Live data from Hacker News

Europe is in danger of rolling electricity shortages

twitter.com

421–430 of 451 posts

Re: Europe is in danger of rolling electricity shortages

#421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The saddest vote (outside of immigration) in Swiss history is our complete destruction of nuclear energy in terms of both research and production. Instead of building new reactors we have committed to ... something. I only hope we can overturn this complete idiocy and start to build new reactors. Having been a fan of this for so long this is just sad and pathetic that we now have to consider things like rolling black…

As someone who is also "pro-nuclear" it is upsetting to see this take place. The "anti-nuclear" camp has won, but based on what sort of logical argument? Fear? what about Chernobyl? It is one thing to be "anti-nuclear" but they failed to provide alternatives. "WIND" or "Solar" is not going to replace 3,500 MW of nuclear power without damaging a LOT of land. Now millions face rolling blackouts and energy shortages whe…

Just stop. We don't even have to consider the unlimited public liability, submitting to geopolitical domination, giving monopoly power over the economy to a handful of fuel prpviders and existential threats anymore because nuclear reactors are so bad that subsidized ones cannot even compete against renewables at high latitudes.

For the build price of 1 watt of nuclear plant which will be at best 90% available (but more likely 60-80) you can get a solar/wind mix at retail micro generation prices further from the equator than 90% of the population with zero hours of producing less than 1 watt (much of which is dispatchable too) and 1 additional net watt of variable energy. Allow for the same availability as a nuclear reactor and the price is a fraction. Then for just the running costs of an already built nuclear you can pay the whole thing off before the reactor even opens. Give it five years and the LCOE of solar will be less than the fuel costs.

The solution was to stop wasting billions on nuclear and subsidizing fossil fuels and actually invest in renewable tech half a century ago.

Solar energy density is such that just covering structures and open paved areas in any region with less than 10k people per km^2 can cover average primary energy (not just electricity). It's far less than cattle grazing land or land used for fuel ethanol to greenwash the auto industry. The land use is a complete non-issue.

Re: Europe is in danger of rolling electricity shortages

#422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simply cost. If the plants started in the early 2000s would have been delivered on time and budget they would be a huge part of the transition today. Now nuclear costs 3-5x more compared to renewables and is simply not relevant. > "WIND" or "Solar" is not going to replace 3,500 MW of nuclear power without damaging a LOT of land. If land use is what you measure impact based on a much better target is the beef industry…

>Now nuclear costs 3-5x more and is simply not relevant. Compared to what ? Energy prices have jumped 2-3x in some places so far, and it's not even winter yet. Comparing renewable prices as averages or whatever is fine if you like blackouts ?

Great reason not to choose nuclear then.

Renewables are more reliable. $10 will get you one watt of nuclear which will be off 10-40% of the time. $10 of solar + wind + storage will get you at least 1 watt every hour of the year in and at least 1W of variable power even in Germany or Canada at any scale from micro generation to 100s of MW.

Re: Europe is in danger of rolling electricity shortages

#423
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it's even better to get 3-5x the effect per invested dollar.

I can easily earn a huge profit by trade 3-5x energy at one point in time, to get 1x energy at an other. As an example, in my zone, if someone provided 1x energy at 7pm, and I repaid that by providing 3x of that energy at 3am, I would still earn a profit of about 25%. The price prognosis for tonight is even lower, so I could trade 1x for 6x and still make a nice profit from the price difference.

So you're saying that a solar storage system which costs a fraction of a nuclear system is way better because you produce most of your energy during high demand and can move the rest rather than producing most of it at low demand times?

Re: Europe is in danger of rolling electricity shortages

#424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simply cost. If the plants started in the early 2000s would have been delivered on time and budget they would be a huge part of the transition today. Now nuclear costs 3-5x more compared to renewables and is simply not relevant. > "WIND" or "Solar" is not going to replace 3,500 MW of nuclear power without damaging a LOT of land. If land use is what you measure impact based on a much better target is the beef industry…

> "Now nuclear costs 3-5x more compared to renewables and is simply not relevant." We're seeing the hidden cost of renewable energy now, aren't we? Cheap because it's supplemented with natural gas to provide base load. If the politicians actually cared about the climate, they would be adamant about supplementing with nuclear, which is far far more energy dense. https://xkcd.com/1162/

Yes, it's definitely the 7% wind and solar performing exactly as advertised that is the cause of the issue, not the 35% gas and 10% nuclear which are both having problems.

We should definitely spend our money on a system that will provide 1W of baseload 60-80% of the time and require gas for the rest, rather than a wind+solar+storage system that will provide at least 1 watt 100% of the year and average 2-5W depending on location.

Re: Europe is in danger of rolling electricity shortages

#425
post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This 5x number is nonsense. Sadly it doesnt surprise me that youre surprised. You ought to check lazard for a full LCOE comparison. I didnt just make it up. >France had advanced reactors in the 90s and guess what, instead of building them they were killed in the endless attempted by some forces (usually greens and left) to prevent nuclear from happening. The greens never had enough political power to do that. Cost w…

> It's the same reason it was just nationalized. These 'fake private' industries don't make much sense anyway. The energy grid in these countries is centrally planned and was built as such. > The nuclear lobby does share the oil industry's utter disdain both for the environment and environmentalists though They certainty don't hate smart enviornmentalists who have for 50 years tried to move to green energy. Of course…

> And again, you constant claim of '5x' as expensive simply doesn't hold up if you are mass producing plants. Its just nonsense. You are concluding from individual projects that were built in isolation in countries that had lost experience.

Yeah. If westinghouse had started mass producing the same reactor over and over the price per unit would have plummetted and they wouldn't have gone bankrupt.

Oh wait...

If it's so wonderful, put up or shut up. The nuclear industry can start doing what the renewable industry did after a comparative pittance in public R&D money and self fund + self insure projects with no subsidy, no sweetheart loans, and no guaranteed tarriff.

While you're off doing that, solar LCOE will reach price parity with the fuel cost alone.

Re: Europe is in danger of rolling electricity shortages

#426

One day I noticed I only had a jar of mayo in the fridge so I decided to do an experiment and turn my refrigerator off. I cut my electricity bill in half. I'm able to get by on food that doesn't need to be refrigerated.

Between this and burning wood for heating, we really are going back to the middle ages in Europe.

Re: Europe is in danger of rolling electricity shortages

#427
post #418
post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The French reactors were taken offline for scheduled maintenance and repairs. Those hours don't count against reliability metrics because the plants weren't expected to be operating. That is a lie. A total of 12 reactors are down for unscheduled repairs because of corrosion damage that was found during inspections in October 2021. Some of the others are down unscheduled because they used river water for cooling, wh…

An unscheduled outage does have a spectrum to it - on the low/bad end there's a reactor scram. No one wants that. But there's also this case, where corrosion was found that needed to be repaired sometime "soon". Scheduling that work almost a year in the future does not count against their reliability score. It's important to note that the river/lake water does not get sent through the reactor. The distilled water use…

> Scheduling that work almost a year in the future does not count against their reliability score.

Of fucking course it does! Otherwise your definition of that "score" is stupid and useless.

Equipment is reliable if it is available when you need it. A technology that has half your reactor fleet down for many months, just as you most need them, is by no stretch of imagination reliable. Claiming otherwise is either delusional or dishonest.

Re: Europe is in danger of rolling electricity shortages

#428
post #170

We need more nuclear power plants and we need them yesterday, there is no other mid term solution for the ongoing/coming energy crisis. The problem is that replacing old nuclear power plants (or building new ones) takes many years, time we don’t have… Let’s see how this situation evolves.

Yeah... about that. I was completely pro-nuclear until very recently, when I learnt that: - the summer droughts caused nuclear reactors to stop due to the lack of water - russia provides ~40% of ALL nuclear fuel - even France is getting their from Kazahstan So in light of these: more solar and wind, combined with possibly metan generation to store it as per https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/22/were-going-to-…

> the summer droughts caused nuclear reactors to stop due to the lack of water

From what I read, it wasn't "lack of water" but rather the rivers were so warm that the reactors dumping more warm water in the rivers would be a danger to the wildlife ecosystem of the river. If it was an emergency we could probably say "let the fish die, we need power". Reactors that had evaporation towers instead of dumping hot water in the river could keep running. If we want to prepare for inevitable global warming, we should invest in adding evaporation towers to the remaining reactors (good luck convincing anyone to pay for that though).

Re: Europe is in danger of rolling electricity shortages

#429

Here is what Switzerland is doing at the moment to prevent the worst case which would be rolling black outs. They are planning for the worst case so they don't get caught with their pants down. This includes: - Currently trying to fill as many reservoirs as possible - Securing gas in foreign reservoirs. - Plan for emergency gas plants that can be operational by January/February, the time Switzerland has the least ele…

The saddest vote (outside of immigration) in Swiss history is our complete destruction of nuclear energy in terms of both research and production. Instead of building new reactors we have committed to ... something. I only hope we can overturn this complete idiocy and start to build new reactors. Having been a fan of this for so long this is just sad and pathetic that we now have to consider things like rolling black…

I would recommend that you watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k

It's quite well researched, and for someone who was also wondering why there is European aversion towards nuclear power, it showed me that it's not that simple. Nuclear power is quite inconvenient and not as magical "free energy" as it seems.

Re: Europe is in danger of rolling electricity shortages

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were 5 turbines needing to be repaired by Siemens, not one: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-sanction-exemption-f... And nobody, not the Canadian government, not the British government nor Siemens is disputing that the equipment needed maintenance. Now that's changed and Siemens is claiming it's safe to run a high pressure gas pipeline when the machinery is broken and leaking. That is absurd - if there's…

Absolute nonsense. You continue to ignore the simple facts that they still have a spare turbine(s) just sitting in storage on site as well as the one in Germany that could be delivered any time that Gazprom wants. Siemens Energy also stated that they could easily seal the oil leaks on site if Gazprom wants regardless of it's necessity, but has received no order from Gazprom to do so. I am not sure how much more evide…

Look, I'm not on Russia's side here, it is crazy to suddenly invade another country like that. But I hate illogical arguments and propaganda even more, and this topic is full of it.

"It's very much in Russia's interest to shift blame away from themselves to sow dissent"

The argument you're making here about Putin playing 4D chess is totally illogical. It only sounds right to you because of years of nonsense from certain political quarters about social media bots, "sowing dissent" etc as a way to explain their domestic woes, not because it makes sense.

Russia's actual interest here is to trade gas for money + ending of general sanctions against them and maybe ending of support for Ukrainian forces. That's it, that's what they want. Pretending very specific pieces of equipment are broken in very specific ways is the exact opposite of what's in their interests because it means saying "ending narrow sanctions on one sector is sufficient to get gas moving again", instead of delivering ultimatums about general geopolitical goals.

If the gas was being stopped to try and force Europe out of the Ukrainian war then it would all have stopped overnight in one go, and Russia would have stated very clearly "the gas is stopped because we want you to change tactics, and we will resume it the moment you do so". They haven't done this. Conclusion: they do actually want to sell gas to Europe.

"The FT article is talking about oil and not gas. It also explicitly states that oil and gas payments were exempt from sanctions"

What it states is that nobody is denying that the payments couldn't be made.

Western governments have all sorts of intentions they routinely screw up and the whole sanctions regime is very decentralized. It works by punishing anyone retroactively found to have been violating sanctions, where "violation" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. It's very easy for high level bureaucrats in Brussels to say "everything is sanctioned, you got to prison if you violate these vague rules, but stuff we want isn't sanctioned" and assume everyone will just do what they intend (both in the civil service and in industry). But the cost of getting it wrong for finance workers is prison time so it's obvious they're going to be hyper-conservative, hence the constant blockages and problems. This is a normal factor of sanctions regimes, they always whack all kinds of random innocent third parties that weren't intended to be sanctioned at all due to stuff like name collisions or bureaucratic cockups, and we aren't even talking about mistaken identities here.

"also perhaps for later court cases about breaches of contracts"

The EU seized - as in stole - all the Euros Russia had earned by selling gas but hadn't already converted into rubles and then prevented payments to Russia in euros, even though the gas contracts were denominated in that currency! This was an utterly unprecedented move given Russia and EU countries aren't at war. Contracts are thus irrelevant at this point, the EU tore them up right at the start. If anyone would sue anyone in courts of law it'd be Russia suing the EU (not that they'd be able to).

"Re: spare turbines, leaks etc"

Do you think it's reasonable to expect Gazprom employees to work with equipment after being cut off from all support by the manufacturers? Think about how allergic big companies are to even running software that isn't under a support contract, and that's in way lower stakes situations. Also, Siemens is a manufacturer that can remotely monitor and even control those turbines - one of Gazprom's concerns is that Siemens will remotely disable the turbines (again due to sanctions) and they want written legal assurance it won't happen. That's a very mild response all things considered. If I were a gas engineer I wouldn't consider such an assurance as worth the paper it was printed on.

Fundamentally, the west built and to some extent still runs that NS1 pipeline. The NS2 pipeline was built with Russian equipment and Russia has been clear that they could have turned it on at any point Germany wanted .. right up until both NS2 and NS1 appear to have been blown up this morning. Whichever country did that very obviously believes Russia will sell gas through both pipelines given a chance.

Post reply on HN