Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year • Hacker News Board

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#201

Post by tomp » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

barney54 wrote: post #142

Dunedan wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have sources to back these claims? I'd imagine that somewhere there is always enough wind and sun in Europe.

No. Currently (20:56 UTC) there is no sun shining in Europe. As for wind, in the UK (it's the country where I know where to find the real-time data easily), wind is only producing about 1/3 of its capacity--about 7GW of 24GW capacity. https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live Overall renewables are generating about 1/4 of total generation.

How much of that wind power is actually produced within the UK vs. on in the surrounding sea?

Point being, most EU countries don't have as much sea to use for wind, so have much lower wind power generation potential.

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#202

Post by fsh » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

AstralStorm wrote: post #172

animal_spirits wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion I think biomass can be considered cleaner since the burning of it releases only recently stored carbon as opposed to taking huge carbon reserves from fossil fuels that might not have ever seen the atmosphere again. In my mind biomass is "carbon neutral" where fossil fuels are "carbon positive"

It is not neutral, it takes tens of years for standard sources of biomass to accumulate to useful amounts. Fast biomass would use something like hemp or other grass but it's still problematic. And it does increase CO2 and NOx levels when burned, not to mention soot - it's dirtier than quality coal. The growth itself does not capture nearly enough to cover for it.

Biomass is mostly wood. If the forest is in steady-state (as is the case in Germany), this is carbon neutral. The main issue is that plants are much less efficient at light harvesting than solar cells. This means that there is probably not much scaling potential left.

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#203

Post by RaitoBezarius » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 9:25 PM UTC

dekervin wrote: post #183

The 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, nuclea…

> It is not obvious that nuclear energy can be a widespread, long term alternative for most of the world economies.

This problem is also known as nuclear proliferation and, as far as I know, is known to people building nuclear reactors. Small nuclear reactors takes them in account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor#Nuclear_...> ; nuclear smuggling is also monitored: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-database-...>

Unpopular opinion: I do not think it is possible to get rid of the inherent risk of nuclear proliferation, even without building nuclear reactors in non-wealthy countries. Multiple reasons :

* Non-wealthy countries wants to be first-class countries, at some point, they will desire to move on to "energy upgrades", beyond international community (read: wealthy countries), who has the right to refuse them to build such infrastructure?

* Villains will move on to harder targets, but will move on, even if it requires using countries already using nuclear and are actually "non-wealthy" (for some reasonable definition)

It might not be feasible to guarantee the right levels of security for these scenarios, but we can take them in account and work out nuclear reactor models which limits as much as possible the inherent risks.

Consider this bad metaphor: as we are writing more and more software, some of them are increasingly critical to users, therefore, we invest in different levels of guaranteeing software is working as intended (e.g. formal methods, etc.).

I see no absolute reason to not pursue the same avenue here, indeed, I even learned about nuclear reactor startups which are applying modern technology to a safer nuclear ecosystem.

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#204

Post by BenoitP » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

IsThisYou wrote: post #166

BenoitP wrote: post #58

Earlier 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.

Well, good on you I guess.

What's so sad is wind and solar being so concentrated in Germany. If it were more spread out over Europe, it would have lower correlation; and help with production peaks.

There's egotistic, and there's egotistic + harmful.

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#205

Post by hutzlibu » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

neuronic wrote: post #197

AstralStorm wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check precision energy import charts, especially at night in winter. Germany uses other countries as a battery.

Why is this always spread? Right now is a winter night (-6 celsius), this is the live electricity map for Europe: https://app.electricitymap.org/map Right this second, Germany is EXPORTING to most of their neighbors. Are they charging the other batteries now or how am I supposed to follow your logic?

"Why is this always spread?"

Because this debate is more about ideology, than anything else.

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#206

Post by luckylion » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #146

luckylion wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germans love to be panicked though, I think that's a much larger part of it than actual fallout. The recommendations for self-harvested mushrooms and game are to not eat them excessively in the areas that were affected more strongly. Contrast that with the damage that was done by decades of coal power plants polluting the air you breathe. Coal is more damaging each year than chernobyl was, it just gets much less atte…

People in general are bad at risk assessment. In many countries, roughly 30% don’t want vaccines, citing the 1:10,000 side effects, ignoring the roughly 1:1,000 fatality rate (as a fraction of global population, 1:55 of infected[0]). Same deal with playing lotteries in the expectation of getting rich, or fearing terrorists more than dangerous drivers. [0] https://covid19.who.int/

Certainly, but imminent doom is essentially a hobby in Germany. We have the term Angstlust which I always found quite fitting: deriving pleasure from fear.

It's an interesting realization when you've grown up in Germany and then live outside of it for a while and realize that not everyone is constantly worried about the world ending tomorrow.

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#207

Post by nradov » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

sitkack wrote: post #193

nradov wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of grid scale storage can be built quickly?

In Nissan Leafs alone (450k) there is over 10GWhr of battery capacity. Grid scale batteries are just a capital problem. No breakthroughs necessary.

There is no excess battery manufacturing capacity available. It is constrained by both facilities and raw materials. Capacity will increase but at a slow rate. More capital can't solve that problem, it's like pushing on a string.

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#208

Post by midjji » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #143

polote wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't decide when the wind blow and when the sun shines. And you can't either decide when people turn on their washing machine. So it is obvious there is a problem

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.

It does not work that way. Long distance extreme high voltage transfer loses about 5% per 1000km, with the transformers adding another 10%, under ideal circumstances. In practice its higher, and thats on land. Sea cables lose 100x per km around 50% per 100km, again under ideal circumstances. In practice double the losses per distance, and if using existing grids, double it again, because most places dont build top end voltage grids.

Looking at maps for power prices with large hydropower dams you can easily see how most countries grids dont transfer more than around 1000km, and often quite a bit shorter. In practice this is the point where it becomes more cost effective to build new powerplants, than bigger infrastructure for transfer.

We could build grids designed for this, but never across oceans, and we are talking about an absolutely gargantuan investment, and its generally not considered as a solution for the unreliability of solar and wind. Its also why no one ever suggests to use the big empty oceans for truly large scale wind or solar etc, its always places very close to land.

Its also worth pointing out that superconductors cannot solve this, even if price and the gargantuan cooling energy requirements are ignored. This is because while superconductors transfer power without loss, they can only do so up to a limited effect, as the power interferes with the superconducting ability after that, essentially breaking it.

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#209

Post by rollcat » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

dougmwne wrote: post #179

sam_lowry_ wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, come one! I spent most of my childhood in Minsk, 380km north-west to Chernobyl. Now in Europe my only worry is the blackout plan in case of power shortages, not the nuclear plant 60km on the east. I am always amazed how Germans are irrational about nuclear while nearby countries have a mostly pragmatic attitude. Even in Belgium the nuclear phase out is fake and every politician knows it can not be enforced until…

Nearly all the people I know in Poland who were children at the time of Chernobyl have thyroid issues, including my partner. It’s not accurate to say that it had zero health impact. Of course, coal has plenty of health impact, just not a good look to be so flippant about a major nuclear disaster.

Chernobyl was also a political/PR issue, and in typical USSR fashion, the general public wasn't even informed until over a week after the incident. Consider the half-life of iodine-135, by the time people were being recommended and provided with the necessary medication most of the damage was already done.

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#210

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

BenoitP wrote: post #167

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #143

Earlier 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).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current