– >[Johan Braet
Onze man in Brussel….
Na 2 jaar op het kabinet van minister Muyters staat Johan momenteel de Vlaamse N-VA parlementsleden bij in de moeilijke domeinen van ruimtelijke ordening, omgeving en erfgoed.](https://waregem.n-va.be/wie-is-wie/johan-braet)
edit: correction: seems to be a different person of the same name. See below.
Households and businesses not having any electricity is good for the environment!
I hate how the media always omits a proper reference to the actual study. I think it might be [this report](https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docstore/d:irua:9776), although that has one more author not mentioned in the VRT item. Then again, they manage to misspell a name as well (it’s Kevin Milis, not Kevin Mills), so it might just be sloppy journalism.
So sad we have to waste tax money on ‘research’ like this.. Every person with 2 braincells knows this.
There has once been a study that claims more ice cream is sold on hot days.
That result was almost as predictable as this one.
I’m sure the eco-traditionalists of ‘Groen’ will have some (vaguely founded) criticism of this study, but any realist knows (independent of how you look at nuclear energy), we are not ready to let go of nuclear energy.
We already know Groen and Friends don’t care about facts or research so let’s just add this to the pile of “don’t care, doesn’t fit my outdated ideology” that Tinneke is keeping in her office bin.
So, anyone who wants to bet how the governement and Groen will respond to this? Or will they just try to ignore it?
Tinne kan het niet aan, Tinne kan het niet aan. Heel die bus, Tinne kan het niet aan.
Vollen bak Humperdinck.
Nu even serieus, er gaan koppen moeten rollen en niet alleen bij Groen. Een schande is het. Hopelijk komen ze nog terug op de kernuitstap. Voor het milieu en mijn portefeuille. Blackouts, man man man.
En dan nog gezwegen van het feit dat overal het net overbelast geraakt van duurdere buurten waar iedereen zonnepanelen heeft.
Dikke elektrisch kabels ettelijke km naar een ander dorp moet worden gelegd om het net niet te overbelasten
BOUW NIEUWE KERNCENTRALES.
Deze beslissing hadden ze 15 jaar geleden moeten nemen. Maar ja, visie is hier nul. Zaken besluiten voor populisme zonder over de gevolgen te denken.
Ja als we nu nieuwe kerncentrales bouwen zal het nog 20 jaar duren voor deze af zijn maar om ze niet te bouwen omdat het ‘toch te laat is’ is weer zo’n Belgen redenering.
> Stage 1: We say nothing is going to happen.
> Stage 2: We say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
> Stage 3: We say maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do.
> Stage 4: We say maybe there was something, but it’s too late now.
As far as I can see, it’s mostly people that are pro nuclear energy anyway that are employing the FUD tactic.
Let’s see how the claim are supported by the study. We’ll see below that the big scare words like blackouts are not supported by the study, but merely suggested or assumed.
>Dit heeft twee belangrijke gevolgen: energie importeren is duur, en het is dus slecht voor de bevoorradingszekerheid, stellen de onderzoekers.
This depends on the mode of importation. Long term contracts are possible, the spot market is not the only option.
Specifically the chemical cluster companies have already been buying themselves into offshore wind parks, in Dutch waters among other places. Also a form of import, happening in the private sector.
>Als ons net hiervoor moet worden aangepast, zal dat “hoge en onverwachte kosten” met zich meebrengen, verwijzen ze naar studies uit het buitenland.
If you look at the study, it says this: “It stands to reason that this will pose signicant challenges for the transmission grid and will more than likely require sizeable investments in order to facilitate the resultant power flows”. That’s it. Just an appeal to common sense. Obviously an assessment of these costs is needed, but let’s wait with the conclusions until after the studies.
>Over het gebruik van windturbines (waar België volop op inzet in een transitie naar groene energie) zeggen ze dat “deze steeds ondersteund moeten worden door grote investeringen in opslagcapaciteit zoals batterijen of vervangcapaciteit op basis van gas om hun onvoorspelbaarheid op te vangen. De nodige investeringen in zowel nieuwe productie- als opslagcapaciteit zorgen al gauw voor een stijging van de energiekosten van minstens 30 procent.”
This is problably based on table 1 and commentary on page 8-9.
However, this cost “increase” is based on a comparison with the base scenario… which includes zero investment costs, i.e. we never build anything new anymore. Well, obviously that’s *cheaper*. It’s also a guarantee for blackouts sooner or later.
The base scenario, the one that includes nuclear power, is actually the most expensive from the perspective of operating costs, though not by much (3,2 vs 3).
For future policy choices there should have been a scenario that includes investment costs for new nuclear plants. To be cheaper the investment costs would have to be less than renewables, quod non.
Additionally, as a general problem, the models are cost-optimizing models. However, only investment costs and exploitation costs are taken into account. No costs for decommissioning, or other risks of nuclear power are taken into account.
>Anderzijds komt de bevoorradingszekerheid dus in het gedrang, en het scenario van black-outs (plotse uitval van de stroom door een overbevraging in combinatie met te weinig aanbod) doemt volgens hen opnieuw op. Ofwel, om een black-out te vermijden, kunnen er (gedwongen) tijdelijke afkoppelingen komen.
This is really just a number of assumptions piled on each other. The model focuses on imports because price has been chosen as the priority optimization goal. So the model says “this amount of imports is the cheapest”, not “there is no alternative except this amount of imports”. They’re essentially saying “if you rely on source x as as large share of your electricity provision, there is a risk of blackouts if source x fails.” *Duh*.
They even refer to 2018-2019 as “a close shave” to illustrate the danger of blackouts, but how did that came about? Because the nuclear plants were unexpectedly unavailable! So it’s a pretty backwards conclusion that we should double down on nuclear power, and cling to the plants that failed then, to combat that problem.
The report itself just says: “While the topic of blackouts is not in the scope of the work carried out, the obtained results show big departures from the established mode of operation of the Belgian grid, which indicates that blackout risk after the nuclear phase-out merits serious study.” So again, not supported by this study.
Some other takeaways from the different scenario comparisons:
– Physical location availability for wind turbines is not a limiting factor in any model (nuclear_out_potential vs nuclear_out)
– The unrestricted cost optimization scenario (greenfield) chooses mostly gas as the cheapest.
– For some reason (past subsidy levels?) the model really dislikes offshore wind power. However, offshore wind has high capacity factors and a relatively steady production year round.
– It’d be interesting to run cost as dependent variable and emissions as target instead.
Bottom line: the study does not support the big words in the article.
Niemand had dit zien aankomen. /s
All taken care of. The researchers did not account for the massive amount of bullshit that will be spewed by the political parties during the next polls and elections. All that hot air will keep the energy going for centuries to come.
It is best to read their comments as I’m only an armchair expert, but I will try to summarize it. Their criticism seems to be that apparently the study bases its future energy mix by scaling up the energy mix of 2018 which does not take into account new and future developments. They also argue that it looks insufficiently at how flexibility and import from neighbouring countries can help support the grid.
I’ve got a bad case of wanting to say: ‘I told you so’ to our government.
I’m curious how long it will take for this entire debacle to start a protest in Brussels
And groen will utterly ignore this and push through for electoral gains. And this is best case as they dont even take into account consumption will rise.
Gelukkig heeft de EU gas als groene energie aanvaard. Dus er is genoeg groene energie voor iedereen met liefde geleverd door onze dikke vriend Putin! Komt wel in orde met onze klimaatdoelstellingen!
It’s amazing seeing the 2 kinds of people in this sub:
The majority: I knew it, build more nuclear now, keep the existing nuclear open. Groen is sooo stupid, Tinne doesn’t know what the fuck she’s doing.
A small minority: <read the report>… but that’s not what the report says at all. It only slightly suggests it based on a shitload of assumptions, and explicitly states that it didn’t properly investigate blackouts.
Congrats majority, you fell for the clickbait again.
face-fucking-palm
Dat is nu bijna een jaar dat ik mij ben gaan verdiepen in klimaatverandering, en ik weet nu nog altijd niet waarom die kerncentrales gesloten worden, en wat het alternatief is op termijn (korte termijn is gas en import).
Feest.
It will, we will pay other countries for their energy.
And we will pay our ass off…
Fucking retarded governments, too many too slow too expensive too incompetent and totally not voted for
Is it just me, or is this reaching “Don’t look up” levels of stupidity?
Suprised pickachu face
Volgens mij had ik ergens gelezen dat het niet aan onderzoek is van de UA, maar van personen verbonden met UA.
Die Kevin Wilis, volgens mij heb ik daarmee gestudeerd.
30 comments
“Stelt UAntwerpen”?
>In een studie berekenden Kevin Mills, Johan Braet en Johan Springael
– >[Johan Braet 3rd degree connection3rd
Raadgever Omgeving kabinet minister Zuhal Demir bij Vlaamse Overheid](https://www.linkedin.com/in/johan-braet-211b44144/?originalSubdomain=be)
– >[Johan Braet
Onze man in Brussel….
Na 2 jaar op het kabinet van minister Muyters staat Johan momenteel de Vlaamse N-VA parlementsleden bij in de moeilijke domeinen van ruimtelijke ordening, omgeving en erfgoed.](https://waregem.n-va.be/wie-is-wie/johan-braet)
edit: correction: seems to be a different person of the same name. See below.
Households and businesses not having any electricity is good for the environment!
I hate how the media always omits a proper reference to the actual study. I think it might be [this report](https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docstore/d:irua:9776), although that has one more author not mentioned in the VRT item. Then again, they manage to misspell a name as well (it’s Kevin Milis, not Kevin Mills), so it might just be sloppy journalism.
So sad we have to waste tax money on ‘research’ like this.. Every person with 2 braincells knows this.
There has once been a study that claims more ice cream is sold on hot days.
That result was almost as predictable as this one.
I’m sure the eco-traditionalists of ‘Groen’ will have some (vaguely founded) criticism of this study, but any realist knows (independent of how you look at nuclear energy), we are not ready to let go of nuclear energy.
We already know Groen and Friends don’t care about facts or research so let’s just add this to the pile of “don’t care, doesn’t fit my outdated ideology” that Tinneke is keeping in her office bin.
So, anyone who wants to bet how the governement and Groen will respond to this? Or will they just try to ignore it?
Tinne kan het niet aan, Tinne kan het niet aan. Heel die bus, Tinne kan het niet aan.
Vollen bak Humperdinck.
Nu even serieus, er gaan koppen moeten rollen en niet alleen bij Groen. Een schande is het. Hopelijk komen ze nog terug op de kernuitstap. Voor het milieu en mijn portefeuille. Blackouts, man man man.
En dan nog gezwegen van het feit dat overal het net overbelast geraakt van duurdere buurten waar iedereen zonnepanelen heeft.
Dikke elektrisch kabels ettelijke km naar een ander dorp moet worden gelegd om het net niet te overbelasten
BOUW NIEUWE KERNCENTRALES.
Deze beslissing hadden ze 15 jaar geleden moeten nemen. Maar ja, visie is hier nul. Zaken besluiten voor populisme zonder over de gevolgen te denken.
Ja als we nu nieuwe kerncentrales bouwen zal het nog 20 jaar duren voor deze af zijn maar om ze niet te bouwen omdat het ‘toch te laat is’ is weer zo’n Belgen redenering.
> Stage 1: We say nothing is going to happen.
> Stage 2: We say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
> Stage 3: We say maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do.
> Stage 4: We say maybe there was something, but it’s too late now.
Both CREG & UGent have done studies that claim there would not be a major influence. This UA professor already had an existing bias pro nuclear energy (link stolen from other comment): [https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6880781174852091904/?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A(activity%3A6879707378732830720%2C6880781149841444864)](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6880781174852091904/?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A(activity%3A6879707378732830720%2C6880781149841444864)) => he’s complaining about the nuclear exit on a post about Chinese cars….
As far as I can see, it’s mostly people that are pro nuclear energy anyway that are employing the FUD tactic.
Let’s see how the claim are supported by the study. We’ll see below that the big scare words like blackouts are not supported by the study, but merely suggested or assumed.
>Dit heeft twee belangrijke gevolgen: energie importeren is duur, en het is dus slecht voor de bevoorradingszekerheid, stellen de onderzoekers.
This depends on the mode of importation. Long term contracts are possible, the spot market is not the only option.
Specifically the chemical cluster companies have already been buying themselves into offshore wind parks, in Dutch waters among other places. Also a form of import, happening in the private sector.
>Als ons net hiervoor moet worden aangepast, zal dat “hoge en onverwachte kosten” met zich meebrengen, verwijzen ze naar studies uit het buitenland.
If you look at the study, it says this: “It stands to reason that this will pose signicant challenges for the transmission grid and will more than likely require sizeable investments in order to facilitate the resultant power flows”. That’s it. Just an appeal to common sense. Obviously an assessment of these costs is needed, but let’s wait with the conclusions until after the studies.
>Over het gebruik van windturbines (waar België volop op inzet in een transitie naar groene energie) zeggen ze dat “deze steeds ondersteund moeten worden door grote investeringen in opslagcapaciteit zoals batterijen of vervangcapaciteit op basis van gas om hun onvoorspelbaarheid op te vangen. De nodige investeringen in zowel nieuwe productie- als opslagcapaciteit zorgen al gauw voor een stijging van de energiekosten van minstens 30 procent.”
This is problably based on table 1 and commentary on page 8-9.
However, this cost “increase” is based on a comparison with the base scenario… which includes zero investment costs, i.e. we never build anything new anymore. Well, obviously that’s *cheaper*. It’s also a guarantee for blackouts sooner or later.
The base scenario, the one that includes nuclear power, is actually the most expensive from the perspective of operating costs, though not by much (3,2 vs 3).
For future policy choices there should have been a scenario that includes investment costs for new nuclear plants. To be cheaper the investment costs would have to be less than renewables, quod non.
Additionally, as a general problem, the models are cost-optimizing models. However, only investment costs and exploitation costs are taken into account. No costs for decommissioning, or other risks of nuclear power are taken into account.
>Anderzijds komt de bevoorradingszekerheid dus in het gedrang, en het scenario van black-outs (plotse uitval van de stroom door een overbevraging in combinatie met te weinig aanbod) doemt volgens hen opnieuw op. Ofwel, om een black-out te vermijden, kunnen er (gedwongen) tijdelijke afkoppelingen komen.
This is really just a number of assumptions piled on each other. The model focuses on imports because price has been chosen as the priority optimization goal. So the model says “this amount of imports is the cheapest”, not “there is no alternative except this amount of imports”. They’re essentially saying “if you rely on source x as as large share of your electricity provision, there is a risk of blackouts if source x fails.” *Duh*.
They even refer to 2018-2019 as “a close shave” to illustrate the danger of blackouts, but how did that came about? Because the nuclear plants were unexpectedly unavailable! So it’s a pretty backwards conclusion that we should double down on nuclear power, and cling to the plants that failed then, to combat that problem.
The report itself just says: “While the topic of blackouts is not in the scope of the work carried out, the obtained results show big departures from the established mode of operation of the Belgian grid, which indicates that blackout risk after the nuclear phase-out merits serious study.” So again, not supported by this study.
Some other takeaways from the different scenario comparisons:
– Physical location availability for wind turbines is not a limiting factor in any model (nuclear_out_potential vs nuclear_out)
– The unrestricted cost optimization scenario (greenfield) chooses mostly gas as the cheapest.
– For some reason (past subsidy levels?) the model really dislikes offshore wind power. However, offshore wind has high capacity factors and a relatively steady production year round.
– It’d be interesting to run cost as dependent variable and emissions as target instead.
Bottom line: the study does not support the big words in the article.
Niemand had dit zien aankomen. /s
All taken care of. The researchers did not account for the massive amount of bullshit that will be spewed by the political parties during the next polls and elections. All that hot air will keep the energy going for centuries to come.
This study seems to have attracted quite some strong criticism from other energy experts[^1](https://twitter.com/PieterVingerhoe/status/1489206610891350020)[ ^2](https://twitter.com/RubenBaetens/status/1489208540342505472)[ ^3](https://twitter.com/bramcla/status/1489188302582431750) [^4](https://twitter.com/Laveyne_J/status/1489210094302674946)[ ^5](https://mobile.twitter.com/RonnieBelmans/status/1489205174459674845).
It is best to read their comments as I’m only an armchair expert, but I will try to summarize it. Their criticism seems to be that apparently the study bases its future energy mix by scaling up the energy mix of 2018 which does not take into account new and future developments. They also argue that it looks insufficiently at how flexibility and import from neighbouring countries can help support the grid.
I’ve got a bad case of wanting to say: ‘I told you so’ to our government.
I’m curious how long it will take for this entire debacle to start a protest in Brussels
And groen will utterly ignore this and push through for electoral gains. And this is best case as they dont even take into account consumption will rise.
Gelukkig heeft de EU gas als groene energie aanvaard. Dus er is genoeg groene energie voor iedereen met liefde geleverd door onze dikke vriend Putin! Komt wel in orde met onze klimaatdoelstellingen!
It’s amazing seeing the 2 kinds of people in this sub:
The majority: I knew it, build more nuclear now, keep the existing nuclear open. Groen is sooo stupid, Tinne doesn’t know what the fuck she’s doing.
A small minority: <read the report>… but that’s not what the report says at all. It only slightly suggests it based on a shitload of assumptions, and explicitly states that it didn’t properly investigate blackouts.
Congrats majority, you fell for the clickbait again.
face-fucking-palm
Dat is nu bijna een jaar dat ik mij ben gaan verdiepen in klimaatverandering, en ik weet nu nog altijd niet waarom die kerncentrales gesloten worden, en wat het alternatief is op termijn (korte termijn is gas en import).
Feest.
It will, we will pay other countries for their energy.
And we will pay our ass off…
Fucking retarded governments, too many too slow too expensive too incompetent and totally not voted for
Is it just me, or is this reaching “Don’t look up” levels of stupidity?
Suprised pickachu face
Volgens mij had ik ergens gelezen dat het niet aan onderzoek is van de UA, maar van personen verbonden met UA.
Die Kevin Wilis, volgens mij heb ik daarmee gestudeerd.
*suprised pikachu face*
I guess I need to look for a bigger UPS.