that new nuclear installation will not reduce our consumption of oil.
But maybe someone is thinking, that closing existing nuclear power plants would entail an increase in oil consumption. Neither is true. Surely the nuclear generation would be replaced with gas or coal, but never for oil derivatives. There is a compelling reason: the price
The fuel and diesel prices are prohibitive and can never compete with the combined cycle. To give a reference diesel fuel is hovering around the 800 € / t so that only fuel cost is 180 € / MWh. Therefore, a gas power plant would sell electricity to more than 200 € / MWh. In comparison, the wind is receiving € 77.3 / MWh (with bonuses and everything ...)
Therefore none of the things are true. Nor can we reduce our dependence on petroleum-based nuclear or nuclear means closing to increase this dependence.
Arguably, though not increase dependence on oil, increasing dependence on natural gas, which also is a fossil fuel .... so for the case are the same.
is true, is the same .... but not equal. There is a very important difference the price. The price of oil is sky high but natural gas is still affordable.
Why would the joke as soon as we close the nuclear plants? Generate
annual 60TWh are nuclear generating natural gas would increase our gas imports € 2200m. But then we save the € 418M we are spending on uranium. That is, the total closure of nuclear plants would increase our fossil-fuel imports € 1.782M annually.
Or put another way, the effect of the closure of all nuclear power plants on our energy dependence is equal to the price of oil rises $ 3 per barrel. Given that in the last year the price of oil has increased $ 40 per barrel, the effect on imports of nuclear power does not seem so important.
Moreover, the closure of nuclear plants, would enhance the development of renewable energies, so that in the long term, this figure would tend reduced.
unambiguously. "Nuclear, not" means " oil, yes .not alone, there are many who believe that reducing our dependence on oil should build more nuclear, or can not do without nuclear being oil prices skyrocketing.
Despite the firmness with which Manuel Lozano Leyva make this assertion is not correct. There is this relationship between nuclear energy and oil.
Nuclear plants generate electricity and if we REE data we see that the amount electricity generated from oil is negligible. In so far this year only 0.36%. These data are from the peninsula, in the Canary Islands and diesel Fuel continues to provide an important part of electricity and that are not nuclear.
is clear that new nuclear installation will not reduce our consumption of oil.
But maybe someone is thinking, that closing existing nuclear power plants would entail an increase in oil consumption. Neither is true. Surely the nuclear generation would be replaced with gas or coal, but never for oil derivatives. There is a compelling reason: the price
The fuel and diesel prices are prohibitive and can never compete with the combined cycle. To give a reference diesel fuel is hovering around the 800 € / t so that only fuel cost is 180 € / MWh. Therefore, a gas power plant would sell electricity to more than 200 € / MWh. In comparison, the wind is receiving € 77.3 / MWh (with bonuses and everything ...)
Therefore none of the things are true. Nor can we reduce our dependence on petroleum-based nuclear or nuclear means closing to increase this dependence.
Arguably, though not increase dependence on oil, increasing dependence on natural gas, which also is a fossil fuel .... so for the case are the same.
is true, is the same .... but not equal. There is a very important difference the price. The price of oil is sky high but natural gas is still affordable.
Why would the joke as soon as we close the nuclear plants? Generate
annual 60TWh are nuclear generating natural gas would increase our gas imports € 2200m. But then we save the € 418M we are spending on uranium. That is, the total closure of nuclear plants would increase our fossil-fuel imports € 1.782M annually.
Or put another way, the effect of the closure of all nuclear power plants on our energy dependence is equal to the price of oil rises $ 3 per barrel. Given that in the last year the price of oil has increased $ 40 per barrel, the effect on imports of nuclear power does not seem so important.
Moreover, the closure of nuclear plants, would enhance the development of renewable energies, so that in the long term, this figure would tend reduced.
Sources:
Ree.es
Centre for Energy and Sustainability in Spain 2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment