Nothing is important here except the price. Markets are based on supply demand. If the demand is not going to diminish the supply must increase. If this does not happen there will almost certainly be harm to the economy.
Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year
181–190 of 467 posts
Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, Germany's wind was done without a thought about how to implement storage; it did not have to; it was a perfect egotistic game-theoretic play: The EU energy market mandates that wind and solar production must be bought before everything else. What happens at the moment is France's nuclear reduces production when Germany's wind is over-producing; there is no energy storage at all. So right now, on top of wind use…
The EU is our battery.
It isn't. You cannot rely on everyone else staying carbon positive, as you will feel the heat too.
Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year
#183The nuclear issue is fascinating to watch unfold, over the years. I didn't expect the rational pro-nuclear to be almost as religious as their opponents. Which makes them also refuse to engage in debate.
So, here is one of the thoughts that crossed my mind (and I am well aware there are counter arguments to it ). With its high density of energy and perceived higher potential to harm its surrounding environment, nuclear power requires a level of State Capacity and stability that is not found over half of the planet. It is not obvious that it can be a widespread, long term alternative for most of the world economies.
With that in mind, isn't it better if some of the wealthier countries basically front the cost and explore completely alternative (nuclear-free) systems for all the others ? Even if we globally end up with an energy mix ?
Curious to hear opinions with that point of view in mind.
Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year
#184I am afraid this thread is going to be heavy on strongly held opinions and very light on facts and figures. In a futile attempt to compensate, here is the history of gross electricity production in Germany [1]. And here is the electricity import/export statistics [2]. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Energymi... [2] https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Infografiken/Energie/stroma...
Primary energy consumption looks quite a bit different though: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... Also worth noting that "biomass" often gets hidden in the "clean energy" part, but that just means burning something other than oil/coal/gas.
There's a reason why electrification of transportation and low-energy buildings are major topics in Europe. You see them on the top and on the left of your chart, respectively.
Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year
#185Please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that nuclear doesn't ramp up/down very well either. Most nuclear plants use fission for the base load but gas or other fossil fuel generators for the variable part. Since in Germany green power in the form of solar/wind are even more variable, this makes Nuclear + Solar/Wind a bad combo. Wind and solar don't even make sense for Germany given their climate/geograp…
> Please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that nuclear doesn't ramp up/down very well either. Correct. Nuclear reactors can't be turned on/off quickly. They are suitable to handle the base load, in other words, but can't be used as peakers. > Wind and solar don't even make sense for Germany given their climate/geography. Uhm, respectfully, that is a load of nonsense. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R…
I never understood the argument that nuclear takes too long, so instead we implement new technologies that have never been done at scale.
What if we run into unexpected problems with energy storage that push their timeline out even longer than 30 years? Seems better to do both, and accept the risk that we paid for too much clean energy in the end.
Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year
#186I am afraid this thread is going to be heavy on strongly held opinions and very light on facts and figures. In a futile attempt to compensate, here is the history of gross electricity production in Germany [1]. And here is the electricity import/export statistics [2]. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Energymi... [2] https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Infografiken/Energie/stroma...
Primary energy consumption looks quite a bit different though: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... Also worth noting that "biomass" often gets hidden in the "clean energy" part, but that just means burning something other than oil/coal/gas.
I understand that energy consumption includes things that aren't electricity so the proportion of oil is higher but everything else is different too. For example, in the parent comment, more wind than biomass is produced but in this comment the consumption is the other way around. Is it because biomass is used for cars as well (ethanol)? Maybe wood for heating too?
Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year
#187I am afraid this thread is going to be heavy on strongly held opinions and very light on facts and figures. In a futile attempt to compensate, here is the history of gross electricity production in Germany [1]. And here is the electricity import/export statistics [2]. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Energymi... [2] https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Infografiken/Energie/stroma...
One important thing to notice is that uranium is a finite non-renewable resource. The Red Book says there are about 3.3 million tons that are extractable for a price of 130 USD/ton. In 2017 the total uranium production was 60.000 tons. Thats about 55 years of uranium left at the current production rate. The Red Book assumes there are another 2.1 million tons likely to exist from geological data, but not found yet and…
Those links suggest that peak uranium is driven by lack of demand, and not lack of supply, or renewability (including suggestions that we could create more uranium for as long as the sun lives)
Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the thing about the earth is that it's big. If you have a big enough grid, it will be sunny and windy over a fairly consistent portion of that area.
With the current technology, you can't transport electricity more than ~1000 km with acceptable losses. Atmospheric depressions are bigger than than, and the distance for solar are much bigger as well (other than cloudy, there's day and night).
What do you consider acceptable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Ad... puts the loss for HVDC at 3.5% per 1000km. That would imply 4000km with 15% loss, which is pretty good considering that wind and solar are significantly more than 15% cheaper than nuclear.
Specifically, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... puts the cost of wind/solar at roughly 1/3rd the cost of nuclear, so it's more (cost) efficient to spend as much on transmission as you do on generation and build a really well connected massive grid than to use nuclear.
_-_renewable_energy.svg){kind=link}
Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year
#189Please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that nuclear doesn't ramp up/down very well either. Most nuclear plants use fission for the base load but gas or other fossil fuel generators for the variable part. Since in Germany green power in the form of solar/wind are even more variable, this makes Nuclear + Solar/Wind a bad combo. Wind and solar don't even make sense for Germany given their climate/geograp…
> Please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that nuclear doesn't ramp up/down very well either. Correct. Nuclear reactors can't be turned on/off quickly. They are suitable to handle the base load, in other words, but can't be used as peakers. > Wind and solar don't even make sense for Germany given their climate/geography. Uhm, respectfully, that is a load of nonsense. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R…
I know they generate a moderate fraction now, that's the point of my post. I think they are backing themselves into a corner.
The problems to date include very high energy prices. Even larger challenges await; these will grow as renewables they become a larger fraction of total output. Renewable variability isn't a problem when they are a small fraction, but a very large one when they are a large percentage. These are unsolved problems. Land use is also an issue.
Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year
#190I am afraid this thread is going to be heavy on strongly held opinions and very light on facts and figures. In a futile attempt to compensate, here is the history of gross electricity production in Germany [1]. And here is the electricity import/export statistics [2]. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Energymi... [2] https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Infografiken/Energie/stroma...
Primary energy consumption looks quite a bit different though: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... Also worth noting that "biomass" often gets hidden in the "clean energy" part, but that just means burning something other than oil/coal/gas.
Yes, heating and transportation are huge and almost entirely fossil fueled. Low-tech solutions such as heat pumps and better insulation alone could probably make a large impact.