A thought on Finland I had.

[Cyan]

We're so humped, we produce 70twh, consume 135twh and by 2030 will if nuclear powerplants do not become active in the meantime produce 80 and cosume 145at least. That is assuming 50-50 work split into dismantling coal and building renewables. To become energy independent and thus independent as is our only national goal we'd need to build 10 nuclear power plants over the next 20 years. It can be done with high cost under current manpower but building renewables with 50.000 people on a national level will only produce 1twh a year and currently not be sufficient to cover consumption growth.

Nuclear it is.

Thoughts?

[unity100]

Nuclear energy is dangerous. The stations in US are able to keep operating only because the government keeps reducing the security standards. It is unknown what will happen in 10-15 years when the standards are pulled down way too low.

Germany's is the way - shut them all down, invest in renewable.

[Cyan]

Just finished a new chapter in my gameplay, initially we're going with 3 nuclear power plants and seeing if the power demand continues to increase at its current rate and build more if necessary, then using all the left over worker manpower to build renewables and dismantle coal gives us a window of green energy by 2050, until then we either use coal at current rate and build renewables to slowly catch up, or we build nuclear to dismantle coal by 2030 and then have a nuclear - renewable base until we get to a full renewable by 2050. Thats the earliest assuming levels of government investment we're not going to see. Germany is an entirely different beast due to the ability to purchase green power infrastructure from smaller nations, but a small nation like mine starting to do green doesn't have the ability to buy the production of other countries or they'll risk a trade war with germany, so thats out the window if you know the national background. Its like saying we'd be safe remaining energy dependant on russia.

So 2030 no coal and 2050 all renewable. Coal will still be 10% to keep technology alive and to keep a wide resource base for generation but thats still pretty good. Until I read the manpower data I was also against the nuclear power plants but now that I've read the data I see no other way to keep up our environmental promises than to build them, seeing as how coal is several orders of magnitude more dangerous.

Even with calculating nuclear disasters by the worst data available coal is still much more dangerous in its fatality to people than fukushima, thsernobyl and all the others combined, so lack of options unless someone invents fusion in the next near while.

Now I at least know the data.

On that point, if we use 73% VAT we can fund all programs to absolute full, build 3 times more hospitals ETC, increase GDP per capita and have 0 other taxes and reduce poverty, that would be mercentalism at its finest.

Here are the datasets and simulator I used.

[Cyan]

In the optimum, after the environmental reform is done I'd expect we to be 25% Geothermal, 25 Wind/Solar, 25% water, 25 Nuclear/Coal/Gas/Bio with 1 nuclear reactor to keep energy mix high and 10% of the power of one nuclear in coal and the rest with which ever is more eco while remaining *minimum at coals level of gas/bio.

[Cyan]

To clarify why it isn't possible to "buy" the renewable power.

In a country our size housing the workers and parts and waste for the building of 250.000 1mw windturbines or something similar is not feasible on a quicker scale without causing people to lose their houses in a bubble, that's why its preferrable to do it at a "market rate" at that rate, Germany buys first in europe and if they want something and you buy it abroad at a price higher than they, or in other words, if you break market rules and start housing workers in hotels for example and paying oxibrant prices for individual turbines tochannel production to your country, You'll be removed from the EU as my game proves, that being said, this is a good result.