|
This isn't actually addressing anyone's points Gaba, you are being even more dismissive than you claim we are being. https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE Germany is largely fueled by coal, and their renewables push isn't changing this. Right now, even, they are a net energy importer. Every country on that map that is actually decreasing its carbon footprint is using Nuclear and Hydro combined with Renewables, not Renewables combined with some of the dirtiest, carbon heaviest energy possible. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Oct 11, 2021 |
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
To be fair, Germany is leaning hard on being loving stupid, the rest is just a symptom. Hell, even Japan are talking about restarting their nuclear reactors, that should say a lot. I want to get SMR's going for district heating and power generation ASAP, but that's political suicide in  , so gently caress us, I guess, we'll just keep burning plastic and poo poo in waste management plants instead.E: I guess some other EU countries are (finally) waking up, too - https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ten-EU-nations-call-for-nuclear-s-inclusion-in-tax Wibla fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Oct 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
German energy corps are calling for tens of GW of natural gas to be subsidised into existence for some reason
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 22:24
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
In 2012, Germany operated 30 coal plants that had been retrofitted to partially or wholly rely on wood pellets. Last year Germany authorized up to 40 billion euro in subsidies to help convert their coal plants to wood pellets, hydrogen (like Gaba's preferred Greenpeace ProWindGas), or gas. Germany has been converting old coal and gas plants into wood-fired biomass since the early 2000's. For example the Märkisches Viertel coal/gas/oil CHP plant was converted to wood chips in 2014, and the Ulm gas/oil plant was converted in 2004. https://powerplants.vattenfall.com/markisches-viertel/ https://www.standardkessel-baumgarte.com/en/plants-and-components/references/ulm-ii.html http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/16652/germanys-carbon-mitigation-plan-with-biomass https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-irons-out-last-coal-exit-law-hurdles-conversion-options-younger-plants https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-utilities-coal-focus/vattenfall-looks-to-gas-and-biomass-as-end-of-coal-power-looms-idUSKCN1N30OU For what it's worth, I can understand feeling defensive when your country is one of the few to actually promote the climate crisis as a national priority, only to be immediately criticized about the way that they are going about it. I don't think there's any way to make the required changes without accepting some significant compromises. But the policies and strategies being undertaken by Germany in the name of environmentalism have been wildly out of step with climate science. It's very clear that Germany's significant coal, gas, and wood pellet industries have been prioritized and subsidized despite their major contributions to carbon and methane emissions. It is good and necessary to cheer on the political advances made by the German government to focus on the climate crisis, while also objecting to the industrial greenwashing occurring at the same time. Kaal fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Oct 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
This is extremely tinhat, but I feel like Germany would have followed this hydrocarbon path even in timelines where Fukushima didnt happen(along with other non events at plants ). There's some backdoors money being shuffled around, maybe Putin has one instance of a Russian future without himself and knows that he should make parts of Euro dependant on his gas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:This is extremely tinhat, but I feel like Germany would have followed this hydrocarbon path even in timelines where Fukushima didnt happen(along with other non events at plants ). Worth noting that Putin has openly said the goal is for Russia to be majority Nuclear fueled. Broken clock, etc. But they are well on track since the VVER is mostly fully assembly line ready now an they are churning them out quickly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
Russia can make billions supplying methane to the EU via pipeline. They can also make billions exporting electricity to Western and Eastern EU countries to meet zero emissions. VideoGameVet posted:The trend of putting in stuff backwards, as with San Onofre, seems to be gaining ground. I hate to break it to you, but this is... not that uncommon in the construction industry in general. Typical causes: -Those doing the work not checking the orientation -Those doing the work not having the drawing they need, on hand -Lack of indepdent inspection early enough to catch it -Lack of any indepent inspection from those doing the work -In the case of older (1960s to 1970s nuclear power plants) you had to watch out for the use of "mirrored" drawings. (Take a plan view drawing of Unit 1, flip it over. That is the plan view for unit 2. Some times.) -Heavy reliance upon verbal communication in-lieu of writing -Technical manuals or technical drawings showing which way it needs to go but not the part itself (e.g. a part with serial numbers might need that side facing a certain direction. Although typically these kind of intrusive overhauls involve the vendor and you want them present for that kind of thing.) SA-Anon fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Oct 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This isn't actually addressing anyone's points Gaba, you are being even more dismissive than you claim we are beinur What do you think the point is? That Germany's biomass usage shouldn't be considered renewable? I genuinely don't know. Is it carbon neutral? Absolutely not. No form of power generation is. So the answer depends on its carbon intensity and that's obviously a very complicated topic because the term biomass covers so much different poo poo. Some forms will probably have lower intensity than wind and nuclear, some have absolutely horrendous intensity on par with natural gas. So you are left with using average numbers if you want to use the umbrella term "biomass" and then you will probably end up somewhere between wind/solar and natural gas(where exactly will depend on the country/region and what model you used for estimation). Technically still squeezing in below a certain renewables cutoff, but including dirty forms of biomass usage. And that's greenwashing. So yeah, I do think we should pick a hard cutoff point and a scientifically well accepted standard methodology to estimate intensity and then throw out all the lovely biomass usages into a separate category called "dirty biomass" or something. Dunno what biomass share you will arrive at after that, don't think anyone knows. The whole sector is a convoluted mess with ten billion actors doing their own thing. It's probably worth mentioning that Germany's biomass share of power production is pretty average for Europe. It's not a problem that is specific to a single country. Kaal posted:In 2012, Germany operated 30 coal plants that had been retrofitted to partially or wholly rely on wood pellets. Last year Germany authorized up to 40 billion euro in subsidies to help convert their coal plants to wood pellets, hydrogen (like Gaba's preferred Greenpeace ProWindGas), or gas. Germany has been converting old coal and gas plants into wood-fired biomass since the early 2000's. For example the Märkisches Viertel coal/gas/oil CHP plant was converted to wood chips in 2014, and the Ulm gas/oil plant was converted in 2004. Märkisches Viertel KWK is a dedicated biomass installation designed for that purpose(operating in a building that used to house a coal plant at some point(it's under monument protection, lol Germany)). But you keep digging for that source. I'm sure you will find it sooner or later. GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Oct 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Märkisches Viertel KWK is a dedicated biomass installation designed for that purpose(operating in a building that used to house a coal plant at some point(it's under monument protection, lol Germany)). But you keep digging for that source. I'm sure you will find it sooner or later. That's a pretty obvious dodge. Germany will never burn wood in coal plants because when they convert them to burn wood then they're not coal plants anymore, they're dedicated biomass installations. https://powerplants.vattenfall.com/markisches-viertel/ quote:Commissioned in 2014, the Märkisches Viertel combined heat and power (CHP) plant is the first Vattenfall CHP plant in Berlin fuelled entirely by biomass. The plant, located in northern Berlin, generates district heat with especially low environmental impact and feeds electricity into the distribution network. Approximately 70,000 tonnes of wood chips from forest residues and untreated wood from other sources are burnt each year. Can you cut this poo poo out now? Do you think it makes a lick of difference whether they tear down a coal plant and replace it with a wood plant or just convert a coal plant to burn wood? Germany burns wood for energy and calls it renewable. Germany's legislative environment is specifically crafted to encourage this. Incorporate this into your metaphysics and stop dancing around trying to avoid the cognitive dissonance of acknowledging it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 01:29
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:What do you think the point is? That Germany's biomass usage shouldn't be considered renewable? I genuinely don't know. Is it carbon neutral? Absolutely not. No form of power generation is. So the answer depends on its carbon intensity and that's obviously a very complicated topic because the term biomass covers so much different poo poo. Some forms will probably have lower intensity than wind and nuclear, some have absolutely horrendous intensity on par with natural gas. So you are left with using average numbers if you want to use the umbrella term "biomass" and then you will probably end up somewhere between wind/solar and natural gas(where exactly will depend on the country/region and what model you used for estimation). Technically still squeezing in below a certain renewables cutoff, but including dirty forms of biomass usage. And that's greenwashing. So yeah, I do think we should pick a hard cutoff point and a scientifically well accepted standard methodology to estimate intensity and then throw out all the lovely biomass usages into a separate category called "dirty biomass" or something. Dunno what biomass share you will arrive at after that, don't think anyone knows. The whole sector is a convoluted mess with ten billion actors doing their own thing. They are still burning poo poo, you are missing the entire point, in fact they are basically woodchipping entire forests to fuel their power. And your argument is this is somehow BETTER than just keeping their nuclear plants operations or building new ones? Because it would be expensive and take a while? They are marching backwards and claiming its progress. https://twitter.com/TomMoyerUT/status/1447431677987282948?s=20 Also: Germany is basically walking into the very trap that Putin set. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Oct 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 01:36
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:It’s rough to transport heating water over long distances like that. The heat losses are huge. Somehow Fortum company who operates the 2 nuclear plants in Loviisa, Finland suggested doing that anyways, if they get the permit to build a 3rd reactor to Loviisa too. I mean somehow they themselves suggested it, and they calculated the losses would be acceptable. Anyways the loss is now 100%, so any loss while moving the heat over long distances would be less loss than in current situation. How bad the heat loss would be, 10% of the energy? quote:You also still need a way to remove 100% of the plant’s heat in the event that the district system has a problem, or during the summertime when heat demands are lower. That system needs to be maintained regardless of how often it actually gets used, so the extra complexity of a district heating system is often (nearly always) unattractive. I understood it would work like that the reactor's cooling works as usual. Just the exhaust cooling water to ocean is cooler. Now it's like 40C when it's exhausted to ocean. Only the temperature of exhaust water to ocean would change depending on how much heating water you need. So uh you "leech" the heat from nuclear power plant's cooling water and use that heat to warm homes and industries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 11:30
|
|
|
One interesting option for waste nuclear heat is steam electrolysis using solid oxide electrolysers. It could significantly increase the thermal efficiency of nuclear plant, cutting costs. Interesting report here, albeit sponsored by the nuclear industry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 13:12
|
|
|
Most efficient way to utilise waste heat has to be greenhouses, especially in northern climates, no?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 13:29
|
|
|
Nuclear greenhouses sounds really nice, hope they build some SMRs in Närpes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 13:46
|
|
|
I would definitely buy a bottle of Finnish Nuclear Wine
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 14:26
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:What do you think the point is? That Germany's biomass usage shouldn't be considered renewable? I genuinely don't know. Is it carbon neutral? Absolutely not. No form of power generation is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:You also still need a way to remove 100% of the plant’s heat in the event that the district system has a problem, or during the summertime when heat demands are lower. That system needs to be maintained regardless of how often it actually gets used, so the extra complexity of a district heating system is often (nearly always) unattractive. As loving always, the problems are socio-political. This is the most enraging poo poo always. We can loving do, but we're not going to, because something something socialism something something shareholder value. Ihmemies posted:I understood it would work like that the reactor's cooling works as usual. Just the exhaust cooling water to ocean is cooler. Now it's like 40C when it's exhausted to ocean. Only the temperature of exhaust water to ocean would change depending on how much heating water you need. So uh you "leech" the heat from nuclear power plant's cooling water and use that heat to warm homes and industries. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Oct 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
Also the whole "We will do anything, at any cost, to stop climate change" except if its nuclear, and then "That's too expensive/takes too long" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
"but a theoretical intelligent species in the far future could be hurt."
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
For folks who are interested in more data about Germany's renewable energy mix, I came across a great PDF put out by the Agency for Renewable Resources (Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe) that spells it out in a bunch of different graphs and tables that make it easier to parse. One thing I realized that we haven't talked about much, for example, is that lots of the German biomass is coming from rapeseed and maize crops that are then harvested in an anaerobic digester to produce methane (aka green hydrogen). The crops are used both for direct power generation and in biofuel additives, whereas until recent years wood pellets (solid biomass) has largely been focused on small-scale thermal heating purposes in Germany. This is beginning to change to due to regulatory alterations being made to enable Germany to treat wood as a carbon-free energy source. Like the United States, the German government has provided lots of subsidies to corn farmers to encourage the industry, both to reduce dependence on foreign oil and for the environmental benefits. However the benefit of these crops have been rather nebulous, particularly because they require lots of energy to grow in the first place. It's a good example of the complexity of the environmental issues that surround energy generation. https://www.fnr.de/fileadmin/allgemein/pdf/broschueren/broschuere_basisdaten_bioenergie_2020_engl_web.pdf https://theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/mar/14/uk-ban-maize-biogas
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Heating systems always need to be continuously maintained, this isn't specific to district heating. And of course you need somewhere to dump excess heat, but again that's not particular to district-tied nuke plants. I was speaking more to the point that district heating is a non-requisite cost. It only adds to the cost of an installation, without providing an advantage to the investor (public or private) who is funding construction of the new generation in the first place. Fixing that issue (as you mention) is waaaaaaay outside the purview of energy generation, but would fix quite a few other issues at the same time, if anything could be done about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
A connection to the existing district heating system seems to be the standard for new construction in larger cities here these days 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
Sounds like France is doubling down on Nuclear and focusing on developing native designed SMRs both to provide power and produce green hydrogen https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/macron-says-france-have-mini-nuclear-reactor-green-hydrogen-plants-by-2030-2021-10-12/
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's a pretty obvious dodge. Germany will never burn wood in coal plants because when they convert them to burn wood then they're not coal plants anymore, they're dedicated biomass installations. No, firing(and co-firing)coal plants with biomass is a thing that does exist. quote:https://powerplants.vattenfall.com/markisches-viertel/ Of course if makes a difference whether you burn biomass in a dedicated biomass plant or in a coal plant. They have substantial differences in design. It's makes a difference in carbon intensity and emissions. Don't burn biomass in coal plants ffs (or anything else for that matter) CommieGIR posted:They are still burning poo poo, you are missing the entire point, in fact they are basically woodchipping entire forests to fuel their power. And your argument is this is somehow BETTER than just keeping their nuclear plants operations or building new ones? Because it would be expensive and take a while? They are marching backwards and claiming its progress. Taking low carbon intensity nuclear power plants off the grid during a climate apocalypse is pure idiocy. I don't think you will find much disagreement about this on SA. Building new ones? No. I think that whole idea is a dead-end. The thing is, if you ask the the anti-nuclear side what their path to resume decarbonization of the power sector is, they can actually provide structured logical paths on how this can happen. For example, legislative action. We need to redact 2 laws specifically that have been put in place by the the current government. I don't know if it will happen, but it is at least a goal you can work towards. If you ask the pro-nuclear side, you get some insanely convoluted 400 step plan with each step infinitely less probable than the last one and one of the step very likely requiring a coup of the government and dissolution of parliament and then trying to do a 10 year Apollo style project while most of the country and public administration goes into a general strike and two or three states secede and there is a armed standoff at the Bavarian border between state and federal police and France and Poland putting sanctions on the country and stationing troops at the border. It's completely loving nonsense. Not a single federal party in Germany supports nuclear expansion (outside of some of the 60 or so microparties nobody gives a poo poo about), because the whole idea is such a waste of time. Not even the loving Nazi parties, which are obsessively contrarian on almost anything else that is even slightly perceived as ~mainstream~ go any further than just advocating for extensions on existing plants. It's a baaaaad idea. GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Oct 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Building new ones? No. I think that whole idea is a dead-end. The thing is, if you ask the the anti-nuclear side what their path to resume decarbonization of the power sector is, they can actually provide structured logical paths on how this can happen. For example, legislative action. We need to redact 2 laws specifically that have been put in place by the the current government. I don't know if it will happen, but it is at least a goal you can work towards. If you ask the pro-nuclear side, you get some insanely convoluted 400 step plan with each step infinitely less probable than the last one and one of the step very likely requiring a coup of the government and dissolution of parliament and then trying to do a 10 year Apollo style project while most of the country and public administration goes into a general strike and two or three states secede and there is a armed standoff at the Bavarian border between state and federal police and France and Poland putting sanctions on the country and stationing troops at the border. It's completely loving nonsense. Not a single federal party in Germany supports nuclear expansion (outside of some of the 60 or so microparties nobody gives a poo poo about), because the whole idea is such a waste of time. Not even the loving Nazi parties, which are obsessively contrarian on almost anything else that is even slightly perceived as ~mainstream~ go any further than just advocating for extensions on existing plants. It's a baaaaad idea. Except its not a waste of time. At all. And we've demonstrated this over and over again. What is a waste of time is pretending that Biomass is somehow better than lignite coal, its not. Regardless of party support, its the best bet, and they are quite literally buying gas from a country (Russia) who is doing exactly what you are saying is not a good idea because they recognize its probably the best bet. Frankly its also incredibly ironic because Germany has decided to double down on Biomass and Natural gas, and its incredibly detrimental to the idea that Germany is taking Climate Change seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
ITT: people alternatively beating a dead horse and engaging with people just barely (if that) on the right side of outright trolling Nuclear is viable. Nuclear in the US is not, because y'all hosed yourself over, good job. Germany? Who the gently caress knows, they're probably hosed too, we'll see what happens with the new government they're getting soon (iirc?). Burning things containing carbon to generate power is bad, full stop. No amount of greenwashing will make it not bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
I'd argue the US is not as bad off as Germany, they are still investigating and licensing a lot of new reactor designs, they are not nearly as far down the road that Germany has chosen to go. https://twitter.com/opg/status/1446561084106752004?s=20  Oh Ontario.
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Oct 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Except its not a waste of time. At all. And we've demonstrated this over and over again. What is a waste of time is pretending that Biomass is somehow better than lignite coal, its not. Yeah, sorry, I don't know how to respond to this post. Nothing in it seems to be connected to anything I wrote. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
The german parties put themselves into a corner by so deeply ingraining the fear of anything nuclear in the population over decades, that now they cannot allow themselves to turn back for they are absolutely aware that it would be political suicide for the one who steps up and admits to this. The "Energiewende", if rigidly followed through, will absolutely ruin my country not only economically but also ecologically and divert the population into literally the ones with power and the ones without. That said, how realistic is it that i can built my own little NPP in my basement by 2040 for my household needs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
bou posted:That said, how realistic is it that i can built my own little NPP in my basement by 2040 for my household needs? Not realistic at all. Too many safety controls you'd need to address and would get quickly shutdown should you even try to acquire the fuel. SMRs are likely coming anyways, so we'll see what new inroads they create.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
SMR for power generation and district heating is such a nobrainer, but ATOMS SCARY  Looks like the Russians are replacing old RBMK reactors with new VVER designs at the same sites, that's pretty rad (also good for nuclear safety in general )
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not realistic at all. Too many safety controls you'd need to address and would get quickly shutdown should you even try to acquire the fuel. SMRs are likely coming anyways, so we'll see what new inroads they create. Thanks. Yeah ok, when i think of it, it would never evolve into something that could not be turned into some really nasty bomb easily. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
bou posted:Thanks. Yeah ok, when i think of it, it would never evolve into something that could not be turned into some really nasty bomb easily. Its more maintaining even a small, non-power reactor includes a lot of specialized expertise and safety controls, or you could end up like the SL-1 incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
Maybe America will get into atomz when they see that both China and Russia are racing to atomz.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Isn’t it an open secret at this point that Germany made itself dependent on cheap Russian gas as part of some shady deal? Germany was increasingly cosy with Russia until the Ukraine crisis at which point i assume the trap had snapped firmly shut. Scorpion and the frog and all that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 22:30
|
|
|
Maybe an RTG source would be easier to DIY?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Maybe an RTG source would be easier to DIY? Not really because you generally need very active sources like Strontium-90 or Plutonium-238 which are lethal in their own right if not controlled. https://twitter.com/GrantChalmers/status/1448029201647366150?s=20 Fun graph showing carbon energy footprints of various countries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Maybe an RTG source would be easier to DIY? Nah. RTG isotopes have to be really radioactive to self-heat to the point where you can generate useful electricity from it via the thermoelectric effect. You're not getting your hands on that stuff. I mean, maybe if you stole a whole poo poo-ton of smoke detectors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Nah. RTG isotopes have to be really radioactive to self-heat to the point where you can generate useful electricity from it via the thermoelectric effect. You're not getting your hands on that stuff. I mean, maybe if you stole a whole poo poo-ton of smoke detectors. Yeah but even then at best you get a very active neutron source, because you gotta extract the Americium from the buttons and then combine them. At minimum, a lot of chemistry, a decent sized hot cell, and a very noticeable footprint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
Wibla posted:ITT: people alternatively beating a dead horse and engaging with people just barely (if that) on the right side of outright trolling I'm not advocating carbon based power sources, however I do think there is a difference between burning carbon that was laid down millennia ago (fossil fuels) and burning carbon that was removed/sequestered from the biosphere in the last 50 years (biomass, plantation forestry). In theory there are renewable carbon sources, but you have to rely on that mythical beast Homo Economicus Rationalisii. There is clearly a lot of love for nuclear power in this forum and it's feasible in some jurisdictions and not others. The reality is that decarbonising the global grid is going to require trade-offs all over the planet, some will be greenwashing, some will be attempting to gain popular acceptance, some will be economic reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 23:12
|
|
