Very interesting!

All that relates to nuclear energy in France is a reserved question. The democratic debates are rare.
One should not forget the cost of the insurances which is very high.
In France the State deals with protection. It would be too expensive for the company which produces electricity. It is then necessary to think of the costs of dismantling.
If all the costs are correctly added the nuclear power is more expensive than the wind power.

The connection at the fresh air centre is a bit overloaded, so I wasn’t able to watch the videos.

But from what I’ve read, I could answer you to this.
I wouldn’t mind leaving existing nuclear power plants in operation for the time being
I would. I’ve been researching on the problems related to nuclear energy for quite some time and nuclear energy doesn’t make sense, especially if you have to build new power plants.

@ Daniel

Thanks!

@ Paul

We tried to touch on the insurance costs, though I probably should have been clearer on that point. Michael (the second opposition speaker) spoke a bit on the costs of dismantling, though I think it was mostly during the unrecorded part of the questions from the audience.

@ Federico

I was mainly refering to prioritising replacing oil and gas before moving on to nuclear, but perhaps you could expand a bit more on your point?

Sure.
If you already have a nuclear facility running than your might have a point on prioritising.

If instead you are referring to the construction of new power plants, than nuclear is the worst solution one can ever imagine. It takes billions of euros just to build a new nuclear power plant and make it work, and even more money to dismantle it. Oh yes, and it takes several years for each of these tasks, while uranium is going to finish in less than 50 years.

Also, when people refer to new nuclear technology as “safe”, they are lying. “Safe” only according to the acceptable levels, that is. In France, for instance, you have hundreds of cases of people with brain, lungs, liver cancer cause by nuclear radiation. That’s their “acceptable safe zone”.

@ Federico

Nuclear is far from the worst solution one could imagine, indeed it is becoming apparent it is the only solution that can adequately provide clean power balancing to renewable energy.  Modern society is completely dependant on energy, without it our cities could not function.

All power stations cost “billions of euros” for their construction, and fuel, operations, maintenance and decommissioning are all costly business in the energy business. “Billions of euros” does not scare an energy engineer.  Also, any power station takes several years to build.  The main delays for nuclear stations are planning and consultation.

Known reserves of uranium will last for near enough a century and fast-breeder reactors can extend that by an order of magnitude.  Improved uranium extraction methods, and uranium from seawater, all offer promise to extent supplies well into the future.

Of course, all of this effort on fission is really just buying time to produce commercial fusion technology, which is now on a time scale of circa 20 years (ITER / DEMO).

@David You are very optimistic I think… There are some obvious positive sides with nuclear power, but as you say - modern life is comletely dependent on energy. If we try to replace fossile fuels with nuclear energy on a massive scale, I don’t think uranium reserves will last so long. The security risks will also increase manifold the more plants we construct.

I think the key to any solution is to lower energy usage. Of course we will still need energy, and this energy would ideally come from wind/sun, but I understand that nuclear energy might also be necessary.

You need more information for wind energy.
Now we have the new 15 mw wind mills in 2 years at least.
When you pass from 2 MW to 6 MW you multiply the density by 2 at the minimum.
Then if you pass from 6 MW to 15 Mw you multiply by 2 equally.
Also with big wind mills you increase the time of production.
When all the wind mills are stoped, you have to use Hydraulic energy from atolls.
It is an innovation of M. Lemperiere, a french man.
Denmark will have such atolls next ..(2 or 3 years.)
More than 70% of population is near the sea.
Solar energy very cheap is before 2020!

Africa have the biggest possibility of hydraulic energy.
This continent is not poor in energy!
I do not understand why they do nos negotiate their richness today.
I desagree the fact they always wanted to be paid!  .. for what.
A lot of money have been spent for nothing.
A lot of “plan Marshall” for nothing.
They must be responsible!

David,
if we really wanted to get serious about energy we could use the immense untapped power of geothermal.

Alternative energy solutions pushed by the establishment, such a hydrogen, biomass and even nuclear, are highly insufficient, dangerous, and exist only to perpetuate the profit structure that industry has created. When we look beyond the propaganda and self-serving solutions put forth by the energy companies, we find a seemingly endless stream of clean, abundant and renewable energy for generating power.

Solar and wind energy are well known the public, but the true potential of these mediums remains unexpressed. Solar energy, derived from the sun, has such abundance, that one hour of light at high noon, contains more energy than what the entire world consumes in a year. If we could capture .01 of a percent of this energy, the world would never have to use oil, gas or anything else. The question then is not availability, but the technology to harness it, and there are many advanced mediums today, which could accomplish just that, if they were not hindered by the need to compete for market share with the established energy power structures.

Then there is wind energy. Wind energy has long been denounced as weak and, due to it being location driven, impractical. This is simply not true. The US department of energy admitted in 2007, that if wind was fully harvested in just 3 of America’s 50 states, it could power the entire nation.
And then there are the rather unknown mediums of Tidal and Wave Power. Tidal power is derived from Tidal shifts in the ocean. Installing turbines, which capture this movement, generates energy. In the United Kingdom, 42 sites are currently noted as available, forecasting that 34% of all the UK’s energy could come form tidal power alone. Wave Power, which extracts energy from the surface motions of the ocean, is estimated to have a global potential of up to 80,000 TWh a year, This means 50% of the entire planet’s energy usage could be produced from this medium alone.
Now It is important to point out that tidal, wave, solar and wind power requires virtually no preliminary energy to harness, unlike coal, oil, gas, biomass, hydrogen and all the others.

In combination, these four mediums alone, if efficiently harnessed through technology, could power the world forever.

That being said, there happens to be another form of clean, renewable energy, which trumps them all- Geothermal Power.

Geothermal energy utilizes what is called heat mining, which, though a simple process using water, is able to generate massive amounts of clean energy. In 2006, an MIT report on geothermal energy found that 13,000 zettajoules of power are currently available in the earth, with the possibility of 2000 zj being easily tap-able with improved technology. The total energy consumption of all the countries on the planet is about half of a zettajoule a year. This means about 4000 years of planetary power could be harnessed in this medium alone. And when we understand that the earth’s heat generation is constantly renewed, this energy is really limitless and could be used forever.
These energy sources are only a few of the clean, renewable mediums available, and as time goes on, we will find more.
The grand realization is that we have total energy abundance, without the need for pollution, traditional conservation, or, in fact, a price tag.

Federico,

The planetary functions of the Earth do indeed involve massive flows of energy, but I feel that you greatly underestimate the engineering challenges in harvesting this energy in a way useful for human needs.

It is true that there is a great deal of energy in wind, wave, tidal and solar, but technologies to harness this energy in sufficient quantities still elude us.  Certainly research efforts should continue, but the environmentalist movement must also face up to the reality that these energy sources might not be the “holy grail” they have been betting on.

The most significant problem with these forms of generation is their variability and, in the cases of wind and wave, their reliability.  Electrical energy cannot be stored (it must be converted to other forms) and if demand is not matched by generation, the electrical system will fail.

Geothermal does offer great potential, but is unfortunately limited to geographic areas where the Earth’s heat is close to the surface, specifically the edges of tectonic plates.  However, Enhanced Geothermal may overcome this and could potentially become a major contributer to the energy infrastructure of the world.  At present, this is still experimental.

Nuclear derived energy is often treated unfairly.  Instead it should be treated neutrally, along with all other forms of energy.  No source of energy should be championed above others based on idealistic desires.  Instead the future of the world’s energy infrastructure should be engineered and designed according to good practice and optimised in such a way to provide society with the energy it requires to function in a way that is sustainable.

but I feel that you greatly underestimate the engineering challenges in harvesting this energy in a way useful for human needs.

I think you greatly understanding the state of technology and you are stuck with 1980s ideas of how things should work out.

Geez, I need to remember to read the comment twice before posting.

Here’s what I meant:

I think you greatly underestimate the state of technology and you are stuck with 1980s ideas of how things should work out.

Nuclear[...]Instead it should be treated neutrally

No it shouldn’t.

The nuclear industry is hugely expensive. The construction and generating costs of nuclear power are greater than most renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Added to these are costs associated with dismantling nuclear stations and waste disposal. The clean up costs for the UK’s existing nuclear industry and its waste have alone been estimated at up to £100bn. That’s £100bn of public money.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/nuclear/problems

As far as the variability and availability, the answer is simple: create a distributed and diversified grid system, where everybody is a prosumer of energy (producer-consumer).

This way you don’t have to build huge power plants, you are not subject to any country’s blackmail, you can keep production and consumption optimized, and you empower the people rather than corporations.

The concept is pretty simple, and the technology is not the problem either. The problem is that the people in power are selected to keep things the way they are for the big companies that finance their campaign, and to give everybody the illusion that we need them to survive.

There are already examples of this system working: Schönau in Germany is doing just fine.

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/SchoenauStromRebels.html

You see David, the technical solutions have been out there for at least 20 years. You just didn’t know it.

CNN article “Unplugging from the world’s power lines”
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/16/off.grid.living/index.html

Federico,

I am sorry, but you have insulted by professional honour.  I have dedicated my life to sustainable electrical energy and own a company producing smart grid solutions for wind energy.  I work at the absolute cutting edge of technology, certainly not in the 1980s.

Unfortunately you do not have a sufficient education or practical experience to fully appreciate the difficulties involved in energy generation and supply.  Creating a “a distributed and diversified grid system” is not a simple solution, nor will it fully address the problem of variability and availability.  It is a massively complex and difficult solution that requires the efforts of incredibly intelligent and dilligent people to devote great lengths of time and effort to.  Even then, it still requires power balancing from traditional generation.  The technology is in fact definately the problem, the truth is that most of it has yet to get out of the laboratory. It is difficult to invent industry hardened protocols and standards in a short space of time given the need to know these devices will survive ‘in the field’ for decades.

It is easy to pin blame on “the people in power” and “big companies,” (which I regard as a very unhelpful argument), but it is much harder to actually set about a career in which you do make practical contributions to the solution rather than just shout about “the problem.”

I would appreciate it if you could refrain from calling me backwards (1980s) and unaware of the state of technology.  Such things I have devoted my career to.

I had no intention of insulting you personally, I was merely pointing out what you are writing. And yes, it looks like you are not aware of the state of technology. If you are, than I made a terrible mistake and I apologise, but you should also give the reasons for such a claim.

If you really dedicated your life to sustainable electrical energy, I can’t see how you can regard nuclear energy as “the only solution that can adequately provide clean power balancing to renewable energy”. I spoke with nuclear physicist, organised conferences and panels of discussions, and nobody was even remotely considering nuclear energy as you are. Even Nobel Physics Prize winner Carlo Rubbia used pretty strong words against the use of nuclear energy.

Again, not my words, but world renowned experts’.

And again, you are talking about industry standards, agreements, legislations… that’s a political problem.

The technology is in fact definately the problem, the truth is that most of it has yet to get out of the laboratory.

No technology is not the problem. Certainly some inventions are just getting out of the lab, but many others have been around for quite some time, and most of the times you don’t even need such high-tech solutions to make thand independent grid work (at least for small cities). Did you even read the article I posted about Schönau?

I’m sorry David, don’t take this personally, you keep saying you work on the field, but it looks like you are not up to date with what’s happening in the world.

Federico,

I am not sure if you are trying to be offense, but you seem intent on insulting me.  I have tried to keep my replies to you as factual as possible but you continue to personally attack me and question my credibility.

Yes, I did in fact read the article about Solar power in Schönau, however I didn’t find it remotely informative.  I prefer to garner the latest thinking on energy systems from peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings rather than websites that replace facts, experiments and figures with a picture of a laughing women, a lamp post and a bumper sticker.  It’s interesting that the article itself admits “Most of EWS’s electricity mix is old hydro from plants in the region.”  It’s very convenient for the argument that a ‘solar town’, by accident of geography, finds itself so well endowed with reliable hydro-electricity.

Not only did I read the CNN article on “Off the grid” living, but I have personally built a wind turbine of the exact same design to that of the first photo on the article.  I can assure you, living off the grid with this device would require the lifestyle of a hermit.  It is not practical option, nor is it remotely cheap.

While I’m sure you can selectively quote mine from a number of physicists and your personally organised “conferences” it may be of interest to you that the theme of last year’s IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (2008) was “The Nuclear Renaissance.”  I can assure you, a lot of people were talking about nuclear energy.  But you don’t need to take my word for it, check out the proceedings on their website - http://ewh.ieee.org/cmte/PESGM08/

At almost all other Electrical Engineering meetings I have attended in the last number of years, the main talking points have been the integration of renewables (availability and variability). 

If you are so confident that integrating renewables is so simple, perhaps you would like to author your own paper and submit it for peer-review? 

Trustworthy professional societies include the IEEE, IET, CIGRE and CIRED.  There are many others, but I would personally regard these as being the top four in the world. 

You are free to present any case you wish to the reviewers and if your case is scientifically justified and supported by evidence you should find success.

*grabs popcorn*

Face it Federico, you’re completely disconnected from reality. Nothing but rhetoric and idealistic symbolism.

Oh, and don’t mind my interjection, please continue.

The article I linked was the first result I found, I knew about Schoneau in Germany because several activists and journalists I know personally went there to report and got some first-hand knowledge.

Here’s some more concrete data and info:
http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=1538
http://www.ews-schoenau.de/fileadmin/content/documents/Footer_Header/EWS_2008_EN.pdf

As for geothermal energy, if you want to get into something a little more specific you canread the actual report. An 18-member panel led by MIT prepared the 400-plus page study, released today, titled “The Future of Geothermal Energy” and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy.

In its report, the panel recommends that:
  * More detailed and site-specific assessments of the U.S. geothermal energy resource should be conducted
  * Field trials running three to five years at several sites should be done to demonstrate commercial-scale engineered geothermal systems
  * The shallow, extra-hot, high-grade deposits in the west should be explored and tested first
  * Other geothermal resources such as co-produced hot water associated with oil and gas production and geopressured resources should also be pursued as short-term options
  * On a longer time scale, deeper, lower-grade geothermal deposits should be explored and tested
  * Local and national policies should be enacted that encourage geothermal development
  * A multiyear research program exploring subsurface science and geothermal drilling and energy conversion should be started, backed by constant analysis of results

http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf

And then of course there is the Samso Energie Academy:
http://www.energiakademiet.dk/default_uk.asp

And the The Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, a German research institution that explores and develops models, strategies and instruments to support sustainable development at local, national and international level. Sustainability research at the Wuppertal Institute focuses on ecology and its relation to economy and society. Special emphasis is put on analysing and supporting technological and social innovations that decouple prosperity of economic growth from the use of natural resources.

http://www.wupperinst.org/

released today
Of course, not today...

Yes, and about the simplicity:
As far as the variability and availability, the answer is simple:
I was referring to the direction to follow, not to the actual realisation, which is complex, but certainly not more complex than, for instance, making nuclear safe. They’ve been trying that for 50 years and still haven’t succeeded. It’s time to focus our energy on something that does not causes us so many troubles.

Joseph Stiglitz, Michael Pollan, Jeremy Rifkin, Lester Brown, Mathis Wackernagel, Wolfgang Sachs, just to name a few, share the same principles.

Again, it’s not only my opinion, but the opinion of thousands of experts, scientists as well as independent researchers.

I’m sure you can also find as many scientists as you want pro nuclear, pro coal and so on, maybe paid by the big energy lobbies to prevent real renewable energy from growing and have a nuclear-oil-clean coal-other sources hybrid which will hold us back for another 30 years.

If you are so confident that integrating renewables is so simple

I didn’t say that. I’m saying that most people who work in the field agree that the distributed power grid, which mimics the internet bittorrent procol, is the right direction to follow.

Not nuclear. Not huge power plants to power megalopolies. A distributed, decentralised system.

I can assure you, living off the grid with this device would require the lifestyle of a hermit.  It is not practical option, nor is it remotely cheap.

The Off-the-grid solution, like Schoneau, is just to illustrate the fact that it’s possible to exchange energy among citizens and you don’t need nuclear. It’s real, it’s working. You might want to consider going there and do some research, or call them up via skype and ask for some more data and papers.

The real solution, as I already stated three times, is the distributed power grid, not living like hermits.

About the so called “Nuclear Renaissance”, in all my ignorance and naivety I still wonder how are they going to address the issues of toxic waste, destruction of the biodiversity of the rivers due to the rise in temperature of the water, possible terrorists attacks to the power plants…

I suggest you an article by Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh, “The Nuclear Illusion”, Ambio, May 27, 2008. (Pdf) http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf

Sorry, link is broken, this is the right on: http://www.rmi.org/cms/Download.aspx?id=1366&file=E08-01_AmbioNucIllusion.pdf

Federico,

I’m afraid that I must agree with Mike’s assessment. 

While I believe that idealism is essential in a young mind, at some point it is necessary to realise that progress cannot be achieved through blaming the world’s problems on “big companies,” “energy lobbies,” and the “people in power,” a.k.a. the establishment.

Indeed the ‘direction to follow’ is quite simple…  “Invent Global Sustainable Energy Infrastructure.”  Implementation is the difficult part to that mission statement!

The further links you posted are still light on any solid figures to do with the energy mix and energy balancing of Schoenau.  What is really needed is a graph showing the EWS production versus demand and how they balance their solar production with peak demand that generally occurs 5pm to 7pm (peak solar is usually at noon).  Also, how do they do their voltage, frequency and VAr control?  I suspect they almost certainly have a connection to the main German electricity grid.

Contrary to your opinion of me, I’m neutral towards sources of energy, but I am concious of the engineering limitations of wind, wave, tidal and solar.  They need balancing from traditional generation.

Another point you fail to address is the high production costs and maintenance with ‘renewable’ sources with respect to their output.  Solar is far from a clean technology.  The chemicals involved in the production of solar panels especially are extremely toxic.

Investment in ‘renewables’ should not preclude investment in nuclear and other energy sources.  Truthfully the world is not spending nearly enough on any form of sustainable energy, but recent global trends are showing political awareness of this problem and it is proving an interesting time to work in the energy sector.

I am pleased that you have at last referenced sources with credibility (MIT, Wuppertal) but if you want the best resource on research in Electrical Engineering and Electrical Energy, please start to read publications by the IEEE, IET, CIGRE and CIRED.

“most people who work in the field agree that the distributed power grid, which mimics the internet bittorrent procol [sic]”

Emm…  you’re clearly talking to the wrong people because I work in exactly this ‘field’ and meet with the global expert research community on a regular basis.  The proposed grid certainly does not mimic the bittorrent protocol.  It’s a nice analogy, but unfortunately flawed.  Please do not delude yourself that creating a distributed grid is in anyway simple.

I suggest you begin to attend academic conferences on the subject of Electrical Energy (especially those from IEEE, IET, etc) rather than just talk to individuals and companies with vested interests in promoting their own renewables projects.  You will find the academic conference experience interesting, and the good humoured discussion (and sometimes dismantling) of peoples arguments enlightening.

I thank you for your suggestions, and I will certainly take parts to more and more conferences, but I very much doubt that you can say my sources are simple

Amory Lovins is Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute. His four decades of work spans and integrates energy policy, resources, security, economy, environment, and development. When he speaks, he doesn’t express just his opinion, he’s bringing to the general public the knowledge and research of dozens of scientists who work on high tech development on a daily basis.

Same goes with Wolfgang Sachs and others I cited. There are plenty of scientific publications that you can read and by all means, challenge, but please don’t say it’s the opinion of some “individuals”.

Distributed generation: definition, benefits and issues, G. PepermansCorresponding Author Contact Information,J. Driesenb, D. Haeseldonckxc, R. Belmansc and W. D’haeseleerc.

Distributed generation, Dugan, R.C.; McDermott, T.E, Industry Applications Magazine, IEEE
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=985677

Federico,

It is become clear to be that either you do not understand the scientific method, or you disagree with it.  Scientific progress cannot be advanced through setting up your own “Institute” and using that as a vehicle to verify yourself.  Credibility must come via peer-review.  A brief Google search will show that Amory Lovins is regarded by some with skepticism - http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2009/08/amory-lovins-discredited-lovins-refuses.html

However, it is not worth picking on individuals and comparing blog posts.  As I say, the scientific method requires expert peer-review.

I reiterate, the top four peer-reviewed publication houses for Electrical Engineering are IEEE, IET, CIGRE and CIRED.  Read these.

http://www.ieee.org/pes
http://www.theiet.org
http://www.cigre.org
http://www.cired2011.org

David,
it has become clear that you either do no read what I write, or that you cherrypick whatever suits your argument.

I just posted one article (I can give you many more) published on IEEE by Dugan, R.C.; McDermott, T.E., but maybe you were too occupied writing about how I don’t read anything from IEEE, IET, CIGRE and CIRED.

A brief Google search will show that Amory Lovins is regarded by some with skepticism - http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2009/08/amory-lovins-discredited-lovins-refuses.html

However, it is not worth picking on individuals and comparing blog posts.

It strikes me how you can compare a blog post by Charles Barton, MA in Philosophy from Memphis University, with a paper 58 pages published by the Rocky Mountain Institute written by someone who is a physicist, a 45-year student of this subject, Cofounder, Chairman, and Chief Scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute (http://www.rmi.org) and Cofounder and Chairman Emeritus of Fiberforge, Inc. (http://www.fiberforge.com), Published in 29 books and hundreds of papers, his work has been recognized by the Volvo, Right Livelihood, Blue Planet, Onassis, Nissan, Shingo, and Mitchell Prizes, a MacArthur Fellowship, the Benjamin Franklin and Happold Medals, ten honorary doctorates, Foreign Membership of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, honorary membership of the American Institute of Architects, Life Fellowship of the Royal Society of Arts, and the Heinz, Lindbergh, Jean Meyer, World Technology, and Time “Hero for the Planet” Awards. He has consulted for more than three decades for major firms and governments (including the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense) on advanced energy and resource efficiency in ~50 countries, has advised scores of electric utilities (many of them nuclear operators), and has led the technical redesign of >$30 billion worth of facilities in ~29 sectors to achieve very large energy savings at typically lower capital costs (http://www.rmi.org/stanford, encapsulating his 2007 MAP/Ming Professorship in Stanford University’s School of Engineering). Engineer Imran Sheikh, who provided extensive graphical and analytic support for this paper as an RMI Research Analyst, is now a graduate student at the Energy and Resources Group of the University of California at Berkeley, and you accuse me of not understanding the scientific method.

How ironic.

As I say, the scientific method requires expert peer-review.

That’s precisely what I did (see IEEE paper), but apparently you didn’t notice.

Please step back for a second and show some humility.

Federico,

I do read what you write, but unfortunately I am also busy conducting research and writing academic papers and I am maybe not treating your blog posts with the full attention I am giving my actual employment in working towards distributed generation solutions.  I guess we must have cross posted because your links were not there at the time I wrote my last response.

Scientific progress requires assimilation of knowledge from a broad range of sources.  As Einstien said, “Everyone should be respected as an individual, but no one idolized.”  Please bear this in mind for the future.

I am maybe not treating your blog posts with the full attention

As far as I can remember I posted only a couple of blog posts (which were irrelevant to the point) and several scientific publications, even peer-reviewed and coming from the sources you demanded.

So, before judging and misusing quotes by people much smarter than both of us, you might want to get down the golden pedestal that you created for yourself and stick to the point.

You haven’t provided a single scientific publication nor source to prove you point that a distributed power grid is as flawed idea, whereas I gave dozens of pages to read written by physicists and other scientists.

Maybe you could spare five minutes of your precious time and explain, using the scientific method you claim to be knowing so well, why the idea of distributed power grid is flawed.

I am maybe not treating your blog posts with the full attention

Oh yes, you are the one linking blog posts by philosophers against scientific publications written by scientists, and I’m the one with the “blog posts”?

You are far from being objective, I think you tried to engage in some kind of personal war and lost sense of proportion.

Federico,

I will ignore your continued crass attempts to insult me, your references to my “golden pedestal”, and despite you continuously moving the goal posts in this discussion, I will continue to converse with you for the love of the science.  I must confess though that I am becoming tired of your selective quoting and trying to present a distorted image of myself.

Comically, the link to IEEE Xplore you provide exposes that you accessed it as a non-subscriber and most likely did not have access to read the paper in question, only its abstract.  Having read this magazine article, I can relate to you that it is a well-researched, neutral, dispassionate review of Distributed Generation and the pros and cons thereof.  It deals mainly with the highly technical problems of distribution network protection and transformer configurations.  It is a very valid paper and you would do well to read it thoroughly and to ensure that you understand it.  But you should not stop a one, solitary paper from 2002.  There has been a massive volume of submissions to IEEE PES in the last number of years on this subject, both for, against and mainly neutral, dealing with the technical benefits and the engineering challenges brought about through use of distributed generation. 

Now with regard to me not providing “a single scientific publication nor source to prove you [sic] point that a distributed power grid is as flawed idea,” I reiterate that I am in fact in the business of Smart Grid (distributed grid) technology, I design Smart Grid technologies, I am in favour of the Smart Grid but I recognise the complexity of the problem and that contrary to your opinion the solutions are not simple.  Read my previous posts and you will see I have stated this a number of times.  I believe that the Smart Grid will happen, it will greatly improve the utilisation of ‘renewable’ energy and it will be complemented by traditional generation.  I believe that all the problems with Smart Grid are within our technological know-how to solve, but it will take time to verify and standardise these solutions.  But I do believe that it can and will happen (partly due to necessity).

Specifically you say I haven’t provided a single source, I would argue that the collective works on Smart Grid at the IEEE alone are enough to support my case.  There are hundreds of papers on IEEE Xplore on the topic.  Unfortunately these publications are not freely available online, but your local science library probably has a license.  A quick look at the very first page of Google Scholar presents a series of abstracts which all sound interesting and worth a read (search term: “Distributed Generation”) - http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Distributed+Generation&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 – my own papers don’t make the top ten, but I’ll live.  

Now, with regard to this being a personal war, I have to say that I do not know you Federico.  You came to and started a discussion on this blog which is titled “Is Nuclear in Ireland’s Energy Future,” a subject that I, as an Irish Electrical Engineer, have a great deal of interest in.  I happen to have a great deal of knowledge in the area, and I freely defer to expert opinions at the many meetings I have with UK and Irish electrical utility personnel throughout the year.  You must learn that in times when you are in the presence of an expert in a subject you should use the opportunity to gain and benefit from their knowledge.  I have a feeling that you have perhaps decided to consider me an opponent when I would rather be regarded as a neutral party.

To quote Charles Darwin, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”

I have a feeling that you have perhaps decided to consider me an opponent

On the contrary, I very much enjoy challenges and different POVs, but possibly yes, you are right, I went a bit head-to-head strong at first, while I could have been more cautious.

What an asshole

Africa have the biggest possibility of hydraulic energy.
This continent is not poor in energy!
I do not understand why they do nos negotiate their richness today. üsküdar evden eve nakliyat
I desagree the fact they always wanted to be paid!  .. for what.
A lot of money have been spent for nothing.
A lot of “plan Marshall” for nothing.
They must be responsible!

sehr guter bericht!!!hoffe bekomme bald noch mehr zu lesen. weiter so und viel erfolg gruß aus dem freundlichen deutschland chris.

Danke - Ich hoffe, dass ich bald ein bisschen mehr schreiben kann, aber ich habe ein paar Pruefungen zu machen. Vielleicht nachste Woche…