Live data from Hacker News

Why Germans won’t heat their homes even with free electricity?

kaikenhuippu.com

301–310 of 397 posts

Re: Why Germans won’t heat their homes even with free electricity?

#301
post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nuclear power is green and just better than renewable and coal How do you arrive at that conclusion? Better in what regard? AFAIK nuclear power has all sorts of problems, the main one being that nobody knows what to do about the waste. Building nuclear power plants isn’t exactly carbon emission free either.

The waste is a non-problem, especially when you compare with co2 over decades. Nuclear energy emits less co2 than renewables: it requires less metals (especially if you store electricity with batteries or other means), and renewables are not baseload energies, meaning you need to burn either coal or gas when there's no sun or wind. Wind mills require a lot of metals, and installing them is complicated. Solar panels r…

You are comparing CO2 emission and use of metal and completely ignore the catastrophic systemic risk of nuclear power.

There has been many events where nuclear waste has been dumped in the ocean, misplaced, lost, improperly buried, leaked in rivers, caught fire and even deliberately used in projectiles and dispersed in the environment.

And this is nothing compared to the risk of exposing large amounts of waste during a war or terrorist attack.

Re: Why Germans won’t heat their homes even with free electricity?

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. But how do you hang wet clothes and not ruin your floors? Sorry if I sound stupid. American apartments aren't set up for this and I would rather handle it this way and I've had challenges.

Most washing machines have the spin cycle which removes almost all water that could drip out. So I haven't noticed any water that drips out as such. Also, you have a specific place in some apartments for this with different type of floor.

If there’s a specific place with a different floor (and maybe dedicated ventilation), I find a little odd the argument that a dryer (which sometimes even stacks on top of the washer) is a waste of space.

Re: Why Germans won’t heat their homes even with free electricity?

#303
post #36

I recall talking to some europeans and they said they like their driers, which only half dry clothes (they put them up on a line to finish) but use less energy. It's some sort of virtue thing, I guess.

"some sort of virtue thing" sounds like cynical way to describe ethical values.

Yes, most people I know don't want to waste electricity on driers even when it's cheap.

Re: Why Germans won’t heat their homes even with free electricity?

#304

I feel this article is missing the forest for the trees: > German electricity consumers paid 80 million euros in tariffs to get 8 million euros worth of wind power to the market. > There is simply no point to make any market-driven investments in Germany; the tariffs are simply too large compared to the market value of electricity. > (...) > This might not be a problem if “getting more renewables” is the end-goal one…

Creating more renewable energy is pointless unless it reduces/replaces the use of fossil fuels. Having more energy than we need is useless, and there's an environmental footprint to even the greenest wind farm. The point the article is making is that because of the way the renewable industry is being funded (from taxes on electricity consumption), consumers are opting to continue burning fossil fuels rather then use…

> Creating more renewable energy is pointless unless it reduces/replaces the use of fossil fuels.

It does.

> The point the article is making is that because of the way the renewable industry is being funded (from taxes on electricity consumption), consumers are opting to continue burning fossil fuels rather then use electricity.

No, it doesn't. Renewable energy has a systematic preference and its share in electricity production has risen from 6% (in 2000) to 42% (in 2019).

> Investment in electricity production is guided by government policy goals and support, rather than actual demand

That's always the case. Energy policy is a government task. No nuclear would be build without MASSIVE government support and government demand.

Germany actually created an energy market, which before did not exist, since electricity production and distribution was in the hand of 4 big companies, each having a full monopoly in a large region.

> Germany is producing more energy than it needs

It doesn't. Far from. Also Germany is importing energy. Lots.

> reduce fossil fuel use are actually causing more environmental damage and preserving fossil fuel use.

This is not what is happening. The goal is to have more than 85% renewable energy for electricity production in 2050.

Re: Why Germans won’t heat their homes even with free electricity?

#305
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renewables plus transmission plus storage plus gas generation is easily as reliable as the generation mix we have now.

Great, but we don't have the transmission, storage or gas generation currently. So we need to spend trillions to build a system that still produces enough CO2 to make a mass extinction inevitable by 2100. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?

Well, what else are you going to suggest? Obsolete monolithic nuclear plants? Pro nuclear activists don't actually know the trade offs between nuclear plant designs and the inherent problems that are caused by "super projects". It's just a pet peeve to differentiate themselves from the "green hippies".

Where are all the modular reactor factories that the nuclear industry needs? Why is everyone focusing on one shot construction of nuclear infrastructure instead of keeping it alive by periodically replacing existing reactors?

Let me describe the way nuclear power plants have been built. Company E wants to build a power plant. It cannot take advantage of an old design because those have been declared unsafe. They only want to build a single one but they are forced to make a custom design. The custom design costs hundreds of millions in R&D before it can be approved by the government. Afterwards the company has to ask for government support because a 10-30 billion dollar project is very difficult to finance and insure by a single company. Now the construction phase begins. Making parts for nuclear power plants requires specialized factories which are often already running at capacity because they are busy with other projects. You can now wait a year or more for the parts to be delivered. Alternatively you can also construct factories dedicated to the construction of nuclear power plants. Once you have all the parts and finished the construction process you can run the nuclear plant for 50 years or more. 30 years later a design defect has been discovered. It can be fixed but it requires a partial redesign. 2 billion have to be spent on upgrades. Now 50 years have passed and the plant is reaching the end of its life. The design is now considered obsolete and should be replaced immediately. The government is now on the hook for the decommissioning process. Costs? Unknown but definitively not less than 10 billion dollars. Because decommissioning is so expensive the government keeps the plant online for another 15 years. Your country has several dozens of these plants and once someone makes a critical mistake or a natural disaster strikes you get a Chernobyl or Fukushima type event again. These power plants are responsible for the bad reputation of the nuclear industry but at the same time the industry willingly took the risk. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

Ok, what if we just get rid of those plants and replace them with new ones? The cycle repeats. New design. No economies of scale. New custom factories because the old ones didn't have any customers for 65 whole years. Mistakes can't be fixed. Again, this is not something that green activists forced these companies to do.

You know what the answer to these problems is? Making lots of small nuclear power plants. Companies can afford them. They can be cheaply mass produced. They can be cheaply replaced. Custom factories are maintained over time instead of closed down. Yet strangely no nuclear activist proposes these types of reactors because they do not acknowledge the inherent problems nuclear faces. Instead, the focus lies on new designs that don't even exist but promise to do everything better without addressing any of the actually important flaws. Nuclear plant designs are like cryptographic hashing. You will always find a flaw given enough time.

Re: Why Germans won’t heat their homes even with free electricity?

#306
Hooray for the energy market being disrupted. It's a sign of the success of government subsidies to renewable power. Obviously adjustments are required as the disruption proceeds. Hopefully governments and private concerns in Europe can cooperate to make workable new rules and tariffs. I'm not so hopeful in the US because our federal government is the servant of big oil.

Here in Massachusetts USA I pay USD0.24 per kWh delivered to my home (generation + transmission + distribution + taxes). Our energy markets are generally mired in 19th-century ways of measuring, so it's harder to tell what natural gas costs (what is a therm???) But I believe it's about USD0.08 per kWh.

I've just signed up for "community solar." A developer is building a PV farm (in the median strip of a large highway, I believe). It will save me on generation costs, but not transmission or distribution, so my rate will fall to about USD0.18 I believe.

Here we have high generation costs partly because Hydro Quebec drove a hard long-term bargain ("take-or-pay" they call it) with our electric company long ago. Towns with municipal power usually pay less because they're not stuck with Hydro Quebec, but sometimes pay more.

I could go on and on, but here's the thing. It's expensive for generators to participate in long-distance grids. Why? If their AC frequency drifts even a tiny amount, the grid must disconnect. How can companies maintain the AC frequency under heavy load?

1. expensive and filthy peak-load generators (diesel-powered often) spinning ready to take load.

2. big batteries. Telsa and some Australian government utilities have had great success with this.

3. excess renewable capacity. But at times of heavy demand there isn't any.

4. SMART DISTRIBUTION: the ability to quickly and selectively shed load temporarily. Space- and water- heating are perfect applications for this. So is battery charging for transportation.

We aren't nearly done with the disruption yet. Now it starts to get interesting. Electricity companies are in the information business; they just don't know it yet.

Re: Why Germans won’t heat their homes even with free electricity?

#307

I feel this article is missing the forest for the trees: > German electricity consumers paid 80 million euros in tariffs to get 8 million euros worth of wind power to the market. > There is simply no point to make any market-driven investments in Germany; the tariffs are simply too large compared to the market value of electricity. > (...) > This might not be a problem if “getting more renewables” is the end-goal one…

> The subsidies are (overly) high so that lots of renewable energy production/infrastructure is built In the first half of last year a total of 35 new wind turbines were added across Germany[0], the lowest rate for 19 years . If German government policies are supposed to encourage the creation of new renewable energy production then they don't appear to be working particularly well. [0] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtsch…

> policies are supposed to encourage the creation of new renewable energy production

The government is slowing down adding wind turbines for basically two reasons:

* market price

* infrastructure catching up. We need more power lines to the south to distribute the electricity and building them takes a few years. It makes not too much sense to build wind electricity capacity in the North and not being able to transport it.

Re: Why Germans won’t heat their homes even with free electricity?

#308
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact Germany even recently invested in new coal powered plants. Any sources on this? In Australia in the past few weeks Germany is given as an ideal example of a country decommissioning all of its coal mines and power plants.

We are decommissioning them. The plan was quite badly executed. Basically, in order to set a deadline, politicians decided to compensate power plant owners for their losses. Problem is: suddenly, all power plant owners came up with very optimistic plans on how long they would’ve kept each plant running. This would’ve been acceptable to a certain degree if the plan to shut down plants was aggressive to begin with. How…

Some shut downs were motivated by the recent increase of the CO2 certificate prices. Three years ago it was at 5€/ton. Now it is at 25€/ton.

Re: Why Germans won’t heat their homes even with free electricity?

#309
post #64
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes if you analyze it thermodynamically heating via natural gas is terrible. You're taking a high quality source of energy (a flame at 3500 degF) and turning it into the thermodynamic equivalent of garbage (hot air at 70 degF). All the work it could have done (say generating electricity) is tossed.

Which is where district heating comes in. Utilities, who unlike households are fully exposed to fluctuations of the electricity market, are increasingly switching their cogen pants to decoupled operation where large heat storage elements are added so that the plant can run as a peaker plant. It's not glamorous because they are still burning fossil fuel, but it's a huge improvement not only over separate burning for h…

An example from Hamburg is the Energiebunker. I went on a tour a few years ago which I can recommend. One comment was they had trouble with the local landlords not wanting to take up the offer resulting in poor utilisation.

https://www.internationale-bauausstellung-hamburg.de/en/proj...

Re: Why Germans won’t heat their homes even with free electricity?

#310
post #70
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's being done by the biggest power utility in Germany: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-13/germany-s... You're not hearing about it because it's very embarrassing to Germans, as it should be in my honest opinion. I get that Germans have a very unique and real perspective on the use of nuclear power. I get that nuclear power has very real and serious risks. It's still done less harm to the planet and…

> but the way I see it Germany is sacrificing the overall less negatively impactful option (nuclear power) for fossil fuel but we don't. Fossil fuel consumption for electricity production is going down.

It could go down much faster.
Post reply on HN