|
Micr0chiP posted:Speaking of Chernobyl, just saw this video of two divers reacting to some crazy russians(?) diving on the water in the Chernobyl reactor... The best part of the series is when they become friends with that old lady who moved back into her old farm in the zone sometime during the 2000s to avoid the housing market. She keeps offering them locally grown food and laughs when the pull out their geiger counters.
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 08:38 |
|
|
What would you propose to do about anti-nuclear greens? From what I can tell, most anti-nuclear policy is only influenced by the moral hazard projected by people opposed to the traditional greens. Merkel is of course the ideal example, she decided to be massively anti-nuclear in extremely incompetent ways and everybody ended up blaming the greens for her decisions. Despite the greens being at the lowest amount of power they had since the 70s. All centrists worldwide have paid attention, and they know now that nobody will ever blame them for making anti-nuclear decisions. So no party, except for a green party could ever make a pro-nuclear decision because they would be in danger of being held responsible.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1549037641970114560?s=20&t=7vEjqegr-AhgKDu8kA-yqg Certainly looks like things are improving. Actually I do blame the rona for those changes. Germany has been massively traumatised by Chernobyl. The impact here was oc minimal compared to serious catastrophes, even local floods. But, it affected the whole country in a almost visible way that nothing else between 1945 and 2020 did. And the memories grew in retelling, making it impossible to forget. Children (like me) remember having the playgrounds locked down until the sand was replaced. Adults remember the short soft lockdown. And grandma never stopped complaining that she can no longer safely forage for mushrooms. Leading to the situation that for 30ish years the only pro-nuclear people are ageing conservatives who hadn't noticed that the SU was pro nuclear. And later anti-Schröder libertarians. And, of course as soon as mushrooms were back on the menu Fukushima happened, destroying the argument that nuclear is only bad when the sovjets do it. But, now that we have an actual major disaster to compare things to, I was hoping that the anti-nuclear stance lessens. Though, I expected things to come from the party-base with the politicians being holdouts. I suppose they are trying to attract the refugees from the pds, to go even more topical.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Given the growth of Ev's I've heard interesting proposals as using them as a big means of storage. I've heard that the Ford lighting can power the average home for three days. Use that as a back up battery. The more realistic version is that you restrict charging of large batteries to times when the local renewables produce lots of power. I know there are people who think we should install batteries so that we can charge our batteries from the batteries, but it is kinda dumb and not sustainable.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
smug n stuff posted:Thanks to everyone for all the information re: batteries. The other related question I have is, to what extent can the materials used for batteries be re-used/recycled/whatever? Like, when Li batteries "expire" in 5-10 years, do you just have to mine more and more Li if you want to keep using batteries, or is there an efficient way to re-use these materials? There is, but afaik it still is only rarely done because it is cheaper to just occupy a new mine. Actually that is true for most of the rare metals used in electronics.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
SpeedFreek posted:I'd imagine grid scale storage will be monitored extensively and will be made in such a way that cells or modules will be able to be swapped without too much work when they're degraded. Monitoring on substation battery banks is becoming common enough that I'd think it would be the default on anything grid scale. Not really. The people most opposed to doing storage research/expansion are the people who want to run gas plants instead. And the second largest are the ones who want to run nuclear instead. The all renewables groups have always had plans that were as concrete as the "storage is impossible" complains. Which is not much. And if you ask someone who wants a high (let alone 100%) true renewables power mix, then you mostly hear about long term transmission, non-battery storage and consumption changes that reduce base load. Nobody really cares about batteries for grid storage, it only seems popular because it profits from the high investments that went into batteries for unrelated reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Why do these nuclear supporters keep doing this to Europe? Well, now that the German government is no longer a coalition of nuclear supporters, there are serious talks about slowing down the nuclear shutdown at least.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2022 09:44
|
|
|
quote:Separately to the debate over gas savings measures, Habeck said he was open to extending the lifespan of one nuclear power plant in Bavaria if a stress test showed this was necessary to ensure the stability and supply of the electricity network in winter, he said.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:ah yes maintenance. good thing no gas plants require maintenance eh Maintance and similar predictable outages are the nuclear waste of renewables. By that I mean that Nuclear has to plan for waste disposal in ways that other energy sources can wave away even while radioactive coal slack poisons rivers. Similarly Renewables have to provide redundancy and storage for outages while turbine power can just handwave it away while syncronized outages of those shut down a grid.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:That's a little unfair as historically when people weren't opposed to coal or nuclear in say Australia or France respectively, there was never any outages of much scale simply because of the orderly construction, buildout and replacement of generating plants. I haven't looked into what is happening in France right now exactly. But for example the outage after it snowed on the turbines in texas was mostly caused by their organisational culture. There were solar plants nearby that predicted that they have to turn off a week in advance. And the gas plants guranteed that they can keep running, so nobody worried. Their culture of assuming that 100% uptime and name plate power is possible and necessary makes it impossible for them to predict outages. And I assumed that a similar culture is responsible for the lack of maintance staggering in France. And the other half was of course the lacking long range power grid. After all only renewables need an interconnected power grid. France sanely has that part which is why they currently buy renewable power from Germany while their nukes are down for maintance. My actual point is that both renwables and nuclear are done a disservice by them having to plan for unlikely worst cases and having to make extreme far future predictions that are intrinsically unrealistic due to simple time span. While coal and gas get away with just handwaving them away.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:What I'm always curious about is how household storage will factor in long-term. With every single household with money to spare around here getting solar panels, batteries and electric cars at the same time more and more households are practically off-grid (bar winter ofc). In the long term it will probably break our dependence on ze grid stabilite and/or give us a taste of power access gap injustice. But I don't expect prices for storage to really collapse until re-used EV batteries enter the market in real numbers. Currently most home solar setups do not have attached storage.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
The heat stuff is kinda dumb. New reactor designs can be built small enough that you can overheat rivers without attracting large protests, like coal plants do. Or even do KWK or something. And large reactors can take advantage of convection driven cooling towers which are much more efficient and safe waste energy disposal then any alternative. And they even save water. The only good anti-nuclear argument is that nobody pro-nuclear can be trusted to build, let alone operate, a nuclear plant. If you want a pro-nuclear government made out of existing political movements you get built as many plants as Merkel built, and plants run as efficient as France's current fleet. Or someone who wants to leave all climate and energy policy to the free market. And that is without going into the fact that being anti-nuclear is the centrist position, so they only have to give vague unfounded complaints and delays against all proposals and rest on the status quo. But the pro-nuclear people need to pretend those tactics are legitimate. Because those were the pro-nuclear tactics until the 00s, and are the tactics of the pro-nuclear people on other topics. Like preventing renewables built-up or whatever other currently ongoing indefensible policies they currently like.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this claim is false. I'm sure that you can find some hot-take blog poster lunatic who thinks that we should have a 100% nuclear grid or some poo poo (I've never seen such a thing but I won't rule out its existence, bad opinions exist everywhere about everything) but I believe that'd be the exception rather than the norm. If this thread is an accurate sampling of the pro-nuclear arguments you encounter in your life I am honestly very happy for you. Where did I say that I assume that all pro-nuclear groups want 100% nuclear? I specifically mentioned the previous German government (under Merkel) as example of pro-nuclear governments. Because that is what the local pro-nuclear groups want me to vote for.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I didn't say that you were assuming that, I said that one could probably look hard enough to find some moron blog post somewhere that espouses it. Because I like to cover my bases by being very specific about what I mean (that it's not impossible for a pro-nuclear extremist to be anti-renewable as a result of their extremism, but it'd be pretty unusual) The Merkel gov massively defunded renewable research and investment, outside some flashy exceptions. The original plan was to already have enough effective renewable generation and support infrastructure(like storage) to turn off all nuclear safely without building new fossil plants. Or optimistically shutting them down. The hardest hit part of renewables research was actually storage research, leading a lot of the current discussions about base load. The worst possible case for the funding levels proposed by the old greens would still leave us with well researched and evidence based studies that tell us exactly how much nuclear power(or whatever) we need to meet base load goals. But, after those cuts storage research was essentially limited to what was already happening for other reasons. Leading many people to falsely assume that batteries are a good grid level storage tech, because they were funded through the mobile and EV markets while all other storage tech was neglected, like French nuclear plants were. I admit my arguments apply less to this thread, then I thought. I was remembering an argument but, it seems to have happened in a different thread. Though the current discussion started as a discussion of discussions with normal people. The only anti-nuclear argument I hear in real life is pointing to the history of existing pro-nuclear groups, and their massive grifting and general assholeness. There have of course been new pro-nuclear groups without that track record in recent years. But, we are not politically significant enough to overcome that inertia of perception. VictualSquid fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Oct 3, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2022 10:01
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:Well the leader of the Australian Greens last year referred to nuclear powered submarines as "Floating Chernobyls" so there are some real well thought out opinions in the wild. What were the counterarguments deployed by the presumed pro-nuclear people he was arguing with at the time? If it was an argument against a pro-nuclear sub fraction among the greens, then I assume his argument was successful. Because he only needs to defend the status quo, and such crazy non-sequiturs are entirely sufficient there to stall and prevent any change.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2022 11:36
|
|
|
While only nuclear is expected to budget for the future and deal with its waste, only renewables are expected to budget for outages and deal with transmission. Having only nuclear needs almost as much storage and long distance transmission because the load is also massively variable. A solar heavy mix would need to buy power from China to Europe during the European night because the panels are off. A nuclear heavy mix would have to sell power from Europe to China during the night because the power isn't needed here. The only solution that lowers the need for network technologies would be for people to match their consumption to the available power. Like only charging EVs/mining bitcoin during high power availability hours. And it doesn't change much if they match to the constant nuclear output or to the weather report. End even that society would gain from having lots of redundant long distance lines available in order to react to disasters.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2022 21:11
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Or do something with the power during the night. Yes, exactly the same way a renewables heavy grid would handle power surplus during the day.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2022 21:33
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Nuclear power and renewables are not at odds. They are complimentary. An ideal grid would use a lot of nuclear power for base load, a lot of renewables to supplement base load and deal with the natural ebbs and flows of demand, and a minimum amount of natural gas to fill in any remaining demand gaps. Literally no one in this thread is proposing an "only nuclear" grid, nor am I aware of any real proposals to do that. I am saying that the unfairly assumes that without renewables we won't need a power distribution net. Just like it is unfair to assume that without nuclear power we have no cost of decommissioning and waste handling. And it of course the scenario also implies that the current load behaviour should exist unchanged, including the dumb usages. I would prefer a network that has more renewables then the current one, and more nuclear then the current one. But, I do believe that the greatest problem to grid stability and to our lack of ability to build a lower carbon grid has more to do with underinvestment in transmission and storage then with any investments in generation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2022 23:45
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Renewables need more distribution infrastructure in the hypothetical where you're trying to meet demand solely with renewables 100% of the time. Alternatively, they need a lot of over-capacity and local storage to carry regional demand until the next high-output day. These are facts. This problem can be mitigated or even eliminated by using a mixed grid. In other words, nuclear power and renewables are not at odds; they're complimentary. If you have other sources to compensate for the variance in renewable generation then the unexpected loss of renewable generation is not something you have to worry about as much. Saukkis posted:Renewable electricity is so cheap only because they have externalized the costs of stable production and grid stability, like fossil fuel has externalized emission costs. Whenever a renewable power plant fails to generate the electricity they are supposed to be capable some coal or natgas plant. If we required renewable power plants to produce their name plate capacity 24/7, as we should, they would be hideously expensive. It is entirely plausible that I am misinterpreting the long rant there. But, to me it certainly implies that as long as we don't add more renewables to the grid we never have to do any infrastructure investments. Which also agrees with the attitudes of the "pro-nuclear" politicians in my area. Also, you are reacting to a post that calls for more investment in net infrastructure with an interpretation that it is implicitly anti-nuclear. Implying that you believe that a grid containing nuclear power will have an essentially free transmission grid. e: quoted the wrong post. Because there was one with a similar message right after my initial post.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I largely don't disagree with most of your post, but I'm dismayed that this incorrect conventional wisdom keeps popping up. The opposite is true: as baseload generation is capable of running much higher duty cycle than solar and wind, transmission infrastructure need only be as large as is necessary to transmit that very baseload. As the fraction wind and solar increases - solar in particular - higher capacity transmission and storage infrastructure becomes necessary to provide higher peak transmission load and storage arbitrage. Yes, that is a very good study. IIrc it also implies 35% nuclear power as ideal powermix with 65% renewables. Which means that if you live in a place with less then 65% renewables in the power mix, adding more renewables moves you closer to their recommendation just like adding more nuclear.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2022 01:08
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I don't think that post is advocating for no/low renewable mixtures; I read it as addressing the "all renewables" proposal, which is a common plan that lobbying groups like to put forward. Under such a plan, if your wind power turbines are only generating 1 GW right now, but you need 10 GW, how do you make up that difference of 9 GW? Ok, let me turn your initial question around. Please quote the post that argues for 100% renewables. I haven't personally encountered anybody arguing for 100% renewables outside of the serious degrowth movement in years. And the degrowth solution to the power shortfall is that everybody non-essential takes a day off from work to save power on those days similar to the rona lockdowns. Which is a coherent approach, though I personally am not in favour of the idea. And again, while nobody has said that transmission will be free for less renewable grids, I felt it as an implication. I certainly understand that you don't. And I keep using this comparision: As you don't accept the implication you also wouldn't for nuclear waste, I assume? That is if someone argues that handling nuclear waste is prohibitly expensive, you would not interpret it as implying that other power generation methods have no waste problems.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2022 01:26
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Likewise, there are very few places that can claim to have 35% nuclear power. That's why you'll discover that nuclear power proponents itt are also all renewable energy proponents, and the mantra is always that we need to be building both as rapidly as possible. Likewise I think you will find the other direction to be also true. All renewable energy proponents itt are also pro nuclear as far as I can see. This is not true irl, on the other hand. I personally see more energy political goal in common with the local anti-nuclear green then with the pro-nuclear politicians. Because I favour investments into renewables, infrastructure, resilience and nuclear power. Getting 3 of 4 points of agreement. While the "pro-nuclear" people favour cutting all investments and letting the market solve climate change.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2022 01:34
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Can you provide an example, perhaps a link to public statements of a "pro-nuclear" politician who is in favour for increased funding for nuclear power, but not renewables? They weren't in favour of increasing funding for nuclear power. They were the face of the "pro-nuclear" wave after the invasion of Ukraine. And like all self identified "pro-nuclear" politicians in the last 20 years he favoured decreasing all state funding including for nuclear.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2022 01:59
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:silence_kit was literally posting here just yesterday, they've been posting explicitly anti-nuclear pro-renewable arguments in this thread for close to a decade. I know you're already aware that Germany pivoted to this exact position in recent years, why are you pretending like there are no real people who feel this way? If you interpret silence_kit's recent posts as 100% renewables then I feel justified in interpreting a lot of posts here as 100% nuclear. The german situation is more complex. I would say that in most cases groups arguing for 100% renewable mostly were composed of people who consider fossil gas to be "renewable". And the spending decisions imply that too if you look at them instead of non-binding statements of intend. . With that position becoming unpopular this year, there is a pretty massive realignment going on. And the reaction to the green party compromising on the nuclear power extensions implied to me that the pro-nuclear internal fraction is larger then anybody expected (also larger then it was before DL collapsed). And I personally think that is the most productive space for pro-nuclear activism here. That is making sure that the pro-gas inner party gets replaced by a pro-nuclear fraction instead of the degrowth fraction.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:The German position is very clearly 100% renewables with power to gas as the storage solution. That is also the situation with a lot of other states in the EU. There are a few countries that also see nuclear power in the mix and some that want coal or natural gas, but otherwise the goal is clearly renewables + storage. Well the nuclear lobby got some extra spending assigned to them recently. In the form of more bailouts for court settlements for their corruption charges. Which is the actual main reason, why I don't think we will get new nuclear power built by supporting the existing nuclear lobby.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2022 04:08
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Lol at that nuclear quote. Supposedly they've earmarked almost half a trillion EUR for various bailouts and subsidies: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-half-a-trillion-dollar-energy-bazooka-may-not-be-enough-2022-12-15/ At the time of the last election the competing proposal was to take all that money and pay it directly to the investment banks, the true victims. And under no circumstances ever to invest into any infrastructure, including power plants. The movement withing the green party towards accepting nuclear is more likely to lead to a new NPP, then the movement within the CDU against austerity.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2022 12:40
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I was looking at the French power production and now they are back to exporting power and curtailing nuclear production. I assume a lot of coal power in Germany is online though still, what mechanisms are there to curtail cross boarder coal generation prior to nuclear generation? I mean other than physical interconnectors. Well those interconnection cost more money then the CDU types are prepared to ever invest into power infrastructure. As in, there was funding to build them set aside, in case we need some french nuclear power for some reason, and the CDU cut that funding. The CDU types are 100% obvious about the fact that they would never invest money into any power plants of any type under any circumstances. Even the subgroup that you get your arguments from is only saying that if the greens never forced people to The lack of new nuclear power plants during the Merkel years comes from Austerity politics. The 2014 shutdown schedule was an attempt at distraction from the other disastrous energy policy decisions, that obviously succeeded with you. And whats more is that anti-nuclear attitudes became an apolitical default opinion. Based on the timing to me it makes more sense to blame the pro-nuclear lobby then the green movement for that, but it is debatable. Anyways, that gave us a new right wing Atomausstieg. Which differed from the green Atomausstieg in that the CDU considered the loss of shareholder profits for the nuclear industry to be the only danger of the Atomausstieg. As that can be solved with bailouts, that means it can proceed much quicker then the green Atomausstieg. Everybody who identified as pro-nuclear in 2014 German agreed that those bailouts solve all problems that they had with the original Atomausstieg. Which you noticed by the lack of pro-nuclear protests, especially among the anti-fossil protests. The nuclear question asked in any German election since 2014 is not pro vs anti nuclear. Is the biggest downside of the Atomausstieg the danger of fossil fuel dependency? Or is the most important danger of the Atomausstieg to the investor profits in the nuclear industry?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2022 12:26
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Why can't the government enforce a standard build? In part because each location needs a slightly different size. And if you use a larger one, you lose profits. Same as when storing a replacement part, instead of emergency ordering one when it is needed. The main reason is that the government doing things is socialism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2023 10:35
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:huh that's weird, it's been rising since 2020, with 2021 beating 2019 Wow, a statistical blip in the last datapoint of the graph. Clearly that is a new trend that I should base my opinion on. Could you swing over to the graph crimes thread and defend the position that climate change is fake as proven by a recent cold snap? We are pretty bored there. I personally wouldn't believe anybody who assumes that the Merkel government was either pro-renewables or anti-nuclear. So arguments about German trends over that period representing some kind of ideal renewable build up are questionable no matter what conclusion they draw.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 12:12
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:...Especially when that graph shows exactly what started happening under recent greenwashing politics in Germany. I really don't get what you are arguing there. Are you saying that the one month where the greens were part of the ruling coalition in 2021 caused that blip? I think you are overestimating the speed of politics massively there. I do agree that turning on all those coal plants is bullshit, and the support for fossil gas was the main reason why I didn't vote for them in the last election. But, I do think that the current rise in coal use is mostly a result of decisions made by the previous government. The current nuclear shutdowns were decided by the Merkel government which was elected on a pro-nuclear platform and kept being supported by all pro-nuclear lobbyists, all pro-nuclear protestors and all pro-nuclear voters. And so was the previous decision that prolonging the life of existing Npps was more important then building newer Npps when there was more pro-nuclear attitudes in the early years. I know it has become fashionable to declare that if the greens would stop protesting against coal digs that would cause the free market to build nuclear plants and stop climate change within a month. Which is the current state of mainstream pro-nuclear "activism". I am kind happy that they haven't shown up itt specifically. Like i have said before, I mostly blame austerity politics for the lovely state of energy generation in Germany. With the Greens being used as a scapegoat, especially since 2014, and people who fall for that being idiots.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
Finding graphs for the investments into renevables and especially nuclear is harder then I thought. Found this one for nuclear subventions, though I am not sure if the source is trustworthy, despite finding it linked from a bundestag summery. "https://green-planet-energy.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2020-09_FOES_Kosten_Atomenergie_Stand_final.pdf" Would you say that the blip at the end means that the current coalition is more pro-nuclear then the previous government? I don't because I believe politics move slower then that, but you seem to disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 15:00
|
|
|
Phigs posted:Was there ever any exploration into using green energy to synthesize gas as a store of energy? If you could source the carbon from the air/capture and recycle it then burning the fuel would only cycle carbon in the air, not increase it, making it carbon neutral. Of course it would depend on being able to source carbon from the air and an efficient-enough process for synthesizing the gas so I have no idea if it's viable. But I also don't think I've even heard of anyone trying it so I'm curious. There was some research about that even experimental facilities. But, it is somewhere near fusion on the readiness scale. Many people have bad feelings about that because it was being hyped a lot by the silver bullet crowd who were arguing that no other climate action is needed. Though they seem to have moved on. Having plants suck the carbon out of the atmosphere and harvesting them and turning them into syn-gas with green energy makes more sense. Sadly that sector is a hotbed of greenwashing scams, where you use fossil fuel to generate "carbon neutral" biofuel. On the other hand the technologies will have to be developed anyway, because it can provide gas for the industrial processes where it is not replaceable by electrical energy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2023 12:59
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Based on this 2021 life cycle analysis, nuclear outperforms wind: All those comparisons between the low emissions group are within the margin of error. You can easily add or remove some subtle thing and change the ordering. The only real sensible conclusion is that fossil fuels suck under all circumstances. For example that article suggests that the primary driver for Wind Co2 impact is the construction of the tower itself. Which is an item that could be made reusable once rates of decommission catch up to rates of construction. Also, just look at this: 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
Pander posted:I don't think wind towers are reusable are they? Isn't the point of their lifecycle that they need replacement due to decades of strain (along with turbine replacement) It makes more sense then CCS, which was included in the comparisons. More seriously, I don't think we actually know for sure, because there haven't been that many windmills being replaced. In part because technology is still improving so fast that new ones are differently designed, and reuse is impossible for that reason. Which also means that we might eventually build reusable or more carbon emission efficient ones. Though nobody really cares because those emissions are negligible when compared to the ones made by fossil fuels, or even badly designed solar installations.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
The conservatives, who were the primary pro-nuke party until 2016, are very split. The official party twitter declares that the Atomaustieg was all their doing, and nobody should praise any other parties for anything related to it. Especially not the Greens. The CSU meanwhile is arguing that the plant there should keep running somehow. The company has no supply chains, fired all the workers, deferred enough maintenance to need a year of shutdown anyway and is receiving bailout money for the shutdown. But, a bit of deregulation will clearly solve all power problems forever. People are replying with quotes from 2 years ago where they were saying that the Atomaustieg is not going fast enough. Luckily the Union passed on the mantle of party of the pro-nuclear to the FDP. And they have announced a solution, that will be entirely sufficient to solve everything imminently: Reduce government regulation of Fusion power. Let the free market build some fusion plants.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2023 10:17
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:It's not random, it's two days immediately before and after shutdown, that's probably as close as we can get to a before/after comparison, even though the conditions aren't perfectly identical of course. According to the posted graph: The carbon intensity in the days after the shutdown was lower then the monthly peak 2 weeks ago. Almost as if a high renewables grid has a weather dependent carbon intensity. That single last plant shutting down now permanently has fairly minimal impact on the carbon intensity. Especially as the honest comparison would still have the plant shut down for a year for maintenance and reaching EOL soon even without the Atomausstieg. Not building new plants is the actual problem. And not building the infrastructure that is needed for a functioning high renewable grid. I know that the politicians who were arguing a few years ago that the current Atomaustieg timeline was to slow are now suddenly suggesting that with some deregulation the plant operators would voluntarily return the bailouts, re-hire the staff, order fuel rods from russia and skip the maintenance period to restart the plant and after that climate change will be solved once and for all allowing all of us to drive into the sunset with out state subventioned gas guzzling cars . But you should not trust such people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry. The shutdown is bringing out the dumbest parts of the German pro-nuclear movement. And all hope of nuclear getting seen as green here is being destroyed by them right now for the foreseeable future. They are even finally managing to drag down fusion, which was seen as green nuclear previously. And all of them are implying that keeping this one plant going would solve climate change forever without any other action needed, if it wasn't for those evil green deep state who snuck into the government forcing Merkel to incompetently accelerate the Atomausstieg. So right now, I am a bit allergic to arguments that overemphasise Isar2's part of the whole energy politics.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
The other thing about renewables+nuclear is that our capability to predict renewable production is actually very good and getting better. So, even if the Npp needs a week warning to make room for the windy day it can get that warning. Again, 99% of the downsides of renewable power is actually caused by lovely support infrastructure.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 08:38 |
|
|
I read the statement as: "If we force renewables to internalize some externalities then they are cheaper then nuclear (in a context where we refuse to state if nuclear has internalized the externalities)". I do not know anything about those Lazard guys, but from that statement they see themselves entirely in competition to wind and solar. So, presumably they run fossil and nuclear plants and feel threatened by their fossil plants getting protested by pro-w&s people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2023 13:44
|
|