282 comments on NY Times Energy Series: Nuclear
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
282 comments on NY Times Energy Series: Nuclear
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
That is SOP in Sweden and it do anyway only add up to a few percent of the electricity production. In 2004 47.8 TWh of heat and 6.1 TWh of electricity were produced out of a total of 148.8 TWh electricity produced.
I think the district heating could about double and all of the electricity production potential is not used, 6.1 TWh could probably become 24 TWh in a very optimistic scenario.
We alost got biomass comming out of our ears, lots of hydro power but still need nuclear power. At least while we still have a lot of heavy industry making paper, steel, etc for quite a lot of people.
Energy markets are not homogeneous. In the US many older markets use NG for heating so the electric impact of districts is much smaller (though increased cooling demands are driving electric demands).
In the cooling-dominated climes of the sunbelt (e.g. Florida) heating and cooling is met predominately by electricity. And cooling represents 60-70% of peak demand.