|
Thanks!
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Your country has shuttered more nuclear plants than it will ever replace with renewables. Apparently it is possible. As it has already happened. quote:Sorry man, they are putting those coal plants on standby because they intend to close the last three in some stupid dedication to sheer madness. quote:I don't care what they passed, what they've done is have a worse carbon footprint than France next door, and they double down on closing the very things that make France one of the lowest emitters in the EU. quote:Their goal to decarbonize their energy is now going to be a decade behind because they openly made themselves dependent on Russian gas to enable them to shutter nuclear plants, and here we are and they are reaping it, and there answer is to double down on lignite coal. COAL! quote:At least admit shuttering their last 3 nuclear plants is bad, that's 15% of their total Electricity load. You have to at least admit that. Source: https://strom-report.de/strom/ Oracle posted:Which portion of that 50% of renewables is wood pellets?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 00:32
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:As you continue to ignore, that is something that was caused by the decisions of another governing coalition, and the current coalition is trying to fix that. The current government is not doubling down on coal, but is doubling down on renewables. More coal is being prepared as an emergency measure for this winter. Not another decade. It bailed out its coal industry, it VERY much doubled down on coal, regardless of whatever renewables expansion it just passed. There is no renewables only solution to the problem Germany is trying to solve. They could've kept Nuclear and shuttered Coal/Gas. They did the opposite. What a loving awful plan. DTurtle posted:At the absolute maximum nuclear provided roughly 30% of power. Renewables currently provide 50% of power. On a good day. Remind me again, Germany's not in an energy crisis, is it? It is? Oh. DTurtle posted:Yes, France is currently and has been better. However, we can't go back into the past and change what has happened. Despite a lot of hurdles thrown in the way by the CDU led coalitions of the last 16 years, Germany has been rapidly catching up and is a lot better than most large industrial countries out there. And France will continue to do it better, sorry. Germany's renewables only plan is a joke, and its hilarious to see them double down on something that isn't actually working. https://twitter.com/E_R_Sepulveda/status/1537048560763641856?s=20&t=oYmsmU3vEXcKCVdKEuN9og Renewables only have diminishing return. You are burning coal, gas, and wood pellets to make up the difference. Sorry dude, you guys should've kept the nuclear because next to France you guys look like a laughing stock. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Germany does not have a large fossil fuel production industry. Is it not the biggest producer in the world of the type of coal that is pretty much only used in power generation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Germany does not have a large fossil fuel production industry. Germany produces more coal than any other country in Europe. The only one that even comes close is Poland. It's #8 for coal production in the world, and produces 28% as much coal as *Russia* while having only 2% of its land area. Germany has a very significant fossil fuel production industry. Jaxyon posted:Is it not the biggest producer in the world of the type of coal that is pretty much only used in power generation? No, China is bigger. But nobody else is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:On a good day. Remind me again, Germany's not in an energy crisis, is it? It is? Oh. Germany is not facing an energy crisis because of renewables, but because of gas supply. CommieGIR posted:And France will continue to do it better, sorry. Germany's renewables only plan is a joke, and its hilarious to see them double down on something that isn't actually working. https://www.energate-messenger.com/news/223699/nuclear-power-plant-problems-make-france-an-electricity-importer posted:Nuclear power plant problems make France an electricity importer Jaxyon posted:Is it not the biggest producer in the world of the type of coal that is pretty much only used in power generation? DTurtle fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
next time don't let the US and UK bully you into suicide
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
I'm starting to think we should kinda cut the cables to the German grid and let them handle their own poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 09:36
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Hmm, I doubt that that is the reason for it. There probably is a safety reason for doing so. This thread's belief in a global conspiracy against nuclear power is a little nuts. "It couldn't possibly be that stupid, you must be explaining it wrong!!!11"
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 10:56
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Hmm, I doubt that that is the reason for it. There probably is a safety reason for doing so. This thread's belief in a global conspiracy against nuclear power is a little nuts. it's not a global conspiracy it's a "silence kit"
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 11:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 12:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because you are also often wrong. But since you decided to jump in and make assumptions, maybe next time you'll at least bring some evidence. I am fallible as any human source is, but you didn't even bother to make an argument. It is totally true that nuclear electricity is very expensive electricity. Here is a link to a report on the cost of electricity in the US in Fall 2021. Look at page 3 of the report. Nuclear electricity is many times the cost of the other technologies. https://www.lazard.com/media/451881/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf The reason why the US tends to not build new nuclear power plants has nothing to do with a conspiracy against nuclear power, especially by environmentalists. Environmentalists don't really matter in the US. It has everything to do with the fact that nuclear electricity is expensive and is not cost competitive with other electricity generation technologies. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 13:10
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:It is totally true that nuclear electricity is very expensive electricity. Great link. A number of points; ~solar thermal has also fallen into disuse because wind / pv solar is only taking taking low hanging fruit and cutting the grass of other generators - reducing capital cost dilution. Gas peakers and existing gas/nuclear/hydro is what is doing the heavy lifting to allow for such cheap non-dispatchable power. ~Nuclear in 2009 was cheaper than the others, tech is what improved for wind/solar and I see no reason why costs could not be pushed down for nuclear generation with artificial resistance removed. ~40 years vs 60 (80 is possible?) years to be expected now for a reactor is a 33% reduction in capex costs - single biggest cost driver for nuclear. ~ I see no indication over how battery storage was costed for wind/ PV solar or any other mechanism for storing energy for full baseload coverage. ~Assuming that the link actually does not cost in storage costs, this means that the fully depreciated cost of nuclear can be used where the plant is not running at full capacity (because the plant is there already and it is only variable costs to cost). At this point, nuclear is still cheaper then the majority of wind/solar as per your link ($28 nuke vs $26 to $221 range for renewables). This is even before you assume significant reductions in nuclear cost due to reduction in resistance related costs, reduction in capex costs from running the plants longer (60 years as actually achieved vs 40 assumed) and the increased capex associated with battery supply/overbuild of non-dispatchable wind/solar. So thank you for the link, it quite convincingly supports the argument that nuclear is the way to go for the baseload provision of power. As a separate story, as per that chart existing nuclear is cheaper than existing coal so it is supports that Germany spinning up old coal plants is ideologically driven to priotise non-nuclear over the environment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
Also expensive compared to what? What about accounting for externalities like emissions and climate change? Its more expensive I can imagine to build a nuclear power plant compared to a solar array but the nuclear plant can generate power 24/7, might even take up less space depending on the designs and what we're comparing; the end-user is definitely not going to be paying more for nuclear power electricity compared to Russian natural gas electricity. Anyways, a youtube video extolling a new advance in nuclear fusion has popped up in my timeline and it actually explains the achievement! Wow! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G27M0eRTRZE Paper being referenced: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.185003 Press release: https://news.epfl.ch/news/a-new-law-unchains-fusion-energy/ My poor summary is that this porpoises that there was a density limit to tokomak reactors that limited the amount of useable energy you could get from the reaction (as exceeding this density would cause the reaction to fail), but now it seems to be the case you can actually increase their density limit with more power and this actually pushes the amount of theoretical energy output into the viability zone that would be needed for commercial power. Supposedly the next fusion project DEMO might be able to make use of this development as ITER isn't designed with this new limit in mind, but the old limit. I wonder if this can work together with the more efficient magnets development or if that's only for stellerator fusion reactors?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:It is totally true that nuclear electricity is very expensive electricity. Ah yes. The great case against nuclear is that it isn't cost effective. Similarly, the reason the US does not switch to universal health care is because it is not cost effective, and has nothing to do with ideology or because of lobbying actions of a few powerful corporations with political connections to maintain a status quo much to the detriment of public health.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Also expensive compared to what? What about accounting for externalities like emissions and climate change? Its more expensive I can imagine to build a nuclear power plant compared to a solar array but the nuclear plant can generate power 24/7, might even take up less space depending on the designs and what we're comparing; the end-user is definitely not going to be paying more for nuclear power electricity compared to Russian natural gas electricity. ITER is just such a waste of time and money, sucking up the available funds to for a multinational porkfest for what is now a wildly outdated design.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
It's pretty normal for people to drive by with "actually nuclear is not popular because of cost alone" when it's the only baseload generation tech held accountable for its byproducts. To wit, "oh man, look how expensive it is to be held accountable for your own pollution!" Even then, nuclear baseload breaks even more often than not, as demonstrated above, if you push aside deliberately bad analysis. It's also pretty hilarious to watch people cite "Germany is over half renewables!" with (1) the obvious gaping hole that is the rest of the (growing) fossil share and (2) the slice of German "renewables" that involves importing entire forests from Africa and Southeast Asia at horrifying rates to burn as sacrifice to the German Green Party's false gods of "sustainability" and "stewardship." Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:It's pretty normal for people to drive by with "actually nuclear is not popular because of cost alone" when it's the only baseload generation tech held accountable for its byproducts. To wit, "oh man, look how expensive it is to be held accountable for your own pollution!" Even then, nuclear baseload breaks even more often than not, as demonstrated above, if you push aside deliberately bad analysis. I mean, they’re not German forests getting ground up and compressed into pellets, so it must be green, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:It's also pretty hilarious to watch people cite "Germany is over half renewables!" with (1) the obvious gaping hole that is the rest of the (growing) fossil share  Doesn't seem to be growing (everything below red is fossil fuels). It would have started falling a lot further if nuclear power had not been shut off, but even so, fossil fuels are shrinking. quote:and (2) the slice of German "renewables" that involves importing entire forests from Africa and Southeast Asia at horrifying rates to burn as sacrifice to the German Green Party's false gods of "sustainability" and "stewardship." Looking at this source, the top source of wood imports for Germany in 2020 were: quote:Top trading partners (import of "Wood and articles of wood; wood charcoal") of Germany in 2020: MrYenko posted:I mean, they’re not German forests getting ground up and compressed into pellets, so it must be green, right? DTurtle fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
Pander posted:Ah yes. The great case against nuclear is that it isn't cost effective. Sure and until that changes people won't build nuclear. Nuclear is amazing we just need to reform the regulatory framework, standardize designs, implement fairer subsidies and change how renewables are integrated into the sector or alternatively nationalize the power generation sector. Ok let's do it, you got my vote. When that has happened maybe nuclear power will be more attractive to investors. Right now, at this moment, in this reality that has not happened so it isn't. People keep explaining why things are the way that they are and people keep responding with how they would like things to be and who is responsible for things not being like that. While true and possibly mildly interesting it doesn't refute the original argument so it's besides the point and maybe irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:It's pretty normal for people to drive by with "actually nuclear is not popular because of cost alone" I drive by with “when was the last time a new nuclear plant was built in the United States” and then pivot to “why not consider things that can actually happen?”
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 04:31
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:It's also pretty hilarious to watch people cite "Germany is over half renewables!" with (1) the obvious gaping hole that is the rest of the (growing) fossil share and (2) the slice of German "renewables" that involves importing entire forests from Africa and Southeast Asia at horrifying rates to burn as sacrifice to the German Green Party's false gods of "sustainability" and "stewardship." Also loving over it's neighboring countries by becoming an electric black hole and creating record prices for other people. So german decisions are loving over not just themselves. Which is why this has soured me on the whole notion of a european grid with lots of transfers. Insane vulnerability to what others are doing as well as possible grid damage, not to mention the environmental issues with building all that infrastructure (just general waste of resources) and losses incurred transferring power that far. Way better to decentralize, be nominally self-sufficient and just do load balancing with your neighbors instead of trying to power entire countries with power generated really far away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 07:04
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Also loving over it's neighboring countries by becoming an electric black hole and creating record prices for other people. So german decisions are loving over not just themselves. Which is why this has soured me on the whole notion of a european grid with lots of transfers. Insane vulnerability to what others are doing as well as possible grid damage, not to mention the environmental issues with building all that infrastructure (just general waste of resources) and losses incurred transferring power that far. Way better to decentralize, be nominally self-sufficient and just do load balancing with your neighbors instead of trying to power entire countries with power generated really far away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 09:52
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:The distance between most of France and most of Germany is approximately that of the state of California, which manages to get by with a unified grid, power generation very far from humans, and only ~5% transmission losses. Long distance high voltage transmission lines are just not that big of a loss compared with the other stuff. The long term plan for europe is an integrated grid over the whole EU, the idea is that the wind must blow somewhere, so wherever it blows, there should be enough wind mills and enough transfer lines to transfer power all across europe (to whoever pays the most). It's an insane plan IMO but is what they have seen as the partial solution to intermittance issues (it's not though). And it puts consumers in a bind since we will suffer for the actions of other member countries like Germany. We're currently living through that just now and with further grid integratrion this will only grow worse. Except for Germany who will get more access to power from abroad to make up for their own failures, they get lower prices while the rest of EU consumers gets higher prices. It's funny, it's like the euro, it's undervalued for germany while overvalued for everyone else, so again Germany reaps the profits while others gets to loose. It's like further integration always serves the center more than it does the periphery...
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 10:22
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Also loving over it's neighboring countries by becoming an electric black hole and creating record prices for other people. So german decisions are loving over not just themselves. Which is why this has soured me on the whole notion of a european grid with lots of transfers. Insane vulnerability to what others are doing as well as possible grid damage, not to mention the environmental issues with building all that infrastructure (just general waste of resources) and losses incurred transferring power that far. Way better to decentralize, be nominally self-sufficient and just do load balancing with your neighbors instead of trying to power entire countries with power generated really far away. It's actively driving Norway away from a possible EU membership at this point. Personally I wouldn't mind if someone had an "accident" at our overseas power transmission stations, because this poo poo is just not sustainable. Normal people are paying a high price for Germany's fuckups. Again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 10:29
|
|
|
Wibla posted:It's actively driving Norway away from a possible EU membership at this point. Even without EU membership on either side, Norway is still providing lots of lovely hydro power across interconnectors to the UK. Over the past 5-10 years, it seems that our security of supply modelling has assumed that we'd be able to import power under any condition to meet winter peak loads. Given the outages in France, this is looking like it's not going to be the case this year - winter peak prices (weekdays, 0800-2000) for delivery in France hit €1500/MWh a week or two ago, far higher than the equivalent British product. This has caused the UK Government to instruct the System Operator to contract with three coal plants to stop them starting decommissioning at the end of September and to provide emergency power supplies if needed over winter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 11:03
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:The long term plan for europe is an integrated grid over the whole EU, the idea is that the wind must blow somewhere, so wherever it blows, there should be enough wind mills and enough transfer lines to transfer power all across europe (to whoever pays the most). It's an insane plan IMO but is what they have seen as the partial solution to intermittance issues (it's not though). And it puts consumers in a bind since we will suffer for the actions of other member countries like Germany. We're currently living through that just now and with further grid integratrion this will only grow worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 11:49
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Alternatively, you could conceptualize this as Germany being a giant reliable export market for all the countries willing to actually build power plant capacity, including nuclear capacity. Germany's policy combined with a unified grid is basically nuclear NIMBYism, meaning whoever is willing to build still gets all the jobs and export income. Yeah, this would have been a smash own for France and hydro having countries if France hadn't also (under pressure from greens and Germany) started transitioning from nuclear to wind/solar. They look to be reversing course now but the 20 years of inactivity has already got what was wanted - reliance upon unreliable energy sources!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 12:10
|
|
|
I think we're well past the point where people should realise that listening to advice from Germany on energy (and most other things) is a pretty dumb idea. Also any self-proclaimed green party that is against nuclear energy is not green at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 12:35
|
|
|
I twitch every time I hear the term "renewables" when discussing energy in 2022. It was a useful term 20 years ago when our main concern was actually running out of fossil fuels to burn. But now GHG emissions are far more important, and we have more than enough FF reserves to make Earth uninhabitable. The "renewables" distinction groups nuclear with fossil fuels, but groups biomass with solar and wind. It's about as useful as presenting energy mix by nameplate capacity instead of primary consumption or gross production. Just complete nonsense. Here's a decent chart of energy mix for Germany which breaks renewables up (source). Intermittent sources are between 24.6% and 28.9% depending on whether you include offshore wind (debatable). This is admirable, since it's already pushing the boundaries of what experts think is feasible without sci-fi-level developments such as widespread mass storage or continent-spanning smart grids. I suppose the plan is probably to rely more on dispatchable generation (i.e. biomass, probably gas too). But even that only gets you to maybe 40-50%.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
the constant bleating about germans failing nuclear often has some technically correct points but it just never ever makes a lick of sense in the context of american doing soooo much worse like, their strategy is sub-optimal, their political compromises have made their energy transition go slower than the theoretical ideal... but they're still way the gently caress ahead of us. they're still a comparative success story. focusing on the marginal wiggling of a few percent of coal/nuke here and there is so myopic its suspicious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 04:10
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:the constant bleating about germans failing nuclear often has some technically correct points but it just never ever makes a lick of sense in the context of american doing soooo much worse You can be ahead and still be an abysmal failure. America at least is actively seeking to bail out and save their nuclear industry unlike Germany, in that regard America is ahead. Even more so that places like California are capable of reading the room and realizing closing Diablo Canyon might be a mistake. That makes them ahead of the Germans who are bailing out their coal industry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That makes them ahead of the Germans who are bailing out their coal industry. You mentioned this before, but what are you talking about exactly? Coal prices are the highest they've been in decades and I can't imagine any mines anywhere needing anything remotely like a bailout. Are you talking about utilities?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 04:45
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:the constant bleating about germans failing nuclear often has some technically correct points but it just never ever makes a lick of sense in the context of american doing soooo much worse  Nuclear is 12% according to that chart right there, that's not negligible. If you're 12% short you're really hosed because electricity demand is not very elastic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 11:20
|
|
|
Agronox posted:You mentioned this before, but what are you talking about exactly? Coal prices are the highest they've been in decades and I can't imagine any mines anywhere needing anything remotely like a bailout. Are you talking about utilities? Doesn't matter when you are stuck trying to make up an energy shortfall by rapidly escalating gas prices, and you are entirely dedicated to ensuring nuclear closures go through at the end of the year. You also answered your own question, coal/gas is expensive right now so a few German power operators are asking for government bailouts and Germany basically has to do so. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/business/uniper-germany-gas.html Title says gas, but Uniper also operates a hard coal plant. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-19/germany-taking-steps-on-serious-gas-situation-habeck-says Something is making up that energy shortfall. https://twitter.com/european_grid/status/1546101962554343427?s=20&t=pUYB6SkEat4ETVvUghYLGQ CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Jul 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 11:56
|
|
|
We actively complain about every single American plant shutdown as they happen, Germany is just doing a whole bunch of stupid right now so of course we talk about that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 13:07
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Alternatively, you could conceptualize this as Germany being a giant reliable export market for all the countries willing to actually build power plant capacity, including nuclear capacity. Germany's policy combined with a unified grid is basically nuclear NIMBYism, meaning whoever is willing to build still gets all the jobs and export income. Well the problem I see with that is we're having a doozy of a time getting nuclear online for just our own purposes, and the swedes are doing even worse on that front, doing a mini-germany. So I don't see it as plausible that enough generation will come online in time to prevent decade(s) of high energy bills for consumers. For producers it would be pretty darn nice though, it's just those pesky consumers who get the shaft as usual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 15:15
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Well the problem I see with that is we're having a doozy of a time getting nuclear online for just our own purposes, and the swedes are doing even worse on that front, doing a mini-germany. So I don't see it as plausible that enough generation will come online in time to prevent decade(s) of high energy bills for consumers. For producers it would be pretty darn nice though, it's just those pesky consumers who get the shaft as usual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
lol who is claiming we don't drag America enough in here? Dude, we're probably on watchlists. This thread isn't looking abroad for distractions from how scatterbrained, awful, or non-existent American energy policy is, and even if we were we sure could do a hell of a lot worse than criticizing the loving Germany.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
cat botherer posted:It's implausible in the current political situation, but it would be entirely possible to build many plants relatively quickly if there is a will to do so. Among other things, you'd need to cut out the contractor graft and the decades of fossil fuel-lobby regs that set nuclear up to fail. This is the spherical, frictionless cow of policy discussions. Is there a regulatory model that has produced nuclear generation on time/budget in the last two generations? Even with the level of state control in China they can't hit their targets. Not disagreeing that nuclear power is the only approach to mitigating climate change humans practically have the technology for, or that nationalization of that industry is probably the best way to get it spun up on the scale necessary. It's just not going to be cheap or easy regardless of the political environment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 16:16
|
|