Building standards for new buildings are aleady very strict when it comes to isolation.
But I don't think you understand the mentality of most Norwegians on this matter. Norway produces electricity at extremely low prices. This is 110% renewable. Most Norwegians don't feel obligated to reduce their quality of life just ot provide cheaper electricity to Denmark, Germany and the UK.
If you take commodities where the price difference is the reverse, like meat, (EDIT:) I expect most Danes would be equally reluctant to pay Norwegian prices for beef and pork.
In fact, Norway fully intends for people to INCREASE their electricity consumption, even beyond what we currently export. Much of Norway's greenhouse gas emmisions come from petrol/diesel, but currently 2/3 of new cars are electric. This means that ever more electricity is needed domestically.
As long as most European countries use natural gas for heating, or rather, as long as natural gas is a cheaper way to heat buildings in countries like Germany than electricity, I predict that it will be hard to have a common electricity market across the North Sea / Skagerak. If electricity is not used for heating, it is kind of a luxery good. But when all you have for heating is electricity, it becomes a fundamental need, similar to food and water (when it's -40 degrees Celsius outside).
Many countries in Eastern Europe have winter temperatures almost similarly low, and for those to use electricity for heating, the price also needs to be at similar levels (or lower, since they have less wealth than Norway).
For many of those countries, it's hard replace fossil fuels, and if they cannot use Russian gas, they may have to go back to coal (LNG may be too expensive).
Hopefully you're right, and they can get affordable prices by using windmills. But for countries like Hungary and Romania to be able to heat their houses with electricity, prices have to be RADICALLY lower than current prices in Germany or Denmark.
Obviously, modern nuclear plants are not cheap enough in all places, either. But even if the effect is just that using Nuclear in place of gas for electricity production, that should ensure that (non-Russian) natural gas remains viable for heating purposes througout Europe for the next generation.
Or (admittedly a bit unrealistic), one could revise standards for Nuclear production to lower safety standards (in terms of expected deaths per GWh) to a level more similar to competing energy forms.
Yes, however in many nations there is a huge fleet of old not retrofitted buildings.
> Most Norwegians don't feel obligated to reduce their quality of life just ot provide cheaper electricity to Denmark, Germany and the UK.
This is perfectly understandable and thinking "let's provide for ourselves first, and then sell our surpluses without any rebate" is welcome. The market will cope.
> I doubt most Danes would be equally reluctant to pay Norwegian prices for meat and pork.
True, and there may also be some dynamic equilibrium to reach there.
> Norway fully intends for people to INCREASE their electricity consumption
Nearly all European nation does so, AFAIK, and those who deny it doesn't have any other plan: the most realistic way to replace fossil fuels remains 'electrification', and even with major efforts towards saving energy achieving it implies to produce more electricity. A few years ago some denied it, but nowadays it seems clear(?)
> As long as most European countries use natural gas for heating > If electricity is not used for heating, it is kind of a luxery good
During a very cold season in the North it may not be as vital as heating but everywhere many households, even out of cold/hot seasons (heating system and air conditioner OFF) just cannot cope without electricity. Many professional setups, especially secondary and even more tertiary sector, just cannot proceed without it.
> it's hard replace fossil fuels, and if they cannot use Russian gas, they may have to go back to coal (LNG may be too expensive).
> for countries like Hungary and Romania to be able to heat their houses with electricity, prices have to be RADICALLY lower than current prices in Germany
Yes, but how would nuclear be a better option, given its upfront costs, high LCOE...?
> natural gas remains viable for heating purposes througout Europe for the next generation.
Is it compatible with an IPCC scenario?
> one could revise standards for Nuclear production to lower safety standards (in terms of expected deaths per GWh) to a level more similar to competing energy forms.
It will be known, thus amplifying the NIMBY effect.
30 degrees C is uncomfortable, -20 is another level. Affluent people will always have air conditioning, as can workplaces, simply based on profit. I think most people in warmer climates still see air conditioning as a kind of a luxery (at least the ones I know), even if it is a very welcome luxery.
> Yes, but how would nuclear be a better option, given its upfront costs, high LCOE...?
Nuclear would rely on going back to more reasonable prices, partly through a review of regulations, and partly by focusing on efficiency during construction and operation. We know this is all doable, if the will is there.
>> natural gas remains viable for heating purposes througout Europe for the next generation.
> Is it compatible with an IPCC scenario?
Probably not with the most optimistic one.. But better than to continue large scale coal power.
> It will be known, thus amplifying the NIMBY effect.
This would absolutely require some education/propaganda efforts by governments and other authorities, similar to the kind of education being done for climate change.
Starting with thourough documentation of the harm done by coal to lungs in media and schools would be a start. Start adding a tax on coal power (and a smaller one on natural gas), and increase it every year, until both are unprofitable. Then let the market decide how to distribute the replacement between renewables and nuclear.
I really think heated clothing will gain ground. As for air conditioning its typical use is in sync with solar-panel production.
> Nuclear > focusing on efficiency during construction and operation
In France and the US results of real efforts towards this show how difficult it is.
>> NIMBY effect.
> This would absolutely require some education/propaganda efforts by governments and other authorities
I doubt so, because the root cause is here a lack of trust, for many in governments and authorities, and for some even to the very underlying technical system (most "solutions" leading to worse problems).
> similar to the kind of education being done for climate change.
I doubt so, because climate change is perceptible, therefore the message is "See? We have a problem! Nearly all scientists say that fossil fuel use is a prominent cause and we all can do something about it" is way more easy than, after many blunders of all kinds and in every field, touting "We, the gov, checked this nuclear thing. It is above the adequate level of safety, so let's optimize in order to quickly build many reactors". It may be true (even if I doubt so) but this is IMHO out of the current Overton window scope.
> harm done by coal
Yes, avoiding any "manufacturing of consent".
> tax on coal power
Yes, there is reason to accept that some can use it without compensating for bad externalities.
> let the market decide how to distribute the replacement between renewables and nuclear.
Yes.
Maybe, but it seems dystopian to me to have to rely on that in your own home. In places like Norway, where there is plenty of clean energy, I don't think the population will be willing to go there.
Yesterday, our prime minister declared that current energy prices are not viable. The labour movement and farmer organizations (and many others) are demanding that Norway pulls out of ACER, or renegotiates the agreement. During the summer, the problem is not so great, and given the situation in Ukraine, nothing will happen right now. But I would be surprised if some "solution" hasn't been found before December.
https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/raseri-mot-hoye-stromprise...
> In France and the US results of real efforts towards this show how difficult it is.
Again, I already consider France to have achieved success, they just need to keep it up.
> I doubt so, because the root cause is here a lack of trust,
This varies from country to country. Scandinavia and parts of northern Europe has traditionally had relatively high trust in government. In other places, governments have no such authority.
In both cases, trust is built and maintained by attemting to tell the truth and make reliable predictions. For instance, overselling renewables (for instance by underestimating the need and/or cost of storage) is dangerous, as it can cause long term harm to this trust relationship.
Similarly for nuclear, if there is a meltdown that kills thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in a plant the government claims to be "safe", trust is broken. If there is a minor incident, the population needs to be educated about the real effects.
> It may be true (even if I doubt so) but this is IMHO out of the current Overton window scope.
This is a good point, and just as important is that most politicians don't even have the scientific understanding themselves, so they too are controlled by whatever Zeitgeist is ruling at any time.
Having this discussion on Twitter, for instance, is basically useless. At least here on HN, even the people with another opinion will argue more from reason than pure emotion or partisanship. Within educated people, there may exist another Overton windown than what may exist in the general population.
To add complication, in the general population, there is even a risk that there are two "camps", each with their own, non-overlapping Overton windows. If enough people lose trust in official government sources, one can end up in scenarios where the majority ends up believing things that are in direct conflict with scientific knowledge. (And this can happen on both sides, simultaneously, for different topics.)
And here is one of my fears. I'm generally supportive of investments in renewables, but I fear that if unrealistic projects are started because the "sound good" to politicians, the weaknesses of such projects will eventually become obvious to the population. And the more some source of authority has tried to downplay such weaknesses, the more likely it will be to get a reaction in the opposite direction. In other words, if huge investments are put into wind power, and the technology doesn't deliver what is promised, there can be a huge backlash that leads to countries starting to build more coal power plants instead of tearing them down.
> Yes, avoiding any "manufacturing of consent".
In the sciences, goverments should not manufacture consent. The scientific debate needs to be free. As for the general public, some level of government sponsored "education" can be beneficial, but as I wrote above, it is critical that such communication is as fact-based as possible, non-partisan (when possible) and that it delivers on predictions (or, if predictions are uncertain, avoids making hard predictions).
> > let the market decide how to distribute the replacement between renewables and nuclear.
> Yes.
:)
This is indeed highly probable and could boost efforts towards a larger cooperation, relieving the burden of 1-to-1 relationships by diffusing risks.
> I already consider France to have achieved success, they just need to keep it up
We (I'm French) try hard, but couldn't adequately built any new reactor since 1999.
>> the root cause is here a lack of trust,
> This varies from country to country. Scandinavia and parts of northern Europe has traditionally had relatively high trust in government. In other places, governments have no such authority.
Indeed, however it seems to me that the level of trust gets lower even in those nations(?). See local 'Pirate Party'
> trust is built and maintained by attemting to tell the truth and make reliable predictions. For instance, overselling renewables > can cause long term harm to this trust relationship.
Indeed, but on this very account trust on nuclear was already dented because many don't see past accidents as 'minor'. This may be wrong, but they sure don't want to be exposed to such risk.
> most politicians don't even have the scientific understanding themselves, so they too are controlled by whatever Zeitgeist
This is a sure way for them to be able to communicate with the electorate, a necessary way to be elected.
> Within educated people, there may exist another Overton windown than what may exist in the general population.
Indeed, however the case at hand is difficult to settle even among them because there are reasons to think that 'renewables' can be sufficient, and therefore to prefer avoiding problems raised by nuclear (risk, waste, dependency to uranium, daunting decommissions...), reasons to think that the level of risk associated to nuclear plants is higher than estimated or would become intolerable if we build many of them...
> there are two "camps", each with their own, non-overlapping Overton windows
There are! And the integrated window defines the very limited spectrum were politicians seeking power are constrained.
> If enough people lose trust in official government sources, one can end up in scenarios where the majority ends up believing things that are in direct conflict with scientific knowledge
Indeed. Worse: even fully-gov-trusting people can err (or be fooled) this way.
There is no sure source clearlyu indicating what is preferrable, or even (esp. outside of pure mathematics) what is really 'true'.
> I fear that if unrealistic projects are started because the "sound good" > if huge investments are put into wind power, and the technology doesn't deliver what is promised, there can be a huge backlash that leads to countries starting to build more coal power plants
The risk is real. However since the 2000's the objective reality is "huge investments were put into nuclear, and the technology doesn't deliver what was promised..."
> In the sciences, goverments should not manufacture consent > some level of government sponsored "education" can be beneficial
I highly doubt so, as it will be quickly distorted (even non deliberately: 'an end justifies any means')
> it is critical that such communication is as fact-based as possible, non-partisan (when possible)
In theory it can be done, but I'm not aware of any historical success.
> if predictions are uncertain, avoids making hard predictions
This induces a tension with the necessary 'motivation'. Politicians avoid "maybe" along with "let's go!".
> We (I'm French) try hard, but couldn't adequately built any new reactor since 1999.
France is not what it used to be. On the other hand, that statement has been true for a while. (France used to be the dominant power in Europe for almost 1000 years.)
> Indeed, however it seems to me that the level of trust gets lower even in those nations(?). See local 'Pirate Party'
Still, Northern Europe + Switzerland has way higher confidence in government than France:
https://data.oecd.org/gga/trust-in-government.htm
> Indeed, but on this very account trust on nuclear was already dented because many don't see past accidents as 'minor'. This may be wrong, but they sure don't want to be exposed to such risk.
Common people used to believe the earth was flat, even a millenium or two after the Greeks knew it was round. Even today.
> Indeed, however the case at hand is difficult to settle even among them because there are reasons to think that 'renewables' can be sufficient, and therefore to prefer avoiding problems raised by nuclear (risk, waste, dependency to uranium, daunting decommissions...), reasons to think that the level of risk associated to nuclear plants is higher than estimated or would become intolerable if we build many of them...
"Renewables" sound good. "Nuclear" sounds scary. "Chemotherapy"/"radiation therapy" sound scary while "Energy Crystals" sound good. Most cancer patients will still chose the treatment recomended by doctors, because they trust him/her.
Trust like that, is built over time.
>> there are two "camps", each with their own, non-overlapping Overton windows
> There are! And the integrated window defines the very limited spectrum were politicians seeking power are constrained.
At the point of elections, public opinion has already been set. The shaping of public opinion is mostly not done by politicians, though. But politicians is noe group that can affect the institutions that shape public opinion.
> There is no sure source clearlyu indicating what is preferrable, or even (esp. outside of pure mathematics) what is really 'true'.
You realize that the sentence above is logically inconsistent with itself? ;)
Seriously, though, properly executed science is the best approach we have to determine the level of confidence we can have in certains sets of propositions. (I believe this almost axiomatically, since even the way I come to this conclusino is based on scientific thinking.)
Someone who is reasonably bright and educated in the metods of science will have some ability go to the literature and investiage for themselves. I can, by using math, common sense and personal experience come to the conclusion that the earth is roughly spherical. (Primarily by flying to different places, and notice what path the plan is following, and the evalute what hypothesis (round vs flat earth) explains the path best, with the common sense element being that the airline wants to minimize fuel consumption). I can do similar investigations in most of the "hard" sciences, and so far, my investigations have been compatible with the scientific consensus, where one exists.
In the social "sciences", this becomes much harder. At best, their predictive power is weak. In many cases, they seem like they're simply rationalizations of a previously held ideology.
Climate science, cosmology and economy are fields that I find to be somewhere inbetween. With good methodology, you can make some predictions, but the error bars are really huge. (For cosmology, we will obviously not live long enough to see the outcomes.)
But the medical significance of exposure to radiation is pretty hard science. Error bars are relatively small when exposure is large enough to create measurable increases in cancer risk. This is also what matters to a given individual that is exposed. At doses lower than 100mSv, especially if spread out over weeks or years, there is simply no reason to be scared.
We know pretty well how much risk comes with an exposure of, say 200, 500, 1000 or 5000mSv. Near the top of that range, there is reason to be VERY scared. But even at 1000mSv, you'll probably live.
We know this for similar (and largely overlapping) reasons that we know that radiation therapy (for some set of patients) reduces their likelihood of dying when they have cancer.
> In theory it can be done, but I'm not aware of any historical success.
I think there is a lot of science that is being taught with reasonable success in schools, especially hard sciences. That includes things like the health risks of radiation. (Certainly, I learned the basics in school.) For subjects where there is a lot of knowledge, a lot of the effect has to do with repitition, practical experiments, excercises, etc.
Obviously, there will be students that find any subject involving numbers and calculations to be hard, but if one can reach the other students, thay may be enough.
Indeed, IMHO because France is way too jacobinist (centralization + bureaucracy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_(politics) ).
In Northern Europe and Switzerland subsidiarity is key.
> "Renewables" sound good. "Nuclear" sounds scary. "Chemotherapy"/"radiation therapy" sound scary while "Energy Crystals" sound good. Most cancer patients will still chose the treatment recomended by doctors, because they trust him/her.
Indeed, however there is no serious scientist (bar Placebo effect) working on 'Energy Crystals', but many do work on renewables.
> At the point of elections, public opinion has already been set. The shaping of public opinion is mostly not done by politicians, though. But politicians is noe group that can affect the institutions that shape public opinion.
Indeed, this is a complex and dynamic system, hosting retro-actions and hidden vectors.
>> There is no sure source clearlyu indicating what is preferrable, or even (esp. outside of pure mathematics) what is really 'true'.
> You realize that the sentence above is logically inconsistent with itself? ;)
Yes, and it seems quite 'consistent' (!) because it asserts that no pure logic can, alone, provide a definitive answer when it comes to policies.
> properly executed science is the best approach we have to determine the level of confidence we can have in certains sets of propositions
Yes, a stable scientific consensus should never be neglected.
> Someone who is reasonably bright and educated in the metods of science
Yes! One can check the ability of science to explain, and therefore to efficiently predict. Teachings may benefit from this.
> Climate science, cosmology and economy
Only teaching stable consensual thesis would be a major progress.
> At doses lower than 100mSv
Details/devil. Internal exposure? Nearby which organ? And so on...
> even at 1000mSv, you'll probably live
Someone eating a 1Sv source or inhaling dust may, a few years later, disagree.
> we know that radiation therapy
They target tumors, and use various ways to protect what has to be protected.
> there is a lot of science that is being taught with reasonable success in schools, especially hard sciences
Yes!
> That includes things like the health risks of radiation
I don't consider it as hard science.
As noted we know efficient ways to reduce intermittence-induced production variability. If you are interested in all this the very scientific study described by the article I refenced is of interest. Note that other studies deliver similar results, see "How synchronous is wind energy production among European countries?" -- Monforti, Gaetani, Vignati). Those conclusions are sound for other continents, for the US see "Is it always windy somewhere? Occurrence of low-wind-power events over large areas" (Handschy, Rose, Apt), for China see Liu, Xiao Wang, Dai, Qi "Analysis on the hourly spatiotemporal complementarities between China's solar and wind energy resources spreading in a wide area"...
> The extreme price fluctuations
Yes, the context (economic crisis, energetic transition, international tensions...) isn't keen. I didn't know how hard it hits in Norway. In many Western nations it hits very hard but this is hidden from public sight by throwing public money at the problem (usually by sacrificing usually perceived energy taxes in order to create provisions or even pay for the current high market price), leading to more debt and therefore higher taxes (as usual the taxpayer and consumer will nonetheless pay, and more because the very government has a cost, burning part of taxes).
> the reservoirs in the hydro systems are already unusually low
Yes (climate...), and the planners have to keep some reserve in order to preserve necessary margins (emergencies and follow-up).
> Denmark should expect that at some point soon, Norway will shut down exports until the situation has normalized.
A huge grid offers more potential commercial partners, and the probability of an extreme "nobody is able to sell" case gets lower and lower.
> What happens to Danmark's electricity market if they are no longer able to import power from Norway and Sweden?
There are many factors: how much parties can plan for it in advance, find others sellers, curtail, backup... The composition gives the net result.
>> This is mainly a financial matter. A 'cooperation' achieved thru a market
> You would be right if Norway were able to coordinate that internally in ways that did not hurt the population. But in Norway, since electricity is used for heating (and it is cold here). That would have to mean a setup where households were able to buy electricity at prices close to the historical prices
We can predict a fair part of the parameters, therefore many cases are manageable. Even worst-case scenarios, leading to throwing public money at the problem, are in a way useful because they trigger adequate reactions (innovation...). Ways to cut down a huge part of heating-related needs are known, for example by enhancing thermal isolation or heating buildings in "anti-frost" (no freezing) mode while wearing heated clothing.
> But being a full member of the open energy market simply doesn't work for Norway at these price levels. It's kind of being members of an open market for food when your population is starving, even if you're a net exporter.
Yes, there always is a limit, even for our ability to counter limits by multiplying ways to cope. Compare various approaches merits is difficult, for example France touted its nuclear fleet as a sure way to be autonomous but now detects corrosion inside pipes, has to temporarily shutdown reactors (load factor now floats around .7) and therefore was recently very happy to import electricity from Germany (which is usually mocked because "wind & solar are intermittent,: Germany needs France"...). Moreover France imports most of its uranium from Kazakhstan (one may imagine Putin's going full LOL ahead upon reading that "France loves not to depend upon other nations").
> The prices of nuclear is caused by political choices. With rational (or only sightly paranoid) regulations, nuclear would be a lot cheaper.
Political choices are only part of the problem, and apparently not part of the main ones (there is a very interesting report about the French Flamanville-3 case, named the "rapport Folz", however it's in French I could not find any English version). Not being paranoid probably increases the probability of incident/accidents (contesting this is saying that some safety-related new specifications are totally useless: this is a bold statement), and on the long-term reducing the amount and patent effects of boo-boos, even at a non-negligible cost, may be the best bet when it comes to public opinion. This is not necessarily badly-invested money and time.
> there are a lot more pro-nuclear people now, than when I advocated for nuclear 15 years ago.
This seems globally true, however the amount of people willing to see a reactor installed in their vicinity rather than wind turbines in the ocean is low and stable.
>> A continental mix reduces this need.
> Not below "several days"
At continental scale several days without a fair part of the baseload and peaks, starting with storage at low charge, with not enough curtailing and backup capacity? I doubt so.
> long distance energy transfers are expensive
Indeed, however the huge grid is justified whatever the type of source: even going full-nuclear would justify it, for safety (see the current French 'corrosion' case) and to be able to use more sound sources (avoiding production units which burn fossil fuel). As showed this is already launched ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continenta... ) and will very be be further developed ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid ).
The impact of renewable sources is here limited to dimensions, not the very existence of most lines, therefore the real cost (specific to renewable sources) is limited, and way below many models proposed by nuclear or fossil industries.
This limited specific investment will be recouped thanks to a way lower LCOE, as producing electricity thanks to renewable sources is way cheaper than using nuclear (and getting more and more so).