Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germany's Energy Catastrophe

quillette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 171 posts

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#41

Post by ElKrist »

locallost wrote: post #6

Germany proceeded with their "nuclear exit" in 2011. Had they gone the other way and all in on nuclear, they would be in the same situation as they are today as planning and building nuclear plants takes a lot longer than 10 years. Actually they would be way worse because instead of having 50% of electricity coming from renewables, they would still have 45% of it coming from coal, instead of 25% in 2020 (did not chec…

"And if that wasn't enough, one of the largest exporters of uranium to the EU is... Russia."

To be more precise: 5 countries represent 96% of EU uranium imports: Niger (24,26%), Kazakhstan (22,99%), Russia, Australia and Canada.

A country like France has 1-2 years of uranium stock for its electricity production.

Dependence on Russia is way less critical for uranium than gas.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#42

Post by ThePhysicist »

stewbrew wrote: post #17

I'm tired of these probably nuclear industry backed articles that are wrong and miss the point. 1. Nuclear energy is no solution. See here for an example how things turn out in real life (in German): https://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Deutsche-Solaranlagen-haengen... 2. Germany doesn't really lack electricity. You cannot replace gas in industrial processes that need heat just like that with electricity. If you could, you…

There's a difference between peak energy production at noon in summer and let's say 10 pm on christmas eve. And yes, the energy grid probably won't collapse in winter, removing 12-16 GW of baseload power will have a strong effect on prices though. Phasing out nuclear could have been fine, it's just that we didn't have any plan to replace it (again, mind the difference between base load and intermittent power production), e.g. no large-scale storage solutions planned whatsoever, which makes us reliant on gas, coal and the EU grid to match supply and demand.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#43

Post by turbinerneiter »

LunaSea wrote: post #37
flohofwoe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a picture says more than a thousand words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#/medi... Also: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris... Nuclear power is mainly being replaced by renewables, not coal or gas. Natural gas only accounts for 15% of electricity production, the upcoming gap could probably easily be filled with alternatives. But it's main use isn't electricity…

Oh is that why Germany pressured the EU to qualify gas as "green" energy and block nuclear energy from getting the same qualification?

Except they didn't block that. Both sources are now qualified as green, gas however only as use for easing the transition.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#44

Post by cm2187 »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #35

Of course the flip side is that Germany is going cold turkey on coal and gas in the next few years. Once that process is completed, it will have a huge head start on other countries looking to slowly transition to being carbon neutral. That's actually a good thing. Short term it's disruptive for sure but it is already leading to huge public spending. Which of course also is the classic recipe to mitigate the risks of…

I think the revenues will shrink to Russia ultimately as europe will cut its dependancy on gas, but in the short term, the squeeze on gas supply created a price hike that more than offset the reduced volumes for Russia. That may continue and finance Russia’s war.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#45

Post by timbre1234 »

mvgcf wrote: post #10

This op-ed is getting things so utterly wrong, I don‘t even know where to start. The Energiewende (so cool he can make use of a german word, so much credibility) here in Germany is working just fine. It is a reasonable investment in our future. The reason natural gas is a problem right now is not that we have insufficient energy. The lack of gas is problematic because it is a preliminary product used in chemical proc…

"The reason natural gas is a problem right now is not that we have insufficient energy."

Yeah, I stopped reading here. This is just a flat out untruth. I'm sorry if this article doesn't agree with how you wish the world could be, but simply saying things like this that aren't true doesn't help.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#46

Post by mrtksn »

locallost wrote: post #6

Germany proceeded with their "nuclear exit" in 2011. Had they gone the other way and all in on nuclear, they would be in the same situation as they are today as planning and building nuclear plants takes a lot longer than 10 years. Actually they would be way worse because instead of having 50% of electricity coming from renewables, they would still have 45% of it coming from coal, instead of 25% in 2020 (did not chec…

Nuclear energy is very cool tech and I think it strikes a chord with techie people and that's why I think nuclear gets a free pass on the economical and operational issues.

Nuclear is so amazing, right? Relatively small, high tech self-contained facilities that rhyme with some of the best science fictions out there.

However, the moment you dive in it you see just how long it gets to build these things, how expensive they get with with each safety failure and you get to see the unsexy parts of it like mining and processing the raw materials and then the nuclear waste that just sits there waiting to be transferred to its final destination.

Working with Russia didn't have to be a bad thing. What makes EU great(you can argue over the other functions of EU) is the peace it creates through co-dependence and shared interest and Russia was very well suited to benefit from it. Russia provides the resources, EU pays for those resources and Russia buys stuff from EU with that money and as a result Europeans get the energy and Russians get the European goods. It's a win-win relationship that fell apart when the head of Russia did not needed to provide with a well being any longer to stay as a head.

I personally wish Russia had stayed a partner. It makes sense to be co-depended with partners but as Europe got the short end of the stick as the relationship fell apart it only makes sense offset any dependence to Russia even at a cost.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#47

Post by RandomLensman »

ssl232 wrote: post #33
RandomLensman wrote: post #19

There is no quick going back to nuclear power and right now the past is irrelevant - the future matters. Might as well skip on new fission and then maybe build fusion power plants (if and when). By the way: using coal as an emergency backstop if there is no gas was always the official plan.

Is Germany still capable of mining enough of its own coal for its own needs during such emergencies?

Kind of, it has a lot lignite mining and still some proper coal. If things last longer it certainly has lignite for quite a while and still thermal coal mining.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#48

Post by VaxWithSex »

Zanfa wrote: post #27
mvgcf wrote: post #10

This op-ed is getting things so utterly wrong, I don‘t even know where to start. The Energiewende (so cool he can make use of a german word, so much credibility) here in Germany is working just fine. It is a reasonable investment in our future. The reason natural gas is a problem right now is not that we have insufficient energy. The lack of gas is problematic because it is a preliminary product used in chemical proc…

> On sustainable energy sources: I, as many other germans, receive all of my electricity from purely renewable energy sources for more than ten years now. 24/7. Grid-scale storage (apart from hydro, but that's basically maxed out or unsuitable for most geographies) is still an unsolved problem for renewables, even the largest lithium-battery ones are basically a rounding error. You'd need multiple weeks worth of batt…

It's a solved problem for Germany. Electrolyze Hydrogen, store it in the existing gas infrastructure for the winter. Use the gas plants to burn it in the winter.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#49

Post by turbinerneiter »

ElKrist wrote: post #41
locallost wrote: post #6

Germany proceeded with their "nuclear exit" in 2011. Had they gone the other way and all in on nuclear, they would be in the same situation as they are today as planning and building nuclear plants takes a lot longer than 10 years. Actually they would be way worse because instead of having 50% of electricity coming from renewables, they would still have 45% of it coming from coal, instead of 25% in 2020 (did not chec…

"And if that wasn't enough, one of the largest exporters of uranium to the EU is... Russia." To be more precise: 5 countries represent 96% of EU uranium imports: Niger (24,26%), Kazakhstan (22,99%), Russia, Australia and Canada. A country like France has 1-2 years of uranium stock for its electricity production. Dependence on Russia is way less critical for uranium than gas.

That's why France got an exception from sanctions made for a uranium delivery from Russia.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#50

Post by VaxWithSex »

WanderPanda wrote: post #40
mvgcf wrote: post #10

This op-ed is getting things so utterly wrong, I don‘t even know where to start. The Energiewende (so cool he can make use of a german word, so much credibility) here in Germany is working just fine. It is a reasonable investment in our future. The reason natural gas is a problem right now is not that we have insufficient energy. The lack of gas is problematic because it is a preliminary product used in chemical proc…

> On sustainable energy sources: I, as many other germans, receive all of my electricity from purely renewable energy sources for more than ten years now. 24/7. More probably you‘re running on green (washing) electricity certificates from Norway…

Nope, 100% green energy in the hands of the citizens.
Post reply on HN