Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

It is an investment, not technology that is lacking for the energy transition

Lino Guzzella, Juergen Hambrecht, and that Lars G Josefsson (GHJ), write that the EU's 'radical climate plan ”of the European Green Deal' is a dangerous mira

- 33 reads.

It is an investment, not technology that is lacking for the energy transition

Lino Guzzella, Juergen Hambrecht, and that Lars G Josefsson (GHJ), write that the EU's 'radical climate plan ”of the European Green Deal' is a dangerous mirage. They have a right to say that there is a major challenge for the EUROPEAN union, and the world is to meet climate change targets, and that the EUROPEAN union should do everything possible to get out of the other regions, such as China and India, in the transformation of the energy system, including that of bringing about the global pricing of carbon emissions, for example, in the form of a minimum price for carbon dioxide emissions. But, that is GHJ to argue that ”the goal of making Europe carbon-neutral by 2050 was unrealistic” because of the lack of technology is a strange thing. It's not the lack of technologies that prevent the transition, but to provide the necessary investments in these technologies.

This is a very big challenge to achieve carbon neutrality by the year 2050. The transition needs to accelerate, and this requires a strong and clear policy measures. Then you can take advantage of the great potential to be an effective way to integrate wind and solar into the energy system, through the creation of användarflexibilitet, and store electricity in the form of other energy carriers such as hydrogen. Here, the EU can move ahead and develop the technologies and systems that can also be applied in other countries, particularly in China and India.

there is no point in a system with large amounts of renewable energy from wind and solar power are more expensive than the other alternatives, which could lead to carbon neutrality. On the contrary, decreases in the cost of these elproduktionsslag very quickly.

as GHJ assume that it would be impossible to meet the targets that are in line with what climate science shows is not a good course of action. Argue the authors, is that we should give up?

as GHJ assume that it would be impossible to meet the targets that are in line with what climate science shows is not a good course of action. Argue the authors, is that we should give up? On the contrary, we should be grateful that it is not technology that is the limitation, but the current policy in which the policy instruments and other economic ventures so far have been weak. It can be concluded that this is precisely what the European Green Deal', designed to get to grips with it. There are also significant initiatives in a number of industries in the financial sector, in order to shift towards 'green' investments.

the statement that ”in the long term it is not possible to create a zero-emission and reliable energy supply at competitive prices for all consumers in Europe” is also odd. In the long run, it is quite obvious that this can be done. GHJ is pointing to nuclear power as a sign of respect for the objectives to be met. At the same time, they write that ”in A competitive, zero-emission electricity supply means an electricity price of around 50 cents per kilowatt-hour”. It makes no sense. One of the few power generation technologies that are guaranteed to give a higher elproduktionskostnad than 50 cents per kilowatt-hour to new nuclear plants.

However, it may be desirable to be 20 years old to extend the battery life on the (soon to be), the remaining six units are in Sweden, where it is economically viable and the units still comply with the relevant safety requirements.

In a recent study of the MIT in turn, a number of kärnkraftforskare – that all may be said to be very much in favour of nuclear power, determined that new nuclear power plants in Europe and the united states being drawn with the very high costs and long construction times. Might think GHJ that we have to wait and hope that the cost of nuclear power is going to go down, so that the problem can be solved?

and , not the least, in order to solve the issue of waste, but it is not likely that such an approach will lead to the costs and the associated financial risk in the short term. However, it may be desirable to be 20 years old to extend the battery life on the (soon to be), the remaining six units are in Sweden, where it is economically viable and the units still comply with the relevant safety requirements.

in A sane climate change policy in the EU, prices in the emissions of carbon dioxide, sufficiently high so that the necessary investments are made, as well as providing technical support to the engineers, as also the rest of the world can do the same. Then, the EUROPEAN union and the rest of the world comes together to deliver the required klimatomställningen.

<
Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.