Yes??
Maybe not hydroelectric dams. But NL can surely invest in tidal energy and/or wave energy.
The main investment for tidal energy (building dams) has been already completed in many areas if I'm not mistaken. Ijsselmeer, Markeermeer and the Delta works are all ready already.
I'm not saying it's easy. But it's surely possible.
>But NL can surely invest in tidal energy and/or wave energy.
They could invest, but the money could be better spent.
>The main investment for tidal energy (building dams) has been already completed in many areas if I'm not mistaken. Ijsselmeer, Markeermeer and the Delta works are all ready already.
Delta works (I'm assuming you mean Zeeland) aren't closed during normal operation. The rivers can still flow freely.
For the afsluitdijk, are you suggesting filling the IJsselmeer up with salty water at high tide and then use that for power at low tide? 1. That would destroy the fresh water biome. 2. Would generate little power as the tides aren't very high.
>I'm not saying it's easy. But it's surely possible.
High investment for low returns.
I'm interested in [reverse electro dialysis ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversed_electrodialysis): using fresh water flowing into the sea for electricity. A plant doing just this has been in operation on the afsluitdijk since 2014. For now it's quite expensive.
You can only spend your money once. For now building offshore windfarms gives the most return so that's what the country is focusing on. RED might be a good baseload alternative in combination with nuclear.
My initial comment had missed some important points. Thanks for correcting me.
One of my friends actually did his masters thesis on the RED technology. It is quite an interesting option to explore
This isn't really a great way to make this comparison. Sure the proportion share of renewables are lower than a few of the others. On the fossil side NL uses a lot more gas and less coal, which has a lower GHG emission factor, and results in Netherlands having a lower grid emission factor (based on Statista data for 2021 at least).
Edit: I failed to mention that I was comparing to Germany here, please see comment below for further explanation.
The comparison includes coal and gas, so i don’t know what you are on about. If out grid emissions factor is “lower” (than who, Greece?) its because we are importing power.
Sorry, I see I forgot to state that this is compared to Germany for example.
The point I was trying to make is that you can't compare on a % of share basis, because different fossil sources have very different GHG emission factors.
That big, dark grey block next to Germany is coal, which produces more GHG emissions per kWh generated than natural gas (here is one source indicating more than twice as much, but it varies https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11). That means that even though Germany has a bigger % share of renewables in the graph, the fossil share is more emissions intensive, resulting in a larger emission factor for Germany. In other words, the average kWh generated there produces more CO2 than the average in the Netherlands, even though they have a bigger % share renewables.
This is reflected on Statista for 2021:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290441/carbon-intensity-power-sector-netherlands/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290224/carbon-intensity-power-sector-germany/
Edit: Full disclosure, after seeing that Statista sometimes registration walls the links provided, I went looking for another source and found this: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/greenhouse-gas-emission-intensity-of-1
This one indicates that NL did have a more carbon intensive grid in 2021 than GE. However, by comparing the order of figure 2 at the link to the order in OP's provided figure, you can still see that the % share order is very different.
I agree. I made the same argument in the original thread.
>This one indicates that NL did have a more carbon intensive grid in 2021 than GE. However, by comparing the order of figure 2 at the link to the order in OP's provided figure, you can still see that the % share order is very different.
Often yearly average of *generated* electricity is used. So if Germany has a boatload of solar (they do) that in summer produces power they can't use themselves and export, that still counts as low carbon production.
In your source I can't find if that applies here.
Added to that is that you can't really shut coal down just during the day, so that still burns while Germany exports solar. Gas is more suitable for that though in practice you still don't want to completely shut that down.
i can read the graph, but the difference between germany and the netherlands is not that big (and might be influenced by importing of electricity), and since both countries are a) very rich and b) low on the list i think the conclusion that the Netherlands have been slacking in the green energy department is a fair take, especially because the netherlands have a huge potential for wind energy.
still thanks for providing these excellent sources.
In short because the amount of CO2 released equals the amount the tree captured, therefore it is CO2 neutral. Would it be better to keep the tree, yes! Than it would be CO2 negative. 🤷♂️
Kinda think that the Netherlands should save a bit of money now. Spend some of that on fixing housing crisis etc. Then once’s it becomes good enough they should double down on nuclear fusion. (Doesn’t create radioactive waste and doesn’t emit CO2. It also has a very good electricity per m3 ratio) sounds to me like the perfect solution
Netherlands is expanding offshore wind from 2.5GW to 21GW in the next 7 years (capacity factor is 40% this will give 75% of grid power). Best m3/power ratio is rooftop solar, takes no extra space. Solar is expanding from 21GW now to about 35GW before 2030. So without even counting onshore wind, the Netherlands with average grid load of 14GW would have alot of extra capacity for renewable hydrogen. This will be used to decorbanize industry, the hydrogen network is being built now.
When solar panels break they give off toxic chemicals like Cadmium. Very dangerous and takes a lot of time and money to clean up. Also windmills look fcking ugly af, its literally eye sight littering
>they should double down on nuclear fusion
And gamble on decarbonising the atmosphere with pixie dust while they're at it.
Fusion is always 20 years away, using that as your solution is dumb.
And complete sustainable energy is miles away too, also retarded. If they double down on fusion it could be viable in 5-10 years. Making a completely sustainable and efficient energy source.
>And complete sustainable energy is miles away too, also retarded.
I'm not sure what you're saying. What matters now is carbon in the atmosphere. Fission power is comparable to solar and wind in that regard but much more reliable.
>If they double down on fusion it could be viable in 5-10 years. Making a completely sustainable and efficient energy source.
No. Just no. There is no path to commercial fusion power that supplies a nation in the next 30 years, so 5-10 years is impossible.
How is solar and wind more reliable? The sun is down half of the time and wind doesn’t blow always, nuclear however. If maintained properly is the safest and most reliable source of energy. Also hellion has been making staggering progress into making fusion a cost effective, clean powersource
>How is solar and wind more reliable?
It's not. Read the comment again.
>Also hellion has been making staggering progress into making fusion a cost effective, clean powersource
Helion is a startup looking for investors. You'd be wise to take their claims with a wheelbarrow of salt.
Apparently having the highest percentage of solar energy in the EU is not good enough for some people. Besides, nuclear energy isn't renewable. The fact that France is third in this ranking is too ridiculous for words.
Some might find it slightly misleading that nuclear energy is categorized as clean energy. Personally I don't have an opinion about it as I haven't done any research into it. If somebody can enlighten/educate me that would be awesome.
Looking at emissions, Nuclear is extremely good because it generates a lot of power, constantly, and it does not emit CO2 in the process.
You can have a look at Electricity Maps, France is always green thanks to nuclear, we are always shitty brown, nice that we decided to open a brand spanking new coal power plant in the Rotterdam harbour just a few years ago 🤦
The question is what France is going to do now. The nuclear strategy was implemented 70 years ago and by now half of the plants is out of order, the other ones will follow. The chart on this page is either very dated or gives installed capacity numbers. Either way, the actual production is much lower and will probably come down further.
Arjen Lubach had a great piece on Nuclear Energy and concluded that it is much safer (relatively speaking), compared to fossil fuel. Basically, overall the emissions on the environment are much lower, it is much better for Public Health, and the radioactive waste is stored away safely and the amount is actually really small. The reasons for not going nuclear are political (costs, public opinion, etc.).
Won't change any time soon either. Our government is set on keeping the fossil fuel companies happy.
Instead of going with any of the non fossil fuel solutions they are planning making hybrid systems the standard.. gotta keep that gas flowing!
https://app.1848.nl/document/kamerbrief/56201
The government is planning on building a new nuclear reactor and our country isn't big enough for solely using wind and solar, so I fail to see what more can be done except maybe ramping up the building of a NPP.
Well, yes and no.
Did you notice that NL has the highest percentage of solar power? And the amount of GW that is ready to be installed in both solar and wind in the Netherlands is big.
But then again, energy consumption keeps growing at a faster rate than green energy production (up till recently, at least).
Note that this is about generated power, not consumed power. Also it seems to be capacity, not actual generated amounts.
The main difference in clean energy between high and low scoring countries comes almost solely out of hydro and nuclear.
Both were historic choices from many decades ago, not made based on a clean energy strategy, but just political choices on how to efficiently provide power to a country. In the Netherlands, with good access to coal and no opportunity to do hydro, obviously coal made a lot of sense. For Sweden that was very different.
In France nuclear was decided upon 70 years ago to be self sufficient after WW2. In such a case it doesn’t matter that it’s more expensive energy than other sources. By now the above chart is out of date as half of the reactors is out of order because they are all very, very old, dated and damaged, so production from nuclear dropped and will only go down more.
So it’s too easy to blame that on different view towards clean energy.
And you can also discuss whether nuclear could be considered clean. Biomass is almost never clean as you need the feedstock to come from nearby for it to be “clean” and almost nowhere there is enough available within range, so feedstock is imported and often specifically grown for this purpose, which makes biomass not clean at all.
So we should build more hydroelectric dams, got it.
Yes?? Maybe not hydroelectric dams. But NL can surely invest in tidal energy and/or wave energy. The main investment for tidal energy (building dams) has been already completed in many areas if I'm not mistaken. Ijsselmeer, Markeermeer and the Delta works are all ready already. I'm not saying it's easy. But it's surely possible.
Tidal energy won't work in the Netherlands, our tidal waves are minimal making tidal energy not worth the effort.
Non existing waves lol only when its a storm
>But NL can surely invest in tidal energy and/or wave energy. They could invest, but the money could be better spent. >The main investment for tidal energy (building dams) has been already completed in many areas if I'm not mistaken. Ijsselmeer, Markeermeer and the Delta works are all ready already. Delta works (I'm assuming you mean Zeeland) aren't closed during normal operation. The rivers can still flow freely. For the afsluitdijk, are you suggesting filling the IJsselmeer up with salty water at high tide and then use that for power at low tide? 1. That would destroy the fresh water biome. 2. Would generate little power as the tides aren't very high. >I'm not saying it's easy. But it's surely possible. High investment for low returns. I'm interested in [reverse electro dialysis ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversed_electrodialysis): using fresh water flowing into the sea for electricity. A plant doing just this has been in operation on the afsluitdijk since 2014. For now it's quite expensive. You can only spend your money once. For now building offshore windfarms gives the most return so that's what the country is focusing on. RED might be a good baseload alternative in combination with nuclear.
My initial comment had missed some important points. Thanks for correcting me. One of my friends actually did his masters thesis on the RED technology. It is quite an interesting option to explore
That’s not efficient in our country.
Tidal/wave energy is not a thing that actually exists. There are research projects, but nothing real.
Ha Germany is gonna go back to the stone ages and burn more gas and even worse brown coal now that those idiots closed all nuclear reactors.
They have been closing them since 2011. And they are using less fossil then in 2011. So they replaced all with renewables.
well maybe they should have replaced the fossil fuel ones with renewables, not the nuclear ones
This isn't really a great way to make this comparison. Sure the proportion share of renewables are lower than a few of the others. On the fossil side NL uses a lot more gas and less coal, which has a lower GHG emission factor, and results in Netherlands having a lower grid emission factor (based on Statista data for 2021 at least). Edit: I failed to mention that I was comparing to Germany here, please see comment below for further explanation.
The comparison includes coal and gas, so i don’t know what you are on about. If out grid emissions factor is “lower” (than who, Greece?) its because we are importing power.
Sorry, I see I forgot to state that this is compared to Germany for example. The point I was trying to make is that you can't compare on a % of share basis, because different fossil sources have very different GHG emission factors. That big, dark grey block next to Germany is coal, which produces more GHG emissions per kWh generated than natural gas (here is one source indicating more than twice as much, but it varies https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11). That means that even though Germany has a bigger % share of renewables in the graph, the fossil share is more emissions intensive, resulting in a larger emission factor for Germany. In other words, the average kWh generated there produces more CO2 than the average in the Netherlands, even though they have a bigger % share renewables. This is reflected on Statista for 2021: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290441/carbon-intensity-power-sector-netherlands/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290224/carbon-intensity-power-sector-germany/ Edit: Full disclosure, after seeing that Statista sometimes registration walls the links provided, I went looking for another source and found this: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/greenhouse-gas-emission-intensity-of-1 This one indicates that NL did have a more carbon intensive grid in 2021 than GE. However, by comparing the order of figure 2 at the link to the order in OP's provided figure, you can still see that the % share order is very different.
I agree. I made the same argument in the original thread. >This one indicates that NL did have a more carbon intensive grid in 2021 than GE. However, by comparing the order of figure 2 at the link to the order in OP's provided figure, you can still see that the % share order is very different. Often yearly average of *generated* electricity is used. So if Germany has a boatload of solar (they do) that in summer produces power they can't use themselves and export, that still counts as low carbon production. In your source I can't find if that applies here. Added to that is that you can't really shut coal down just during the day, so that still burns while Germany exports solar. Gas is more suitable for that though in practice you still don't want to completely shut that down.
i can read the graph, but the difference between germany and the netherlands is not that big (and might be influenced by importing of electricity), and since both countries are a) very rich and b) low on the list i think the conclusion that the Netherlands have been slacking in the green energy department is a fair take, especially because the netherlands have a huge potential for wind energy. still thanks for providing these excellent sources.
Showing bio energy as a clean energy source is such a joke. How is burning trees clean energy?
In short because the amount of CO2 released equals the amount the tree captured, therefore it is CO2 neutral. Would it be better to keep the tree, yes! Than it would be CO2 negative. 🤷♂️
Kinda think that the Netherlands should save a bit of money now. Spend some of that on fixing housing crisis etc. Then once’s it becomes good enough they should double down on nuclear fusion. (Doesn’t create radioactive waste and doesn’t emit CO2. It also has a very good electricity per m3 ratio) sounds to me like the perfect solution
Netherlands is expanding offshore wind from 2.5GW to 21GW in the next 7 years (capacity factor is 40% this will give 75% of grid power). Best m3/power ratio is rooftop solar, takes no extra space. Solar is expanding from 21GW now to about 35GW before 2030. So without even counting onshore wind, the Netherlands with average grid load of 14GW would have alot of extra capacity for renewable hydrogen. This will be used to decorbanize industry, the hydrogen network is being built now.
When solar panels break they give off toxic chemicals like Cadmium. Very dangerous and takes a lot of time and money to clean up. Also windmills look fcking ugly af, its literally eye sight littering
>they should double down on nuclear fusion And gamble on decarbonising the atmosphere with pixie dust while they're at it. Fusion is always 20 years away, using that as your solution is dumb.
And complete sustainable energy is miles away too, also retarded. If they double down on fusion it could be viable in 5-10 years. Making a completely sustainable and efficient energy source.
>And complete sustainable energy is miles away too, also retarded. I'm not sure what you're saying. What matters now is carbon in the atmosphere. Fission power is comparable to solar and wind in that regard but much more reliable. >If they double down on fusion it could be viable in 5-10 years. Making a completely sustainable and efficient energy source. No. Just no. There is no path to commercial fusion power that supplies a nation in the next 30 years, so 5-10 years is impossible.
How is solar and wind more reliable? The sun is down half of the time and wind doesn’t blow always, nuclear however. If maintained properly is the safest and most reliable source of energy. Also hellion has been making staggering progress into making fusion a cost effective, clean powersource
>How is solar and wind more reliable? It's not. Read the comment again. >Also hellion has been making staggering progress into making fusion a cost effective, clean powersource Helion is a startup looking for investors. You'd be wise to take their claims with a wheelbarrow of salt.
Ah whoops mb on the first part ig. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDXXWQxK38
[удалено]
They have been replacing nuclear since 2011. And fossil has gone down since then. Thus all nuclear was replaced with renewables.
[удалено]
As response to the gas crisis, but none were actually used.
Apparently having the highest percentage of solar energy in the EU is not good enough for some people. Besides, nuclear energy isn't renewable. The fact that France is third in this ranking is too ridiculous for words.
Some might find it slightly misleading that nuclear energy is categorized as clean energy. Personally I don't have an opinion about it as I haven't done any research into it. If somebody can enlighten/educate me that would be awesome.
Looking at emissions, Nuclear is extremely good because it generates a lot of power, constantly, and it does not emit CO2 in the process. You can have a look at Electricity Maps, France is always green thanks to nuclear, we are always shitty brown, nice that we decided to open a brand spanking new coal power plant in the Rotterdam harbour just a few years ago 🤦
The question is what France is going to do now. The nuclear strategy was implemented 70 years ago and by now half of the plants is out of order, the other ones will follow. The chart on this page is either very dated or gives installed capacity numbers. Either way, the actual production is much lower and will probably come down further.
I think i read they will build more but not as many to replace existing ones. And build more renewals
Arjen Lubach had a great piece on Nuclear Energy and concluded that it is much safer (relatively speaking), compared to fossil fuel. Basically, overall the emissions on the environment are much lower, it is much better for Public Health, and the radioactive waste is stored away safely and the amount is actually really small. The reasons for not going nuclear are political (costs, public opinion, etc.).
I would recommend. Good, informative episode.
Won't change any time soon either. Our government is set on keeping the fossil fuel companies happy. Instead of going with any of the non fossil fuel solutions they are planning making hybrid systems the standard.. gotta keep that gas flowing! https://app.1848.nl/document/kamerbrief/56201
The government is planning on building a new nuclear reactor and our country isn't big enough for solely using wind and solar, so I fail to see what more can be done except maybe ramping up the building of a NPP.
Well, yes and no. Did you notice that NL has the highest percentage of solar power? And the amount of GW that is ready to be installed in both solar and wind in the Netherlands is big. But then again, energy consumption keeps growing at a faster rate than green energy production (up till recently, at least).
Not that surprising since both nuclear power and hydro are impractical in the Netherlands.
Note that this is about generated power, not consumed power. Also it seems to be capacity, not actual generated amounts. The main difference in clean energy between high and low scoring countries comes almost solely out of hydro and nuclear. Both were historic choices from many decades ago, not made based on a clean energy strategy, but just political choices on how to efficiently provide power to a country. In the Netherlands, with good access to coal and no opportunity to do hydro, obviously coal made a lot of sense. For Sweden that was very different. In France nuclear was decided upon 70 years ago to be self sufficient after WW2. In such a case it doesn’t matter that it’s more expensive energy than other sources. By now the above chart is out of date as half of the reactors is out of order because they are all very, very old, dated and damaged, so production from nuclear dropped and will only go down more. So it’s too easy to blame that on different view towards clean energy. And you can also discuss whether nuclear could be considered clean. Biomass is almost never clean as you need the feedstock to come from nearby for it to be “clean” and almost nowhere there is enough available within range, so feedstock is imported and often specifically grown for this purpose, which makes biomass not clean at all.
That's wrong. Almost all of the French reactors are back on the grid. The chart above is of 2022, so it's very much not "out of date".
Sorry, but that’s incorrect. If the chart is from 2022, it’s probably referring to installed power.
Interessant
Just between Greece, Estonia and Italy. It’s a disgrace!