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

Swedish minister eyes energy crisis steps, blames German nuclear phase-out

euractiv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: Swedish minister eyes energy crisis steps, blames German nuclear phase-out

#121

Post by Xelbair »

tcfhgj wrote: post #61
Xelbair wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, extremely so. Especially if the country shut downs their nuclear power plants in middle of energy crisis, while there are laws in place that mandate energy exchange between different EU and EU adjacent countries(Norway). Did they have time to handle it? No, adjusting your grid to be resilient to such bad actors takes more time.

Who shut down nuclear within of an energy crisis?

Germany?

When war in Ukraine started and sourcing cheap gas has become a problem - energy is is more than just electricity, although some of gas was also used for that.

Please, don't tie your economy to cheap gas from one source and try to bring everyone down with you when the access to it is constrained.

Re: Swedish minister eyes energy crisis steps, blames German nuclear phase-out

#122

Post by tcfhgj »

Xelbair wrote: post #121
tcfhgj wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who shut down nuclear within of an energy crisis?

Germany? When war in Ukraine started and sourcing cheap gas has become a problem - energy is is more than just electricity, although some of gas was also used for that. Please, don't tie your economy to cheap gas from one source and try to bring everyone down with you when the access to it is constrained.

No, Germany didn't. They waited until the crisis was over.

Re: Swedish minister eyes energy crisis steps, blames German nuclear phase-out

#123

Post by tcfhgj »

Xelbair wrote: post #120
tcfhgj wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why?

because storing it in any way is extremely inefficient - the best solution we have is pumped-storage hydroelectricity with at most 70-80% efficiency. Renewables aren't available 24/7, as they work in cycles in most cases(sunlight, tides, waves, wind - geothermal and hydroelectric is an exception, but latter also has problems with damages to ecosystem, and handling sediment travel along the rivers) - this is the most…

not why storing, but why does storing produce much co2?

even low efficiency (e.g. hydrogen) is tolerable when renewables otherwise would go to waste

Re: Swedish minister eyes energy crisis steps, blames German nuclear phase-out

#124

Post by Xelbair »

tcfhgj wrote: post #123
Xelbair wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because storing it in any way is extremely inefficient - the best solution we have is pumped-storage hydroelectricity with at most 70-80% efficiency. Renewables aren't available 24/7, as they work in cycles in most cases(sunlight, tides, waves, wind - geothermal and hydroelectric is an exception, but latter also has problems with damages to ecosystem, and handling sediment travel along the rivers) - this is the most…

not why storing, but why does storing produce much co2? even low efficiency (e.g. hydrogen) is tolerable when renewables otherwise would go to waste

because you have to build it - construction machines, concrete, transportation of material to construction site and all that - does that not produce pollution? Think of whole lifecycle.

also the amount of storage you have to build also damages the ecosystem.

Re: Swedish minister eyes energy crisis steps, blames German nuclear phase-out

#125

Post by tcfhgj »

Xelbair wrote: post #124
tcfhgj wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not why storing, but why does storing produce much co2? even low efficiency (e.g. hydrogen) is tolerable when renewables otherwise would go to waste

because you have to build it - construction machines, concrete, transportation of material to construction site and all that - does that not produce pollution? Think of whole lifecycle. also the amount of storage you have to build also damages the ecosystem.

okay, difference to nuclear power? (probably requires even more concrete)

Re: Swedish minister eyes energy crisis steps, blames German nuclear phase-out

#126

Post by Xelbair »

tcfhgj wrote: post #125
Xelbair wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because you have to build it - construction machines, concrete, transportation of material to construction site and all that - does that not produce pollution? Think of whole lifecycle. also the amount of storage you have to build also damages the ecosystem.

okay, difference to nuclear power? (probably requires even more concrete)

total energy output per required materials over it's lifecycle. by orders of magnitude. and constant power output requiring less buffers to store electricity, hence less waste.

It's not even close in the same ballpark.

Re: Swedish minister eyes energy crisis steps, blames German nuclear phase-out

#127

Post by tcfhgj »

Xelbair wrote: post #126
tcfhgj wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

okay, difference to nuclear power? (probably requires even more concrete)

total energy output per required materials over it's lifecycle. by orders of magnitude. and constant power output requiring less buffers to store electricity, hence less waste. It's not even close in the same ballpark.

storage itself IS the buffer and will use less concrete than nuclear pp, except you want to build potential storage using concrete blocks or pumped water storage.

An not every materials production implies inherent co2 emissions.

Re: Swedish minister eyes energy crisis steps, blames German nuclear phase-out

#128

Post by Xelbair »

tcfhgj wrote: post #127
Xelbair wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

total energy output per required materials over it's lifecycle. by orders of magnitude. and constant power output requiring less buffers to store electricity, hence less waste. It's not even close in the same ballpark.

storage itself IS the buffer and will use less concrete than nuclear pp, except you want to build potential storage using concrete blocks or pumped water storage. An not every materials production implies inherent co2 emissions.

most of them do, also have you heard about quantity?

the amount of storage build for spent nuclear fuel+energy buffer vs buffer for just renewables aren't even in same ballpark. Just do a simple fermi estimation. Btw - the white "smoke" coming out from cooling towers of nuclear power-plant are pure water vapor.

And that's not even going into MSFTs or other reactor types. just traditional ones.

Honestly, such blind faith is actually hurting renewables movement by giving climate change deniers more ammo to pummel the movement with.

Re: Swedish minister eyes energy crisis steps, blames German nuclear phase-out

#129

Post by tcfhgj »

Xelbair wrote: post #128
tcfhgj wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

storage itself IS the buffer and will use less concrete than nuclear pp, except you want to build potential storage using concrete blocks or pumped water storage. An not every materials production implies inherent co2 emissions.

most of them do, also have you heard about quantity? the amount of storage build for spent nuclear fuel+energy buffer vs buffer for just renewables aren't even in same ballpark. Just do a simple fermi estimation. Btw - the white "smoke" coming out from cooling towers of nuclear power-plant are pure water vapor. And that's not even going into MSFTs or other reactor types. just traditional ones. Honestly, such blind fa…

> the amount of storage build for spent nuclear fuel+energy buffer

I meant the amount of concrete needed (nuclear ppl vs energy storage)

> such blind faith is actually hurting renewables movement by giving climate change deniers more ammo to pummel the movement with.

what faith? renewable vs nuclear debate has nothing to do with the question of the existence of climate change

Post reply on HN