Germany's Energy Catastrophe(quillette.com)
quillette.com
Germany's Energy Catastrophe
https://quillette.com/2022/07/14/germanys-energy-catastrophe/
170 comments
"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.
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.
Do you have any source to support this claim ? AFAIK, France does not rely on Russia for uranium import. France imports uranium mainly (>90%) from Australia, Niger and Kazakhstan [1].
[1] https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/luranium-importe-en-euro...
[1] https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/luranium-importe-en-euro...
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.
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.
you know that every form of energy generation today involves some kind of trade off (extraction from the earth, hydro and PV panels and wind turbines require a lot of space, and so on).
nuclear advocates advocate for nuclear when it makes sense.
nuclear advocates advocate for nuclear when it makes sense.
I don't know, in my experience nuclear advocates argue how stupid everyone is for not making everything nuclear. In the conversation, some advocate will say how misguided country A was to abandon nuclear just to please hippies and others will point out that the decision was also economical. The nuclear advocate will say that the waste issue is not an issue and the renewable advocate will point out that renewables got drastically cheeper. Then the nuclear advocate will say, good luck when the wind doesn't blow.
in very general terms there are a few truisms about energy: economic growth and technological progress both seem to be very much correlated with energy consumption; modern democracies (eg the "Western world") are in gridlock and have increasingly become very myopic, short-termist, incrementalist with regards to energy policies (and others too, but that's not strictly relevant here)
so any advocate for any kind of energy policy preference is fed up, frustrated, and so on.
green advocates? yeah, completely right with regards to global warming, ecological disasters, fucking up the planet, etc.
based on one's morality we can say that advocates of global fairness are right in their view that currently the "West" has the burden to exert a heroic effort to fix the warming they caused, and help the poor countries to skip the "fossil phase". and anyone pointing out that this effort is basically non-existent is also right. (and so poor countries will be likely more affected by climate change and economic and energy shocks than rich ones. mostly because being rich helps with almost everything, and also because poor countries tend to be located in areas that used to enjoy year-round warm climate with occasional extremely warm days which will now become a lot more frequent)
on top of all this poor countries usually doesn't have the luxury of picking the best long-term solution. (but as we saw even rich countries have been optimizing for short-term nowadays.)
. .
okay, that said, economics of nuclear energy, it all depends on economies of scale. it's basically irrelevant what happens with 1-10 power plants.
if in a given country there won't be a healthy nuclear energy industry, then keeping one plant alive is .. irrelevant. (even if economically retrofitting a 40-50 year old plant is cheap, because the big ticket items are already paid for ~40 years ago.)
renewables got cheaper because they are mass produced. were nuclear plants mass produced they would be drastically cheaper too. (that's the promise of small modular reactors.) but even simply ordering 100+ big plants would push down costs from the ~3rd one. (if they were properly standardized and near identical. it parts were pre-fabricated, and so on.)
basically construction (so housing and transportation ... and healthcare and education) everywhere is getting more and more costly because technological progress is unevenly making other things more cheap. (and also our standards are going up, so we use the old inefficient technology and more skilled labor to build better things, it'll be simply more expensive.)
so any advocate for any kind of energy policy preference is fed up, frustrated, and so on.
green advocates? yeah, completely right with regards to global warming, ecological disasters, fucking up the planet, etc.
based on one's morality we can say that advocates of global fairness are right in their view that currently the "West" has the burden to exert a heroic effort to fix the warming they caused, and help the poor countries to skip the "fossil phase". and anyone pointing out that this effort is basically non-existent is also right. (and so poor countries will be likely more affected by climate change and economic and energy shocks than rich ones. mostly because being rich helps with almost everything, and also because poor countries tend to be located in areas that used to enjoy year-round warm climate with occasional extremely warm days which will now become a lot more frequent)
on top of all this poor countries usually doesn't have the luxury of picking the best long-term solution. (but as we saw even rich countries have been optimizing for short-term nowadays.)
. .
okay, that said, economics of nuclear energy, it all depends on economies of scale. it's basically irrelevant what happens with 1-10 power plants.
if in a given country there won't be a healthy nuclear energy industry, then keeping one plant alive is .. irrelevant. (even if economically retrofitting a 40-50 year old plant is cheap, because the big ticket items are already paid for ~40 years ago.)
renewables got cheaper because they are mass produced. were nuclear plants mass produced they would be drastically cheaper too. (that's the promise of small modular reactors.) but even simply ordering 100+ big plants would push down costs from the ~3rd one. (if they were properly standardized and near identical. it parts were pre-fabricated, and so on.)
basically construction (so housing and transportation ... and healthcare and education) everywhere is getting more and more costly because technological progress is unevenly making other things more cheap. (and also our standards are going up, so we use the old inefficient technology and more skilled labor to build better things, it'll be simply more expensive.)
Just to make things clear: Nuclear energy is just cheap because it gets massively funded by the state.
Nuclear power plants are the most expensive way of generating energy and the least sustainable way.
We don't even have a good way to dispose nuclear waste. We were checking for a "Endlager" which means a place to hoard all the nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years. Guess what? No one wanted it.
Bavaria tried to keep themselves out of possible regions for waste disposal, while going full PR pro-nuclear.
So nuclear power plants are basically neither a long term solution, nor a short term solution.
Nuclear power plants are the most expensive way of generating energy and the least sustainable way.
We don't even have a good way to dispose nuclear waste. We were checking for a "Endlager" which means a place to hoard all the nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years. Guess what? No one wanted it.
Bavaria tried to keep themselves out of possible regions for waste disposal, while going full PR pro-nuclear.
So nuclear power plants are basically neither a long term solution, nor a short term solution.
> Nuclear energy is just cheap because it gets massively funded by the state.
No it doesn't. Not anymore than gas, coal and renewables at least.
The issue of disposal is also simply incorrect. There are plenty of places to store it, France does it, everyone does it. Do you know where the waste from coal goes? Into the atmosphere, where it kills thousands directly and potentially billions indirectly with global warming. So it's comical to criticise nuclear for waste issues.
Barring hydro (which Germany cannot have) and coal/gas, there is no alternative but nuclear. Renewables cannot be a reliable source of energy because they are intermittent. You will always need some stable source, and currently (and for the foreseeable future), it's nuclear.
No it doesn't. Not anymore than gas, coal and renewables at least.
The issue of disposal is also simply incorrect. There are plenty of places to store it, France does it, everyone does it. Do you know where the waste from coal goes? Into the atmosphere, where it kills thousands directly and potentially billions indirectly with global warming. So it's comical to criticise nuclear for waste issues.
Barring hydro (which Germany cannot have) and coal/gas, there is no alternative but nuclear. Renewables cannot be a reliable source of energy because they are intermittent. You will always need some stable source, and currently (and for the foreseeable future), it's nuclear.
> The issue of disposal is also simply incorrect. There are plenty of places to store it.
The question is not, whether there are places or not. It doesn't matter if none of the 16 regions in Germany wants to be responsible to store the waste.
If no one wants to deal with it, the effect is the same.
The question is not, whether there are places or not. It doesn't matter if none of the 16 regions in Germany wants to be responsible to store the waste.
If no one wants to deal with it, the effect is the same.
The discussion was on technical feasibility, that Germany is irrational (because it’s not a question of wanting to store, it’s a choice between that and fossil waste = storage in the atmosphere = climate change) is another.
Germany already has nuclear waste, we have to deal with it one way or another. I think permanent storage is a bad solution, most of the energy is still in there and further utilization will also reduce the danger of the waste.
So it's impossible to resolve this issue? We cannot use our partners in the EU or abroad to help solve it? Well I guess we should just kill thousands with coal, and keep feeding the global warming furnace.
We don't even have a good way
to dispose nuclear waste.
Nuclear energy is [...] massively
[subsidized] by the state.
> Sure we do, just aerosolize it
Sounds interesting, would you mind to expand / link some site that goes into details?
> It's not nuclear that's massively subsidized, everything else is.
Germany massively cut funding for solar power being supplied into to the grid (Einspeisevergütung) back in 2012 [1] and it still isn't funded the way it was before.
But it is and was still worth it for most people, if they just consumed most of the electricity themselves. [2]
[1] https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2012/37990550_... [2] https://www.kfw.de/inlandsfoerderung/Privatpersonen/Bestands...
Sounds interesting, would you mind to expand / link some site that goes into details?
> It's not nuclear that's massively subsidized, everything else is.
Germany massively cut funding for solar power being supplied into to the grid (Einspeisevergütung) back in 2012 [1] and it still isn't funded the way it was before.
But it is and was still worth it for most people, if they just consumed most of the electricity themselves. [2]
[1] https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2012/37990550_... [2] https://www.kfw.de/inlandsfoerderung/Privatpersonen/Bestands...
> Sounds interesting, would you mind to expand / link some site that goes into details?
I think that the comment was ironic, to show a parallel with how coal waste is "utilized"
I think that the comment was ironic, to show a parallel with how coal waste is "utilized"
Partially ironic.
I seriously do wish someone would write a book called "The case for a Chernobyl plant in your neighborhood!".
Such a case wouldn't concede the point about the safety paranoia surrounding nuclear power, but instead suggest that we literally power the entire word with pre-Chernobyl RBMK reactor designs. Or hell! Something even more dangerous if we can find it.
We can then assume that we'd have N meltdowns per year somewhere in the world, i.e. a "Chernobyl-level incident", and we'd still be far ahead in terms of safety compared to where we are today.
And that's not just comparing nuclear to coal, just the deaths and injuries from rooftop solar installations are in the ballpark of a Chernobyl incident every year.
Discussions about nuclear are paralyzed by safety concessions[1] beyond all reason. That's the problem with nuclear, not that it's comparatively unsafe or expensive when the costs and risks are fairly evaluated against the alternatives.
1. https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-p...
I seriously do wish someone would write a book called "The case for a Chernobyl plant in your neighborhood!".
Such a case wouldn't concede the point about the safety paranoia surrounding nuclear power, but instead suggest that we literally power the entire word with pre-Chernobyl RBMK reactor designs. Or hell! Something even more dangerous if we can find it.
We can then assume that we'd have N meltdowns per year somewhere in the world, i.e. a "Chernobyl-level incident", and we'd still be far ahead in terms of safety compared to where we are today.
And that's not just comparing nuclear to coal, just the deaths and injuries from rooftop solar installations are in the ballpark of a Chernobyl incident every year.
Discussions about nuclear are paralyzed by safety concessions[1] beyond all reason. That's the problem with nuclear, not that it's comparatively unsafe or expensive when the costs and risks are fairly evaluated against the alternatives.
1. https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-p...
For the record, I am profoundly pro-nuclear, happy with living in France and if i was given a choice between living next to a nuclear reactor and a coal plant I would choose the former immediately (all other things equal).
I think there are basically two problems with nuclear safety:
- one is that a single incident is broadcasted everywhere, no matter if there are causalities or not. This is similar to planes: when one crashes and 200 people die it makes the news. We have in France about 10 people dying every day in car accidents.
- the second one is the nature of the accident. When you fall from a rooftop, well bad luck. The place you fell on is not unuseable for millenia. This may be (and only "may") be the case with nuclear incidents. Now, the newer plants do not explose like Chernobyl did, because physics is going to drive down the reaction. There can be leaks, even dangerous leaks, but they will be quite localized.
xkcd had a wonderful graph on radiation: https://xkcd.com/radiation/
I think there are basically two problems with nuclear safety:
- one is that a single incident is broadcasted everywhere, no matter if there are causalities or not. This is similar to planes: when one crashes and 200 people die it makes the news. We have in France about 10 people dying every day in car accidents.
- the second one is the nature of the accident. When you fall from a rooftop, well bad luck. The place you fell on is not unuseable for millenia. This may be (and only "may") be the case with nuclear incidents. Now, the newer plants do not explose like Chernobyl did, because physics is going to drive down the reaction. There can be leaks, even dangerous leaks, but they will be quite localized.
xkcd had a wonderful graph on radiation: https://xkcd.com/radiation/
If Germany had kept its nuclear plants, it would not be wasting currently 5GW of gas for electricity (and burning much less lignite coal as well):
https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE
> one of the largest exporters of uranium to the EU is... Russia
It is a common false perception that it is a problem, very often pushed by fake news outlets. You might be a victim. Russia produces about 15% of the world's uranium [1], according to UNECE.
[1] https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20...
https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE
> one of the largest exporters of uranium to the EU is... Russia
It is a common false perception that it is a problem, very often pushed by fake news outlets. You might be a victim. Russia produces about 15% of the world's uranium [1], according to UNECE.
[1] https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20...
The EU publishes official numbers on where they get their uranium from, there is no need to make guesstimates, Russian uranium accounts for 20%. And this ignores that Russia has the largest uranium processing capabilities in the world, so dependency on Russia is higher than the imports of natural uranium suggest.
Lastly, nuclear power plants produce a constant base load while the coal and gas power plants have a very dynamic output and it's simply misleading to pretend that a GW of nuclear energy can replace a GW of coal or gas without taking all of the production into account.
Lastly, nuclear power plants produce a constant base load while the coal and gas power plants have a very dynamic output and it's simply misleading to pretend that a GW of nuclear energy can replace a GW of coal or gas without taking all of the production into account.
Which makes them one of the largest exporters of uranium in the world, including to the EU, which is what I've said. A victim of what exactly? Knowing the facts?
Imagine the importance of Russian uranium if there was a nuclear renaissance and the world suddenly built terawatts of nuclear plants, which is what this article is proposing and presumably you too. And also, Russians are one of the last countries that actually builds them including abroad, so a nuclear surge would mean countries lining up to have Russian nuclear plants built.
The article is devoid of not only data, but common sense.
Imagine the importance of Russian uranium if there was a nuclear renaissance and the world suddenly built terawatts of nuclear plants, which is what this article is proposing and presumably you too. And also, Russians are one of the last countries that actually builds them including abroad, so a nuclear surge would mean countries lining up to have Russian nuclear plants built.
The article is devoid of not only data, but common sense.
If Germany had kept its nuclear plants, it would be burning about as much fossil fuels as it does now.
That's because without the opposition to nuclear, the motivating reason to build up renewables would have been gone, so it wouldn't have happen. Which means Germany would have continued with about 10 % (of primary energy) nuclear and the rest would have been fossil fuels.
That's because without the opposition to nuclear, the motivating reason to build up renewables would have been gone, so it wouldn't have happen. Which means Germany would have continued with about 10 % (of primary energy) nuclear and the rest would have been fossil fuels.
Sweden built one in 6 years (Barseback) and another in 5 years (Oskarshamn), both ran fine without causing nuclear disasters.
And now almost 50 years later we have way waaay more knowledge, experience and technology to build safe powerplants within a short time.
The hindrance is bureaucracy. Ask anyone who is or have been working for the government how incredibly inefficient it is.
And now almost 50 years later we have way waaay more knowledge, experience and technology to build safe powerplants within a short time.
The hindrance is bureaucracy. Ask anyone who is or have been working for the government how incredibly inefficient it is.
In the US, there was one nuclear plant that went online in this century: it is the second unit of the plant in Tennessee whose construction started in 1973. It was finished in 2016, after 43 years. There is also a construction in progress in Georgia, currently approaching 20 years of development.
The problem with government inefficiency and nuclear is that the governments are the only ones that dare spend money on it. An example of a private investment was the plant in South Carolina that was halted after 9 billion spent. The reason was that they realized they would not make it in time to cash in on a subsidy, and without that the project would never ever be profitable. And normally you could say it happens, it's the company's money, but the debt is being paid by the utility's customers. They're paying for electricity from a power plant that does not exist.
I don't understand the people that think this is a rational solution.
The problem with government inefficiency and nuclear is that the governments are the only ones that dare spend money on it. An example of a private investment was the plant in South Carolina that was halted after 9 billion spent. The reason was that they realized they would not make it in time to cash in on a subsidy, and without that the project would never ever be profitable. And normally you could say it happens, it's the company's money, but the debt is being paid by the utility's customers. They're paying for electricity from a power plant that does not exist.
I don't understand the people that think this is a rational solution.
They wouldn't have shut down all the working plants. Not that it matters much, wouldn't have been enough.
They were old, some came online in the 60s. Check the situation in France right now -- half of their aging fleet is offline because they basically can't get them to work. The NY Times had an article on it recently.
Last 10 gigawatts of shut down reactors were all finished in 80's and probably had half of their design age left, all the really old were shut down already in nineties.
> because they basically can't get them to work
That's completely BS. More French reactors are off than usual because of delayed scheduled maintenance caused by Covid.
That's completely BS. More French reactors are off than usual because of delayed scheduled maintenance caused by Covid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/18/business/france-nuclear-p...
But the industry has tumbled into an unprecedented power crisis as EDF confronts troubles ranging from the mysterious emergence of stress corrosion inside nuclear plants to a hotter climate that is making it harder to cool the aging reactors.
The outages at EDF, Europe’s biggest electricity exporter, have sent France’s nuclear power output tumbling to its lowest level in nearly 30 years, pushing French electric bills to record highs just as the war in Ukraine is stoking broader inflation.
-----
The article also mentioned EDF might need to be nationalized since it's in so much debt, and in fact this was announced a few days ago.
But the industry has tumbled into an unprecedented power crisis as EDF confronts troubles ranging from the mysterious emergence of stress corrosion inside nuclear plants to a hotter climate that is making it harder to cool the aging reactors.
The outages at EDF, Europe’s biggest electricity exporter, have sent France’s nuclear power output tumbling to its lowest level in nearly 30 years, pushing French electric bills to record highs just as the war in Ukraine is stoking broader inflation.
-----
The article also mentioned EDF might need to be nationalized since it's in so much debt, and in fact this was announced a few days ago.
Yeah, that problem didn't even exist already pre pandemic, right?
Btw, you believe you can maintain those plants forever?
No, you can't maintain them forever. The EDF is mismanaged, in Germany we never had this kind of problems with nuclear plants. South Korea also has an excellent track record with building new plants.
This is repeated over and over again, but you have to shut them down ( or heavily sanitize ), because stuff under radiation fire just ages even more quickly than (simplified) normal ""rusting"".. just look at the increased maintenances that risk in France they get blackouts even they compensate via imports?
Just few days ago there was a documetary in ARD, a neutral one, about building back plants to green lawn, the cost and the almost century long effort to build them back that is ridiculous (multiple billions) , that is usually never priced in.
Speaking of cost I found it surprising again how much just building even the new ones is.. I mean they had to compare to a dam to find something worse, wtf? ( https://www.westerninvestor.com/british-columbia/saskatchewa... )
And then also that even if we accept all those downsides, the unsolved waste problem, (yeah a lot of people will give me armchair proposals or the new non-existing reactors that would just eat everything and leave nothing behind... not), that it is not cost competitive, the risk (yes, you tell me Russians are stupid, Fukushima was an exception, 3mile and other incidents were perfectly avoided, but please consider also war and terror), there just wouldn't be enough fuel for the whole word to go all-in (yeahyeh we just scrub it from the sea.. in theory, as much as we could just get all the drinking water from the sea or scrub all the CO2 from the atmosphere with current tech..).
But even if you ignore that again and believe it will be fine, even then if the world would now decide to go all in, the time it takes to build means it wouldn't even make a dent in 15 years - WHICH IS TOO LATE.
We could have avoided a lot if the world went all in renewables the 20-30 years back where we already knew what was coming.. and this is the most surprising thing to me. We could do so much suddenly in regard to Pandemic and now the war.. but in relation to the climate catastrophe they are minor annoyances, still we don't start acting but deter us constantly from the right thing by dreaming of the assumed easy nuclear solution out. Humans!!!
I derailed, sorry. But it will be bad, and nuclear just wont help even a bit.
Just few days ago there was a documetary in ARD, a neutral one, about building back plants to green lawn, the cost and the almost century long effort to build them back that is ridiculous (multiple billions) , that is usually never priced in.
Speaking of cost I found it surprising again how much just building even the new ones is.. I mean they had to compare to a dam to find something worse, wtf? ( https://www.westerninvestor.com/british-columbia/saskatchewa... )
And then also that even if we accept all those downsides, the unsolved waste problem, (yeah a lot of people will give me armchair proposals or the new non-existing reactors that would just eat everything and leave nothing behind... not), that it is not cost competitive, the risk (yes, you tell me Russians are stupid, Fukushima was an exception, 3mile and other incidents were perfectly avoided, but please consider also war and terror), there just wouldn't be enough fuel for the whole word to go all-in (yeahyeh we just scrub it from the sea.. in theory, as much as we could just get all the drinking water from the sea or scrub all the CO2 from the atmosphere with current tech..).
But even if you ignore that again and believe it will be fine, even then if the world would now decide to go all in, the time it takes to build means it wouldn't even make a dent in 15 years - WHICH IS TOO LATE.
We could have avoided a lot if the world went all in renewables the 20-30 years back where we already knew what was coming.. and this is the most surprising thing to me. We could do so much suddenly in regard to Pandemic and now the war.. but in relation to the climate catastrophe they are minor annoyances, still we don't start acting but deter us constantly from the right thing by dreaming of the assumed easy nuclear solution out. Humans!!!
I derailed, sorry. But it will be bad, and nuclear just wont help even a bit.
You are right, Germany should have build new nuclear plants in 2000.
The renewables make the German energy grid unstable and expensive, we have the highest power cost in the world currently with no end in sight, also no storage for the renewables. You can build nuclear power plants in about 10 Years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant
Uranium is not only exported by Russia.
Germany has high consumer electricity prices because of taxation. It's only slightly above EU average if you ignore taxes. And France, the nuclear energy utopia, is only slightly below EU average. And this ignores potential state subsidies, artificial price caps and regulation by the French government, and that Germany uses 1/4 of the electricity price to modernize the grid.
You can store electricity pretty well, a 20 millions kWh storage went live in Switzerland recently:
https://interestingengineering.com/switzerlands-water-batter...
https://interestingengineering.com/switzerlands-water-batter...
"planning and building nuclear plants takes a lot longer than 10 years"
Russia or Korea build a nuclear power unit in approximately 8 years, China - 6.
Russia or Korea build a nuclear power unit in approximately 8 years, China - 6.
The nuclear exit strategy dates back to 2000, so 22 years ago already.
We can get enough uranium from Canada if needed.
Where do you justify your numbers? 45%? They make no sense to me.
It’s the Phrenology Anthology, what do you expect?
We don’t have an energy problem. We have a gas problem.
I’m open for (re-)discussing nuclear energy here in Germany, but we could run 100% on nuclear or coal and a full gas stop by Russia would still have catastrophic consequences. We need gas for industrial/chemical processes and heating our homes. In fact, if the Energiewende had progressed a bit further, then more houses would have installed a heat pump by now.
I’m open for (re-)discussing nuclear energy here in Germany, but we could run 100% on nuclear or coal and a full gas stop by Russia would still have catastrophic consequences. We need gas for industrial/chemical processes and heating our homes. In fact, if the Energiewende had progressed a bit further, then more houses would have installed a heat pump by now.
You have foreign policy blindness problem, no independent media problem and most of all - "everything except making cars and exporting them doesn't matter" problem. Otherwise I can't explain how you were so dumb for 3 decades.
It's not like Germany is so poor it can't afford to pay 50% more for gas. Or that it couldn't build an LNG terminal just in case. Poland which is much less wealthy - managed to do it. How come nobody in Germany seriously raised these issues for 3 decades? Mainstream didn't care cause industrial output was the only thing that mattered. And EE countries are russophobic, we Germans are so much smarter. They will understand eventually that it's for their own good.
You have a lot of rethinking of your foreign policy to do. Germany can't continue to be an informal leader of EU with such obvious incompetency (and I'm charitable here, cause if it's not incompetency it's betrayal).
It's not like Germany is so poor it can't afford to pay 50% more for gas. Or that it couldn't build an LNG terminal just in case. Poland which is much less wealthy - managed to do it. How come nobody in Germany seriously raised these issues for 3 decades? Mainstream didn't care cause industrial output was the only thing that mattered. And EE countries are russophobic, we Germans are so much smarter. They will understand eventually that it's for their own good.
You have a lot of rethinking of your foreign policy to do. Germany can't continue to be an informal leader of EU with such obvious incompetency (and I'm charitable here, cause if it's not incompetency it's betrayal).
Germany is very, very corrupt and extremely risk-averse at the higher levels of politics. Russia is very good at buying and enabling the right people to further their interests (point in case: ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder). That's pretty much all there really is to that. It's one of those cases where the root really is malicious intent, not stupidity.
> Germany is so poor it can't afford to pay 50% more for gas
Germany isn't. Many Germans are. If missing gas leads to industry breaking down, more Germans will be.
Germans being made poor, especially for no good reasons other than the decisions of politicians abroad, tends to lead to unintended, but severe consequences. Already, wannabe autocrats are winding up their propaganda. Guess which countries they will have a look at first.
Germany isn't. Many Germans are. If missing gas leads to industry breaking down, more Germans will be.
Germans being made poor, especially for no good reasons other than the decisions of politicians abroad, tends to lead to unintended, but severe consequences. Already, wannabe autocrats are winding up their propaganda. Guess which countries they will have a look at first.
> Germany isn't. Many Germans are.
Then pay them with state money if needed.
> If missing gas leads to industry breaking down, more Germans will be.
And if we have to choose between EU falling apart and millions of people abroad dying or some Germans temporarily getting a little less wealthy - we will choose supporting our industry every time cause it's the only thing that matters.
That's the main problem with Germany.
> Already, wannabe autocrats are winding up their propaganda.
Russia was supporting wannabe and actual autocrats all over the world for decades. Including AfD in Germany.
It's not even just secret financial support or propaganda - just last year Russian army helped Lukashenko "pacify" protesters after he faked elections. This year it did the same in Kazakchstan. That's direct military support. Sending Russian army to kill people protesting against their autocratic governments.
Apparently that's fine but if it was indirect support through industry in Germany losing money it would be too much.
If you care about autocrats you should stop paying Putin billions of euro.
But what Germany really cares about is sweet sweet export money. Everything else is an excuse.
Then pay them with state money if needed.
> If missing gas leads to industry breaking down, more Germans will be.
And if we have to choose between EU falling apart and millions of people abroad dying or some Germans temporarily getting a little less wealthy - we will choose supporting our industry every time cause it's the only thing that matters.
That's the main problem with Germany.
> Already, wannabe autocrats are winding up their propaganda.
Russia was supporting wannabe and actual autocrats all over the world for decades. Including AfD in Germany.
It's not even just secret financial support or propaganda - just last year Russian army helped Lukashenko "pacify" protesters after he faked elections. This year it did the same in Kazakchstan. That's direct military support. Sending Russian army to kill people protesting against their autocratic governments.
Apparently that's fine but if it was indirect support through industry in Germany losing money it would be too much.
If you care about autocrats you should stop paying Putin billions of euro.
But what Germany really cares about is sweet sweet export money. Everything else is an excuse.
> Then pay them with state money if needed.
We can't. The radical pro-small-state finance minister fights tooth and nail against any additional debt in order to obey the holy debt ceiling that a bunch of idiots wrote into the constitution about a decade ago because they didn't understand the difference between a national budget and a company budget.
We can't. The radical pro-small-state finance minister fights tooth and nail against any additional debt in order to obey the holy debt ceiling that a bunch of idiots wrote into the constitution about a decade ago because they didn't understand the difference between a national budget and a company budget.
There is this weird idea in some circles that national budgets are endless debt pits which you just can create any amount of money from for just about any reason. This obviously is incorrect as a blanket statement - it only has some time-constrained credibility for relatively rich countries with a somewhat good future ahead of it. If your economy is weak and your outlook is bad, no-one is going to lend your country money to put the national budget into the red even more - just ask Greece what happens next.
Germany has had a relatively strong economy and good growth in the past, which allowed us to spend a bit more lavishly. But with our economy about to break down in the next 20-30 years and our population shrinking massively (worse: with employee-age population shrinking even more), this is no longer the case.
Insofar, I think it is prudent to keep expenses under control. Of course, you can't play international moral police and cause massive inflation if you do so. Which is where Berlin fails right now.
Germany has had a relatively strong economy and good growth in the past, which allowed us to spend a bit more lavishly. But with our economy about to break down in the next 20-30 years and our population shrinking massively (worse: with employee-age population shrinking even more), this is no longer the case.
Insofar, I think it is prudent to keep expenses under control. Of course, you can't play international moral police and cause massive inflation if you do so. Which is where Berlin fails right now.
> Then pay them with state money if needed.
Yeah, let's heat the fire of economic disaster by shovelling some more freshly-printed cash into it. What could possibly go wrong? Oh, right: [1]
> we will choose supporting our industry every time cause it's the only thing that matters.
In the end, it is. Without industry, no wealth, and no wealth to spread around the EU, which is most likely going to make it falling apart as well.
> Russia was supporting wannabe and actual autocrats all over the world for decades. Including AfD in Germany.
True. And now we're about to make them able to stand on their own feet. Great job, another mosaic stone in wrestling control away from Russia!
> Apparently that's fine but if it was indirect support through industry in Germany losing money it would be too much.
Different countries have different ideas what is or isn't a prudent way to approach their own interests. Germany has no interest in a war thousands of kilometers away between one party which has proven to be a reliable business partner for decades, and one party that was not a reliable partner, but a constant drain of resources ever since it was created post-1992.
> If you care about autocrats you should stop paying Putin billions of euro.
Personally, I'd much rather have an autocrat in Moscow than one in Berlin.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_R...
Yeah, let's heat the fire of economic disaster by shovelling some more freshly-printed cash into it. What could possibly go wrong? Oh, right: [1]
> we will choose supporting our industry every time cause it's the only thing that matters.
In the end, it is. Without industry, no wealth, and no wealth to spread around the EU, which is most likely going to make it falling apart as well.
> Russia was supporting wannabe and actual autocrats all over the world for decades. Including AfD in Germany.
True. And now we're about to make them able to stand on their own feet. Great job, another mosaic stone in wrestling control away from Russia!
> Apparently that's fine but if it was indirect support through industry in Germany losing money it would be too much.
Different countries have different ideas what is or isn't a prudent way to approach their own interests. Germany has no interest in a war thousands of kilometers away between one party which has proven to be a reliable business partner for decades, and one party that was not a reliable partner, but a constant drain of resources ever since it was created post-1992.
> If you care about autocrats you should stop paying Putin billions of euro.
Personally, I'd much rather have an autocrat in Moscow than one in Berlin.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_R...
> no independent media
This cannot be overstated. The entirety of German media (excluding niche outlets) across the political spectrum align on every important topic.
This cannot be overstated. The entirety of German media (excluding niche outlets) across the political spectrum align on every important topic.
> We don’t have an energy problem. We have a gas problem.
As soon as the risk of running out of gas turns into reality, and people won't be able/allowed to heat their homes as usual, many will start plugging in their electrical fan heaters. The gas problem might expand into an electricity problem. How much of a problem, we'll probably find out soon.
As soon as the risk of running out of gas turns into reality, and people won't be able/allowed to heat their homes as usual, many will start plugging in their electrical fan heaters. The gas problem might expand into an electricity problem. How much of a problem, we'll probably find out soon.
Yikes! Totally ignoring the climate impact of nuclear power. Not understanding that nuclear doesn’t play well with renewables (it is hard to control the output in a short amount of time).
Finally explaining that there were only 28 deaths after the Chernobyl accident, ignoring all the additional deaths by cancer and deformed unborn children.
Sorry, this article is totally wrong in so many ways.
>>ignoring all the additional deaths by cancer
Which are, at absolute most and at the most pessimistic estimate, at few thousands excess deaths[0]. The same estimates for coal at are thousands.....per year, not for the last 40 years.
[0] https://ascopost.com/issues/may-25-2021/chernobyl-at-35-year...
Which are, at absolute most and at the most pessimistic estimate, at few thousands excess deaths[0]. The same estimates for coal at are thousands.....per year, not for the last 40 years.
[0] https://ascopost.com/issues/may-25-2021/chernobyl-at-35-year...
Well, your comparison might also be invalid because we haven't used nuclear power to the scale coal is used. Maybe if there were many nuclear plants we might have seen many disaster?
Both nuclear and coal were used more than solar. And solar caused more deaths per MWh produced than nuclear (cause people fall off roofs while installing/maintaining it).
If you think scale matters - then you should also think that solar is more risky than nuclear by your own logic (because we're not using it on as big scale).
If you think scale matters - then you should also think that solar is more risky than nuclear by your own logic (because we're not using it on as big scale).
Genuinely curious, because I haven't heard these arguments before.
> Totally ignoring the climate impact of nuclear power
What climate impact? I though it was CO2 neutral (except for construction, which has similar costs to wind an solar). A quick google doesn't give me anything.
> it is hard to control the output in a short amount of time
I thought nuclear was basically a steam boiler, same as coal or gas plants? Why is the control slower for nuclear?
> Totally ignoring the climate impact of nuclear power
What climate impact? I though it was CO2 neutral (except for construction, which has similar costs to wind an solar). A quick google doesn't give me anything.
> it is hard to control the output in a short amount of time
I thought nuclear was basically a steam boiler, same as coal or gas plants? Why is the control slower for nuclear?
AFAIK nuclear output can be controlled only in a certain range, but if you go below a certain threshold it shuts off and you then have to restart it, which takes a lot of time.
Coal has a similar issue, these plants also can't be turned on and off quickly. In fact, the term "base load" originally was driven more by the minimum amount of power that has to be consumed to keep a plant running. Only now with the move to renewables with varying output the meaning has shifted to the consumption side of things.
Gas plants however can be turned on and off and easily, they work similar to aircraft engines. In Germany, the heat produced is then used for district heating, which gives these plants almost perfect efficiency. It's not a coincidence that Germany picked gas as supplement for renewables during the transition to 100% green energy. Gas (in the form of hydrogen directly ~ methane made from hydrogen) is also a key contender for very long term energy storage (in Germany, you have to save energy produced in the summer for use in winter, the batteries needed for that would be roughly in the order of ~50 million Tesla Model S (100kWh) batteries). The cost of overbuilding renewables and storing the energy in gas, with a lower round-trip efficiency, seems to be lower than building the big battery that would be needed. Wind is also better in winter than solar, which is why wind is such an important and hot topic in Germany. Solar doesn't bother anyone, but wind turbines are huge and people can see them in the landscape. Solar does not have this problem, but during the winter, the output goes down to almost nothing.
Coal has a similar issue, these plants also can't be turned on and off quickly. In fact, the term "base load" originally was driven more by the minimum amount of power that has to be consumed to keep a plant running. Only now with the move to renewables with varying output the meaning has shifted to the consumption side of things.
Gas plants however can be turned on and off and easily, they work similar to aircraft engines. In Germany, the heat produced is then used for district heating, which gives these plants almost perfect efficiency. It's not a coincidence that Germany picked gas as supplement for renewables during the transition to 100% green energy. Gas (in the form of hydrogen directly ~ methane made from hydrogen) is also a key contender for very long term energy storage (in Germany, you have to save energy produced in the summer for use in winter, the batteries needed for that would be roughly in the order of ~50 million Tesla Model S (100kWh) batteries). The cost of overbuilding renewables and storing the energy in gas, with a lower round-trip efficiency, seems to be lower than building the big battery that would be needed. Wind is also better in winter than solar, which is why wind is such an important and hot topic in Germany. Solar doesn't bother anyone, but wind turbines are huge and people can see them in the landscape. Solar does not have this problem, but during the winter, the output goes down to almost nothing.
Nuclear, coal, and gas powerplants only differ in how you produce heat. After that they work the same (heat water, make steam, drive turbines). There is usually a few stages of turbines to extract as much work as possible. Reaction time is 1 hour or more.
The waste heat can be used for district heating no matter how you produced the heat (in my city they use coal powerplant for this). It's not just gas. And it's not "perfect efficiency", it's about 80% for the best cogeneration powerplants compared to 60% without cogeneration. It's a little less in practice cause most powerplants aren't as modern and as efficient.
All of these is usually used on regular (not peaker) powerplants, because it's only useful if you use your powerplant for long periods of time.
There are also peaker powerplants. They work differently, and they are optimized for quick reaction time (so the energy they produce is more expansive and efficiency is lower). Reaction time is about 15 minutes. They don't only burn gas - they can also burn any liquid fuels (but gas is indeed the most common). Usually the efficiency of peaker powerplants is about 30-40%, can be almost as good as the regular ones but it's not worth it to install cogeneration if your plant runs for few hours a day.
I'm not sure which kind you were talking about. If they use cogeneration it means they must run for long time, and peaker powerplants running constantly is wasting money and fuel. Do you know what reaction time (from 0 to 100%) they have? 15 minutes or more like 1 hour? Or maybe less (then they are piston engines - and efficiency is even worse).
Anyway - there are also grid-scale batteries that can deal with power fluctuations on the order of milliseconds. That's why if you have lots of renewables and reasonably free energy market - grid scale batteries economically beat the crap out of peak powerplants (like gas plants).
In USA and Australia grid scale batteries already made building new peak powerplants unprofitable. It will soon happen in Europe too (unless lobbying stops this). Here [1] you can read more about how it works. It's basically the same advantage that High Frequency Trading has over regular traders on regular stock market. Just the difference isn't 1 second vs 10 milliseconds but 15 minutes vs 10 milliseconds. Before gas powerplant start up to produce the missing energy - the battery supplied it and shut down again. So now energy price lowered and gas powerplant has to either to produce that energy anyway and sell it for a fraction of price, or to shut down wasting fuel and not earning any money. And gas peak powerplants aren't designed for producing energy cheaply, they are designed for producing energy when there's shortage so energy is expansive.
So when you have grid scale batteries - they drive peak gas powerplants out of business :)
[1] https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/05/20/the-unstoppabl...
The waste heat can be used for district heating no matter how you produced the heat (in my city they use coal powerplant for this). It's not just gas. And it's not "perfect efficiency", it's about 80% for the best cogeneration powerplants compared to 60% without cogeneration. It's a little less in practice cause most powerplants aren't as modern and as efficient.
All of these is usually used on regular (not peaker) powerplants, because it's only useful if you use your powerplant for long periods of time.
There are also peaker powerplants. They work differently, and they are optimized for quick reaction time (so the energy they produce is more expansive and efficiency is lower). Reaction time is about 15 minutes. They don't only burn gas - they can also burn any liquid fuels (but gas is indeed the most common). Usually the efficiency of peaker powerplants is about 30-40%, can be almost as good as the regular ones but it's not worth it to install cogeneration if your plant runs for few hours a day.
I'm not sure which kind you were talking about. If they use cogeneration it means they must run for long time, and peaker powerplants running constantly is wasting money and fuel. Do you know what reaction time (from 0 to 100%) they have? 15 minutes or more like 1 hour? Or maybe less (then they are piston engines - and efficiency is even worse).
Anyway - there are also grid-scale batteries that can deal with power fluctuations on the order of milliseconds. That's why if you have lots of renewables and reasonably free energy market - grid scale batteries economically beat the crap out of peak powerplants (like gas plants).
In USA and Australia grid scale batteries already made building new peak powerplants unprofitable. It will soon happen in Europe too (unless lobbying stops this). Here [1] you can read more about how it works. It's basically the same advantage that High Frequency Trading has over regular traders on regular stock market. Just the difference isn't 1 second vs 10 milliseconds but 15 minutes vs 10 milliseconds. Before gas powerplant start up to produce the missing energy - the battery supplied it and shut down again. So now energy price lowered and gas powerplant has to either to produce that energy anyway and sell it for a fraction of price, or to shut down wasting fuel and not earning any money. And gas peak powerplants aren't designed for producing energy cheaply, they are designed for producing energy when there's shortage so energy is expansive.
So when you have grid scale batteries - they drive peak gas powerplants out of business :)
[1] https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/05/20/the-unstoppabl...
> Why is the control slower for nuclear?
Maintaining a critical fission reaction is difficult and in a large plant you might have to coordinate hundreds of people in dozens of locations to reduce power. Starting up a plant takes math and precise measurements, and there’s a natural limit to the speed you can do so or else you can cause a runaway supercritical reaction. Also, to be the most efficient, they are designed to run at near capacity for their lifetimes, and reducing the power would cancel that, so it’s simply not designed into the system to be reactive like that, as opposed to a submarine plant which is designed to power up and down a bit over short time frames.
Maintaining a critical fission reaction is difficult and in a large plant you might have to coordinate hundreds of people in dozens of locations to reduce power. Starting up a plant takes math and precise measurements, and there’s a natural limit to the speed you can do so or else you can cause a runaway supercritical reaction. Also, to be the most efficient, they are designed to run at near capacity for their lifetimes, and reducing the power would cancel that, so it’s simply not designed into the system to be reactive like that, as opposed to a submarine plant which is designed to power up and down a bit over short time frames.
It is in no way co2 neutral. Its strongest claim is that it emits less co2 than alternatives. This is based on a bunch of assumptions on how hard it is to get the raw material, that the radiated garbage is transported once (to storage that does not exist) etc. So it is bullshit, but it will always be claimed in these comment threads, right next to the lie of Chernobyl having killed basically no-one.
Nuclear steam boilers are slow to control as their base reaction takes time to cool up or down. Good for base load, not fast coverage of highs.
Nuclear steam boilers are slow to control as their base reaction takes time to cool up or down. Good for base load, not fast coverage of highs.
On nuclears climate impact: https://amp.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-...
> Not understanding that nuclear doesn’t play well with renewables (it is hard to control the output in a short amount of time).
That's actually not been true for the last 40 years or so. In France, nuclear power plants have been doing load following without problem. They are apparently able to adjust their production by 80% over 30 minutes. One such episode is explained here: https://lenergeek.com/2019/03/07/mix-electrique-nucleaire-tr...
That's actually not been true for the last 40 years or so. In France, nuclear power plants have been doing load following without problem. They are apparently able to adjust their production by 80% over 30 minutes. One such episode is explained here: https://lenergeek.com/2019/03/07/mix-electrique-nucleaire-tr...
I read the article and I do not see the 80% mentioned. I really would have loved to read this, but they mentioned only 10GW of variation, that's roughly 20% I believe.
Another article talks specifically about the power modulation ability: https://lenergeek.com/2017/09/13/modulation-parc-nucleaire-e...
Yes, but they are quoting the EDF paper again — almost verbatim.
> it is hard to control the output in a short amount of time
Well, France has been doing it just fine for the last 33 years:
> [...] flexible operation of nuclear reactors is possible and has been applied in France by EDF’s 58 reactors for more than 30 years without any noticeable or unmanageable impacts: no effects on safety or on the environment, and no noticeable additional maintenance costs, with an additional unplanned capability load factor estimated at only 0.5%. EDF’s nuclear reactors have the capability to vary their output between 20% and 100% within 30 minutes, twice a day, when operating in load-following mode
From here (pdf):
https://hal-edf.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/document
Well, France has been doing it just fine for the last 33 years:
> [...] flexible operation of nuclear reactors is possible and has been applied in France by EDF’s 58 reactors for more than 30 years without any noticeable or unmanageable impacts: no effects on safety or on the environment, and no noticeable additional maintenance costs, with an additional unplanned capability load factor estimated at only 0.5%. EDF’s nuclear reactors have the capability to vary their output between 20% and 100% within 30 minutes, twice a day, when operating in load-following mode
From here (pdf):
https://hal-edf.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/document
Would love to believe this, but that's EDF writing this. Any other source? Any real life example?
Nuclear is the best option, no? Of course it has risks but given how awful coal and other traditional power sources run it seems to be the best option.
We are only going to use more and more energy, generating and lowering energy costs will be a net positive for all. Especially to support EVs.
We are only going to use more and more energy, generating and lowering energy costs will be a net positive for all. Especially to support EVs.
Well, let's take a look at France: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/18/business/france-nuclear-p...
> As the European Union moves to cut ties to Russian oil and gas in the wake of Moscow’s war on Ukraine, France has been betting on its nuclear plants to weather a looming energy crunch. Nuclear power provides about 70 percent of France’s electricity, a bigger share than any other country in the world. But the industry has tumbled into an unprecedented power crisis as EDF confronts troubles ranging from the mysterious emergence of stress corrosion inside nuclear plants to a hotter climate that is making it harder to cool the aging reactors. The outages at EDF, Europe’s biggest electricity exporter, have sent France’s nuclear power output tumbling to its lowest level in nearly 30 years, pushing French electric bills to record highs just as the war in Ukraine is stoking broader inflation. Instead of pumping vast amounts of electricity to Britain, Italy and other European countries pivoting from Russian oil, France faces the unsettling prospect of initiating rolling blackouts this winter and having to import power.
Nuclear power is so good that France might have to import energy from German coal power plans next winter to avoid large scale blackouts.
> As the European Union moves to cut ties to Russian oil and gas in the wake of Moscow’s war on Ukraine, France has been betting on its nuclear plants to weather a looming energy crunch. Nuclear power provides about 70 percent of France’s electricity, a bigger share than any other country in the world. But the industry has tumbled into an unprecedented power crisis as EDF confronts troubles ranging from the mysterious emergence of stress corrosion inside nuclear plants to a hotter climate that is making it harder to cool the aging reactors. The outages at EDF, Europe’s biggest electricity exporter, have sent France’s nuclear power output tumbling to its lowest level in nearly 30 years, pushing French electric bills to record highs just as the war in Ukraine is stoking broader inflation. Instead of pumping vast amounts of electricity to Britain, Italy and other European countries pivoting from Russian oil, France faces the unsettling prospect of initiating rolling blackouts this winter and having to import power.
Nuclear power is so good that France might have to import energy from German coal power plans next winter to avoid large scale blackouts.
Like most of the western world, France permitted their nuclear capacity to rot while not making sufficient progress to secure other sources of relatively clean energy.
In fact president Macron initially intended to reduce nuclear energy to 50% of power generation. One of the many moronic policies he had to walk back (the other big one was further cuts to France’s defence budget).
France currently has half the reactors stopped (28/56), but why?
- 7 are stopped for refurbishment as their lifetime extension require important work
- 13 are stopped for the corrosion issue detected
- 3 are currently replacing the nuclear fuel
- 5 are stopped for other technical issue
It's true that this year France will only produce 300TWh instead of 350TWh last year which is not the gloom picture that you try to make. By Novembre most of the reactors are planned to be backed online.(https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/energie/infographies-ba...)
The main problem is that the new reactors that were supposed to come online 10 years ago are still not there, and that the multiple offshore wind generation projects are still blocked!
It's true that this year France will only produce 300TWh instead of 350TWh last year which is not the gloom picture that you try to make. By Novembre most of the reactors are planned to be backed online.(https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/energie/infographies-ba...)
The main problem is that the new reactors that were supposed to come online 10 years ago are still not there, and that the multiple offshore wind generation projects are still blocked!
It needs a catastrophic fail ihre for nuclear to become deadly for the masses. Germany replaced the nuclear power plants with coal and gas based plants whose Modus operandi is deadly for the masses.
Even if you want to shutdown nuclear, Germany did it in an extremely stupid.
Even if you want to shutdown nuclear, Germany did it in an extremely stupid.
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, but for heating in private homes and all sort of processes in the industry. About half of all homes are heated with gas, you can't simply flip a switch and replace the gas heating in 20 million homes with electric heating.
TL;DR: the pressing problem that needs solving is how to prioritize private homes versus the industry's use of natural gas, even if nuclear power plants would suddenly spring out of the ground for free, they wouldn't help much with this.
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, but for heating in private homes and all sort of processes in the industry. About half of all homes are heated with gas, you can't simply flip a switch and replace the gas heating in 20 million homes with electric heating.
TL;DR: the pressing problem that needs solving is how to prioritize private homes versus the industry's use of natural gas, even if nuclear power plants would suddenly spring out of the ground for free, they wouldn't help much with this.
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.
That's why I wrote "pressured" and not "succeeded". They tried heavily.
Gas isn't a transition to anything.
Gas isn't a transition to anything.
They actually didn't.
New plants only qualify as "green investments" if and only if they can be used to burn electrolyzed hydrogen in the future.
New plants only qualify as "green investments" if and only if they can be used to burn electrolyzed hydrogen in the future.
The total number of deaths due to the nuclear energy production works wide is less than the animal number of french people dying due to air pollution by German coal plants.
But even still having all nuclear power plants wouldn't help us much in the current situation, would it? We need gas not for power generation (we do, but that's only ~ 1/6 of the whole consumption, and will be lower if we use gas only to stabilize the power grid - we still have coal power plants on stand-by that can reduce the load on the gas power plants), but for our industry and heating. It's mostly burned directly.
Sure, we could have replaced every boiler with a heat pump in the last 10 years, but we didn't. So we need gas for half of all buildings and that cannot be replaced by nuclear power. And we need a steady supply, as many gas boilers have old fuses that kick in if the gas pressure changes, bricking the boiler until a specalist resets it. So we can't even realistically ration it. :(
Sure, we could have replaced every boiler with a heat pump in the last 10 years, but we didn't. So we need gas for half of all buildings and that cannot be replaced by nuclear power. And we need a steady supply, as many gas boilers have old fuses that kick in if the gas pressure changes, bricking the boiler until a specalist resets it. So we can't even realistically ration it. :(
Yet another one, who thinks it's about electricity. We don't have much of a problem with that, since gas only makes up about 10% of the energy mix. About 75% of all households in Germany use gas and oil for heating. Your magic nuclear reactor won't change that. Switching those things takes some time, and it won't be done until next winter. All companies specialized in that are already booked out and there is a shortage on the necessary parts to build that stuff.
They are quite fungible for heating.
I don't know how prices compare, but UK is on a big drive to replace gas boilers in private homes with heat pumps. The main obstacle is actually poor general building standards and insulation. I believe German standards are quite a bit higher. Basically, the peak temperature produced by air-source heat pumps is lower than that from a boiler, so without better insulation they don't work so well (or something like that).
I don't know how prices compare, but UK is on a big drive to replace gas boilers in private homes with heat pumps. The main obstacle is actually poor general building standards and insulation. I believe German standards are quite a bit higher. Basically, the peak temperature produced by air-source heat pumps is lower than that from a boiler, so without better insulation they don't work so well (or something like that).
Idk what the exact differences are. I only know, that newer buildings are already required to have proper insulation, so for those that are built or (properly) renovated in, idk maybe the last 20 years or so, should be fine. But we also have plenty of older buildings, that need some work. That's probably also one of the reasons why many people go for wood pellets to replace the gas heater. Add to that all the really old buildings, that can't be renovated due to urban heritage protections.
But as said, all the companies are booked out and parts aren't available fast enough, thanks to outsourcing to China...
But as said, all the companies are booked out and parts aren't available fast enough, thanks to outsourcing to China...
Germans simply won't admit this. I talked to some people who are in high positions in the Green Party, and they all have this obviously stupid belief that we will simply switch to renewables instead of reactivating nuclear. What they don't grasp is there is no such option. It's either nuclear or coal/gas. Any argument against nuclear must take into account the extreme damage Germany is doing to the environment with their current strategy.
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.
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.
No, but coal wouldn't work the same way as an instrument for political pressure the same way as pipeline-supplied gas does right now. Store enough for a few months and get coal shipped from elsewhere, same infrastructure etc. Buy someone else's shipments if need be, like with LNG currently, lots of poorer places are going to receive less than what they bought because Germany and the EU pay just about anything right now.
You can still not safely eat mushrooms from the south-eastern parts of Bavaria because they are still contaminated by the Chernobyl desaster. The anti-nuclear stance is not irrational, it has strong roots in reality.
Could this be case of an extreme regulation, much like "everything is known to cause cancer in the state of California"?
Czechia, Slovakia, Poland and Ukraine are much closer to Chernobyl than Bavaria is, and the populations there regularly pick and eat mushrooms without suffering a wave of extra cancers.
Czechia, Slovakia, Poland and Ukraine are much closer to Chernobyl than Bavaria is, and the populations there regularly pick and eat mushrooms without suffering a wave of extra cancers.
[deleted]
It will be a though challenge, although this text is just a nuclear power marketing. The numbers are also a bit different then reported: https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE...
Another of those propaganda articles by nuclear lobbyist.
[deleted]
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 any potential recession and might actually set Germany up for huge economic growth soon after. That recession is arguably already happening. I don't think it will stay limited to Germany either. We've experienced those before. It will be fine.
Russia may or may not pull the plug on German gas revenue. Hard to tell right now and they don't seem to be very rational right now. But by merely putting the threat on the table, they've set a few things in motion already. Their gas revenues are going to shrink a lot as the result of their recent actions. It's just going to be a function of how badly they need the cash by how quick that process will go.
It's more than a little bit academic for me as I live in Berlin which is very dependent on Russian gas for heating and warm water. There's a very real chance I will have to deal with some level of heating and shower issues in the coming winter. I'm fully confident that whatever happens, Germany will figure it out though.
Now that it has come this far, I'm actually in favor of ripping off that band aid and get it over with. Putin is threatening me personally with a cold shower. I'll take that cold shower when/if it comes to that. Putin might be good chess player but his poker game sucks. His bluff has been called. And now, we'll see if there ever was more than that. So far it just looks like a country self destroying its economy for no good reason at all.
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 any potential recession and might actually set Germany up for huge economic growth soon after. That recession is arguably already happening. I don't think it will stay limited to Germany either. We've experienced those before. It will be fine.
Russia may or may not pull the plug on German gas revenue. Hard to tell right now and they don't seem to be very rational right now. But by merely putting the threat on the table, they've set a few things in motion already. Their gas revenues are going to shrink a lot as the result of their recent actions. It's just going to be a function of how badly they need the cash by how quick that process will go.
It's more than a little bit academic for me as I live in Berlin which is very dependent on Russian gas for heating and warm water. There's a very real chance I will have to deal with some level of heating and shower issues in the coming winter. I'm fully confident that whatever happens, Germany will figure it out though.
Now that it has come this far, I'm actually in favor of ripping off that band aid and get it over with. Putin is threatening me personally with a cold shower. I'll take that cold shower when/if it comes to that. Putin might be good chess player but his poker game sucks. His bluff has been called. And now, we'll see if there ever was more than that. So far it just looks like a country self destroying its economy for no good reason at all.
I’m not so sure Russia will depend on Europe for it’s gas price/revenue. Oil is already being diverted east and to India that are willing to buy. So ultimately Russia has the same income, the environmental pollution will be the same, and yes Europe may have green energy.
However, it will still take Russia many years to do the transition of supplying India and China (and whoever else), to the same level they were to Europe. In the near future, Russia will be somewhat hurting itself, as it's hurting Europe.
China has claimed it wants to reduce its reliance on oil, particularly starting from the 2030s, but that all gets tricky if Russia will be supplying very cheap oil and gas or if China will be wary of relying so much on Russia as a matter of policy.
It's possible that Europe will spearhead ways to reduce the reliance on gas and oil, not replace, but figure out various new strategies and technologies around renewables and alternatives. Conventional nuclear doesn't seem to be on the table, because of the very long construction times, unless we are talking something like SMR nuclear.
China has claimed it wants to reduce its reliance on oil, particularly starting from the 2030s, but that all gets tricky if Russia will be supplying very cheap oil and gas or if China will be wary of relying so much on Russia as a matter of policy.
It's possible that Europe will spearhead ways to reduce the reliance on gas and oil, not replace, but figure out various new strategies and technologies around renewables and alternatives. Conventional nuclear doesn't seem to be on the table, because of the very long construction times, unless we are talking something like SMR nuclear.
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.
Of course. The question is when. If they Russia cuts off the gas they basically will just destroy their economy faster. And it's a matter of time before production elsewhere ramps up to compensate. The coming winter will be a challenge, the winter after that it will be solved one way or another. Probably at great cost but it will be a lot less of an issue.
Also, Russia needs more than just cash to fuel the war. They are currently cut off from a lot of essential imports and the international market and their army clearly is under-performing because of apparent logistical, supply, and morale issues.
I think Germany might prove to have a lot more stamina than Russia. Riding out the next winter without Russian gas won't be fun but it will be able to deal with it. On the other hand, I don't think a second winter in the Ukraine is going turn things around for the Russians either and I think they are well aware of it. So, Putin can commit economical suicide or he can come back to the negotiation table. The question is what he has to bring to the table. It's not looking like he has much to offer.
Also, Russia needs more than just cash to fuel the war. They are currently cut off from a lot of essential imports and the international market and their army clearly is under-performing because of apparent logistical, supply, and morale issues.
I think Germany might prove to have a lot more stamina than Russia. Riding out the next winter without Russian gas won't be fun but it will be able to deal with it. On the other hand, I don't think a second winter in the Ukraine is going turn things around for the Russians either and I think they are well aware of it. So, Putin can commit economical suicide or he can come back to the negotiation table. The question is what he has to bring to the table. It's not looking like he has much to offer.
Its cute that you think this all boils (sic) down to cold showers. Typical out-of-touch mentality. Maybe a few thousand elderly and children dying in unheated 70s apartments will wake you up better than cold showers in the morning.
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 could also use renewable energy. Things change very slowly on this side.
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 could also use renewable energy. Things change very slowly on this side.
1. Your article on nuclear energy just says that France has reactors that need maintenance. It also says they produce less electricity because they need cold water which is not currently available because of heat waves and droughts. Both are temporary problems that can be planned around or avoided by over-provisioning capacity. As the original article notes, you cannot over-provision capacity with renewable energies because they tend to produce 100x less power on windless or cloudy days.
2. It's more efficient to burn gas and collect the heat for industrial processes that go through an intermediary step of converting heat into electricity. I don't think it has anything to do with gas being irreplaceable as a source of heat. Gas can be necessary as a chemical precursor in some reactions - which can't be replaced by electricity - but that has nothing to do with heat.
2. It's more efficient to burn gas and collect the heat for industrial processes that go through an intermediary step of converting heat into electricity. I don't think it has anything to do with gas being irreplaceable as a source of heat. Gas can be necessary as a chemical precursor in some reactions - which can't be replaced by electricity - but that has nothing to do with heat.
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.
> Germany doesn't really lack electricity.
... yet.
There is an interesting report on the ARD Mediathek [1] right now in which - among other nuclear-involved people - the guy responsible the flow of electricity talks about power production and consumption. He points out that while it is true that at some points in time, renewables provided 95% of our consumption, there are still other times where they make up less than 1%. He then proceeds to explain that we do not have the energy storage to survive that, and that such an energy storage - with our current technology - will not be technically feasible, and that our neighbouring countries will not be able to support us if bad comes to worse.
His prognosis is that if we proceed with the nuclear shutdown, we will perpetuate coal burning for the foreseeable future.
Oh, right, some genius also decided to stop that.
We like to think of ourselves to be enlightened trailblazers. But maybe we should take a step back and consider if we might be wrong.
[1] https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/dokus-im-ersten/dokumentar... - the part I'm talking about starts at about 35:35, German only (unfortunately)
... yet.
There is an interesting report on the ARD Mediathek [1] right now in which - among other nuclear-involved people - the guy responsible the flow of electricity talks about power production and consumption. He points out that while it is true that at some points in time, renewables provided 95% of our consumption, there are still other times where they make up less than 1%. He then proceeds to explain that we do not have the energy storage to survive that, and that such an energy storage - with our current technology - will not be technically feasible, and that our neighbouring countries will not be able to support us if bad comes to worse.
His prognosis is that if we proceed with the nuclear shutdown, we will perpetuate coal burning for the foreseeable future.
Oh, right, some genius also decided to stop that.
We like to think of ourselves to be enlightened trailblazers. But maybe we should take a step back and consider if we might be wrong.
[1] https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/dokus-im-ersten/dokumentar... - the part I'm talking about starts at about 35:35, German only (unfortunately)
It's amazing how many well intentioned people cannot grasp this very simple point. There is no way to run a grid solely on solar and wind. Therefore the choice isn't between those and nuclear, it's between nuclear and coal/gas.
And now the fourth largest economy in the world with a huge and extremely capable engineering base is committed to finding a way. Given that storage and other supporting tech for renewables has so far received hardly any serious funding at all, I think it's quite realistic to expect a success story there. Just consider what the many billions invested into fracking tech did to the US accessible gas reserves, and that wasn't thought to be technologically and economically feasible by most knowledgeable people either.
A fully renewable grid really is terra incognita, no one's done that before, of course there are a lot of open questions. But being a trailblazer might pay off handsomely if it does work out well, as others will want such a grid too.
A fully renewable grid really is terra incognita, no one's done that before, of course there are a lot of open questions. But being a trailblazer might pay off handsomely if it does work out well, as others will want such a grid too.
Germany will just no longer have the fourth-largest economy in the world. There is no way to substitute gas short term, long term you can replace it with electric alternatives. But these electric alternatives do not run on a grid with just wind and solar. I live in Germany and I have no hope. Our heating bills for the next winter can already exceed $900 per month for a 4-person household, electric costs also at $200 per month. The whole economy will just collapse.
I expect Germany to import the smallest amount of natural gas that the government can be confident will prevent economic collapse.
I also expect this quantity to be much lower than it would've been last year, as I also expect significant effort to be put into both improvements (e.g. home insulation) and alternatives (e.g. renewables).
I also expect this quantity to be much lower than it would've been last year, as I also expect significant effort to be put into both improvements (e.g. home insulation) and alternatives (e.g. renewables).
Germany doesn't have the infrastructure to import from other sources. The LNG terminals don't work yet, and the capacity is too low and LNG is much more expansive than the Russian pipeline gas. And even if we have the LNG infrastructure, we have to buy a big chunk of the world market, which screws poorer countries.
Our home insulation is already pretty good and renovating all old buildings is expansive, and we don't have enough craftsman to do that.
Renewables brought us this mess the plan was to use natural gas, this is now over.
We need to go back to coal and build new nuclear plants to phase out coal, but this will never happen under the current government, at least until the winter.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
If we can insulate 1% of the worst houses and apartments, that's still an improvement, in that less money goes to Russia.
If we can get 1% of our needs from LNG terminals built in the next 6 months, that's still 1% less fuel trade with Russia.
If fuel oils, benzine, diesel, biofuels, and new wind turbines combined can substitute 1% of Russian natural gas, that's 1% less money going to Russia.
The USA put speed limits on their highways in response to a fuel crisis, if we do that with the Autobahns and it only reduces Russian imports by 1%, that's 1% less of our money that ends up funding the Russian government.
While coal is much worse for the climate than natural gas, a short-term political need to deal with a warmongering fuel supplier can override that, so burn it and starve the Russian government.
Etc.
It adds up. Even if Germany sill buys 90% as much Russian natural gas in December 2022 as in December 2021, that's still better than buying 100%.
I'm relaxed about nuclear power, but unfortunately this is not the majority position and hoping for them here is wishful thinking. Also, nuclear just can't be constructed fast enough to be relevant for this winter, not even with a major increase in their political acceptability.
If we can insulate 1% of the worst houses and apartments, that's still an improvement, in that less money goes to Russia.
If we can get 1% of our needs from LNG terminals built in the next 6 months, that's still 1% less fuel trade with Russia.
If fuel oils, benzine, diesel, biofuels, and new wind turbines combined can substitute 1% of Russian natural gas, that's 1% less money going to Russia.
The USA put speed limits on their highways in response to a fuel crisis, if we do that with the Autobahns and it only reduces Russian imports by 1%, that's 1% less of our money that ends up funding the Russian government.
While coal is much worse for the climate than natural gas, a short-term political need to deal with a warmongering fuel supplier can override that, so burn it and starve the Russian government.
Etc.
It adds up. Even if Germany sill buys 90% as much Russian natural gas in December 2022 as in December 2021, that's still better than buying 100%.
I'm relaxed about nuclear power, but unfortunately this is not the majority position and hoping for them here is wishful thinking. Also, nuclear just can't be constructed fast enough to be relevant for this winter, not even with a major increase in their political acceptability.
Germany has been funding renewables for decades now. Even then, they are not competitive with China, for solar panels for example.
There hasn't been much funding for storage though, at least compared to what went into e.g. solar panels, not to speak of nuclear (which is dual-use, hence unlimited money). There are tons of promising concepts that haven't seen any realistic trials yet. Competing with China will be difficult, but it's the same for the whole western tech sector.
Sure, I support that. But one thing doesn't preclude the other. Invest in nuclear now to get rid of coal, and at the same time invest in research that may or may not pay off.
Olkiluoto is bound to be 13 years late at four times the budget, the other ones in France and the UK look like they're going the same way, and Germany demonstrably sucks at these large-scale projects (think BER airport), so any new reactors probably wouldn't be ready before the 2040s, but they would be ridiculously expensive. That kind of money buys a lot of storage research and solar capacity.
Ok, so since Germany is slow at building existing stuff, it will somehow be better at building non-existing, future tech stuff. Until then, gas and coal and we kill thousands.
> it will somehow be better at building non-existing, future tech stuff
Those power plants and the Berlin airport went the way they did because of the immense corruption around such extremely large, expensive, long-term construction projects. There's a whole sector in construction exploiting the inane legislation around these things. There's no way that's going to change anytime soon, and it's not a purely German issue either (as the European nuclear projects demonstrate).
At least so far, the push into renewables looks like it will require very few such monolithic large-scale projects at all, and even then, they should be a lot less complex and cheaper than the current generation of nuclear plants (and a lot faster to build). A lot of the concepts for storage are also well-suited to a distributed build-out, and that involves making people order a bunch of things from China, set them up and network them, which we're all doing all the time anyway and which tends to works pretty efficiently. The whole thing is by no means a guaranteed short-term success, but I'd say the chances of this working out nicely aren't bad at all.
Those power plants and the Berlin airport went the way they did because of the immense corruption around such extremely large, expensive, long-term construction projects. There's a whole sector in construction exploiting the inane legislation around these things. There's no way that's going to change anytime soon, and it's not a purely German issue either (as the European nuclear projects demonstrate).
At least so far, the push into renewables looks like it will require very few such monolithic large-scale projects at all, and even then, they should be a lot less complex and cheaper than the current generation of nuclear plants (and a lot faster to build). A lot of the concepts for storage are also well-suited to a distributed build-out, and that involves making people order a bunch of things from China, set them up and network them, which we're all doing all the time anyway and which tends to works pretty efficiently. The whole thing is by no means a guaranteed short-term success, but I'd say the chances of this working out nicely aren't bad at all.
Between a green pasture and Biblis going online at that location, it took 6 years.
Either we got a lot worse at building complicated stuff, or the real reason for building delays is NIMBYs protesting and lawmongering.
Either we got a lot worse at building complicated stuff, or the real reason for building delays is NIMBYs protesting and lawmongering.
This.
The funniest thing is - Germany was repeatedly warned by Eastern European states that this (literally this) will happen if they continue to build Nord Stream 1 and then Nord Stream 2 and try to "fix" Russia by trade. Russian government already poisoned Ukrainian presidential candidate in 2004. Killed opposition and journalists both in Russia and in EU. Invaded 2 countries (Chechnia and Georgia - I don't even count Lithuania cause it was technically USSR) and committed war crimes (especially in Chechnia). And Germany just ignored this cause cheap gas and "they will surely change if we just give them money".
Like how dumb can you be?
Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania and probably others warned Germany and the rest of EU about this for decades.
Polish president in 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia said "Today Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine, and then, perhaps, my country - Poland". It wasn't some genius foresight- this was mainstream opinion in Poland and many other EE states for over a decade already. We warned about Russia using the pipelines for blackmail and about their ambitions to recreate USSR against the will of the people in post-communist states.
By 2010 Russia already shut down gas for various EE states on several occasions to blackmail or punish them. Germany knew this and just ignored it. Probably cause it "couldn't happen to Germany and fuck EE".
In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time and annexed Crimea. Also supported dictator Assad in murdering his own citizens and used hybrid warfare on EU by helping him push refuges to EU which created a huge political crisis.
Germany knew this and still sucked that gas like there's no tommorow and continued to build Nord Stream 2.
Last year Russian agents blew up a big ammo warehouse in Czech Republic. Germany still continued with Nord Stream, cause you know, who cares about Czech Republic (their ally in NATO and EU).
Oh, BTW - Germany also sold weapons to Russia and helped them train soldiers all through that time. They were supposed to stop after 2014 but they didn't.
All the warnings and pleas to stop doing business with Russia and especially to stop sending them weapons and increasing energy dependency were dismissed by Germany (and other EU states to a lesser degree) as "russophobic" because these countries were "understandeably traumatized" and "didn't understand modern global politics". Basically Germany treated us like dumb kids while commiting slow extended suicide.
It's mind-boggling how a big European state like Germany with big ambitions and supposedly independent media could be so ignorant for 3 decades with nobody in the country taking the warnings seriously.
Like how dumb can you be?
Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania and probably others warned Germany and the rest of EU about this for decades.
Polish president in 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia said "Today Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine, and then, perhaps, my country - Poland". It wasn't some genius foresight- this was mainstream opinion in Poland and many other EE states for over a decade already. We warned about Russia using the pipelines for blackmail and about their ambitions to recreate USSR against the will of the people in post-communist states.
By 2010 Russia already shut down gas for various EE states on several occasions to blackmail or punish them. Germany knew this and just ignored it. Probably cause it "couldn't happen to Germany and fuck EE".
In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time and annexed Crimea. Also supported dictator Assad in murdering his own citizens and used hybrid warfare on EU by helping him push refuges to EU which created a huge political crisis.
Germany knew this and still sucked that gas like there's no tommorow and continued to build Nord Stream 2.
Last year Russian agents blew up a big ammo warehouse in Czech Republic. Germany still continued with Nord Stream, cause you know, who cares about Czech Republic (their ally in NATO and EU).
Oh, BTW - Germany also sold weapons to Russia and helped them train soldiers all through that time. They were supposed to stop after 2014 but they didn't.
All the warnings and pleas to stop doing business with Russia and especially to stop sending them weapons and increasing energy dependency were dismissed by Germany (and other EU states to a lesser degree) as "russophobic" because these countries were "understandeably traumatized" and "didn't understand modern global politics". Basically Germany treated us like dumb kids while commiting slow extended suicide.
It's mind-boggling how a big European state like Germany with big ambitions and supposedly independent media could be so ignorant for 3 decades with nobody in the country taking the warnings seriously.
Not to rain on your parade - a few points are definitely justified - but Poland has just switched to fill their "natural gas gap" with imports from Germany when it was cut off by Russia recently. Did you ever ask yourself where that "German" natural gas is actually coming from?
I'm aware that Poland is in bad situation too. I live here and I don't support my government (especially their idiotic effective ban on wind power).
But that's just the last 7 years out of 33 years that we're independent, and even the current government mostly did the right thing when it comes to Russia.
Poland was in much worse situation than Germany. In 1989 we got independent and all of our infrastructure was tightly coupled with USSR. We were also dirt poor and had infrastructure in shambles. Since then we decoupled a little, built interconnects with other countries, an LNG terminal which provides about half our our gas, this year we also finish Baltic pipe to Norway and when it's ready we'll be fully independent of Russian gas.
Germany went the other way and increased their dependency on Russian gas in last 3 decades.
But that's just the last 7 years out of 33 years that we're independent, and even the current government mostly did the right thing when it comes to Russia.
Poland was in much worse situation than Germany. In 1989 we got independent and all of our infrastructure was tightly coupled with USSR. We were also dirt poor and had infrastructure in shambles. Since then we decoupled a little, built interconnects with other countries, an LNG terminal which provides about half our our gas, this year we also finish Baltic pipe to Norway and when it's ready we'll be fully independent of Russian gas.
Germany went the other way and increased their dependency on Russian gas in last 3 decades.
Did you ask yourself why was NS1 build in the first place? and why was Yamal pipeline shut down?
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it —- Upton Sinclair.
But agreed that this boggles the mind. The only explanation I’ve been able to come up with is lobbying by German industry.
But agreed that this boggles the mind. The only explanation I’ve been able to come up with is lobbying by German industry.
One upside of this crisis, is that the holy German liberal process of economic-politics will self-regulate: After the next winter's gas prices and lack thereof, there will not be any money left going into lobbying.
It is a shame that it will come at such price, though. Who could have predicted that? Literally everyone.
It is a shame that it will come at such price, though. Who could have predicted that? Literally everyone.
I find Merkel's legacy quite bad. Germans never wanted to take a side on international stage, but pressured EU country in the backstage to accept policies favouring them. How many times we restrained car emissions laws because it would kill the almighty German car industry?
In the end, this shopkeeper attitude burst into their face very hard and I don't feel sorry for them.
In the end, this shopkeeper attitude burst into their face very hard and I don't feel sorry for them.
Good points. Germany has long been warned from so many sources (both domestic and international) that something like this situation could happen, yet they ran full speed and head first into it anyway.
> It's mind-boggling how a big European state like Germany with big ambitions and supposedly independent media could be so ignorant for 3 decades with nobody in the country taking the warnings seriously.
That's a warped perception. There has been a huge controversy (also in the media), it was the government and primarily chancellor Merkel who pushed for a adopting a soft line with Russia.
Critique was small since the Left traditionally sided with Russia, the Right was very sympathetic to authoritarian regimes in general, and the libertarians saw nothing but economic opportunities (cheap resources). Since military strength hasn't been a focus ever since the early 90s, economic ties were seen as both an effective measure to keep peace and an advantage to the domestic industries.
EE states have of course their own concerns, but let's be real here: every country is first and foremost focusing on their own interests and tends to ignore or downplay the interests of others, especially "small fish" like states that have little economical and political weight. Sounds harsh, but that's the reality of politics everywhere and not particularly surprising.
That's a warped perception. There has been a huge controversy (also in the media), it was the government and primarily chancellor Merkel who pushed for a adopting a soft line with Russia.
Critique was small since the Left traditionally sided with Russia, the Right was very sympathetic to authoritarian regimes in general, and the libertarians saw nothing but economic opportunities (cheap resources). Since military strength hasn't been a focus ever since the early 90s, economic ties were seen as both an effective measure to keep peace and an advantage to the domestic industries.
EE states have of course their own concerns, but let's be real here: every country is first and foremost focusing on their own interests and tends to ignore or downplay the interests of others, especially "small fish" like states that have little economical and political weight. Sounds harsh, but that's the reality of politics everywhere and not particularly surprising.
> Sounds harsh, but that's the reality of politics everywhere and not particularly surprising.
The funniest thing is - Germany trades more with Poland ( $92.3 billion) than with Russia ($31.5 billion). In fact Germany even trades more with Czech Republic than with Russia. If you add up all EE states it's orders of magnitude more. Yet somehow Russia is more important to them.
If it was just realpolitik I would be outraged but not astonished. But it's not a rational foreign policy. German foreign policy is not only morally wrong - it's also irrational.
The funniest thing is - Germany trades more with Poland ( $92.3 billion) than with Russia ($31.5 billion). In fact Germany even trades more with Czech Republic than with Russia. If you add up all EE states it's orders of magnitude more. Yet somehow Russia is more important to them.
If it was just realpolitik I would be outraged but not astonished. But it's not a rational foreign policy. German foreign policy is not only morally wrong - it's also irrational.
> Like how dumb can you be?
Well, several of those countries are using Russian designed nuclear reactors, where only Russian fuel is authorized to use. Why did they not change that in the last.. idk.. 30 years or so?
Well, several of those countries are using Russian designed nuclear reactors, where only Russian fuel is authorized to use. Why did they not change that in the last.. idk.. 30 years or so?
I very much agree with this post. Also, don't forget about Russia's decade-long war against democracies via bot farms, support for populist parties, bribes, and assassinations (even on German on British soil). Many German politicians behaved like arrogant morons and ended up drinking their own cool aid. Now they are trying to minimize the damage by throwing Ukrainians under the bus. They find the war annoying, because it disturbs their business as usual. I feel like they have more of a problem with Ukraine than with Russia, because Ukraine is putting up a fight and complicating Germany's relations with Russia. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised as this is the country that started both world wars and let Hitler just do his thing as the Holocaust unfolded. Some of those people are still alive. I live in Germany by the way.
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 processes. This is where a looming recession might derive from.
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.
On nuclear: The cost of nuclear power is wildly underestimated, especially for the generation of nuclear power plants in use right now. They are expensive both in terms of dollars and in terms of their ecological footprint.
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 processes. This is where a looming recession might derive from.
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.
On nuclear: The cost of nuclear power is wildly underestimated, especially for the generation of nuclear power plants in use right now. They are expensive both in terms of dollars and in terms of their ecological footprint.
> so cool he can make use of a german word, so much credibility
Please omit swipes like this from your HN comments. They're against the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and they weaken your argument.
Please omit swipes like this from your HN comments. They're against the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and they weaken your argument.
> 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 battery capacity to really run on renewables. Not even sure if there's enough lithium to make this work theoretically with current tech.
> On nuclear: The cost of nuclear power is wildly underestimated
Same is true for every other power source as well. Energy storage for renewables is never included, so you need backups, the €100 billion German defence package announced a few months ago is a direct consequence of "cheap" Russian gas, the millions of people suffering/dying from air pollution related issues from using coal.
There's no perfect solution, but nuclear is definitely a strong contender for the best way forward.
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 battery capacity to really run on renewables. Not even sure if there's enough lithium to make this work theoretically with current tech.
> On nuclear: The cost of nuclear power is wildly underestimated
Same is true for every other power source as well. Energy storage for renewables is never included, so you need backups, the €100 billion German defence package announced a few months ago is a direct consequence of "cheap" Russian gas, the millions of people suffering/dying from air pollution related issues from using coal.
There's no perfect solution, but nuclear is definitely a strong contender for the best way forward.
> There's no perfect solution, but nuclear is definitely a strong contender for the best way forward.
Absolutely! But:
Nuclear was approximately as cheap as the equivalent LiIon storage a few years ago, but the batteries are getting cheaper and the reactors are not.
There are also other chemistries, and other storage options, which I'd include under the banner of "no perfect solution, so let's do everything".
> You'd need multiple weeks worth of battery capacity to really run on renewables.
I have no idea why this meme propagates. How many people live where there is no sunlight for multiple weeks at a time? And it's not like we don't already have some long distance power lines.
PV is so absurdly cheap that overproduction is seriously not a bad solution if you're just concerned about cloudy weeks.
Absolutely! But:
Nuclear was approximately as cheap as the equivalent LiIon storage a few years ago, but the batteries are getting cheaper and the reactors are not.
There are also other chemistries, and other storage options, which I'd include under the banner of "no perfect solution, so let's do everything".
> You'd need multiple weeks worth of battery capacity to really run on renewables.
I have no idea why this meme propagates. How many people live where there is no sunlight for multiple weeks at a time? And it's not like we don't already have some long distance power lines.
PV is so absurdly cheap that overproduction is seriously not a bad solution if you're just concerned about cloudy weeks.
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.
That has a round trip efficiency of around 20-25 % I think (more if you can also use the process heat), so we would need to over-provision renewables by 400 % to make it work.
There is a ton of unused roof space that could be decked out with solar, though. There are few heat pumps deployed so far, lots of inefficient old houses that could be modernized, plus there is an array of concepts for other storage tech still at a pretty early stage. It's probably going to be a mix of different generation and storage tech coupled with gains in efficiency, and that seems like it could work out.
Sure, feasible in the long run but don't hold your breath on it to work in the next 5-10 years. China has just doubled their growth targets for solar so producers have trouble keeping up with demand already and we have almost no domestic production anymore, so there's just no way we'll be able to act on this in the near future.
I would love to see a reference about this being actively used, in a meaningful capacity (as in: enough to prevent a countrywide blackout).
We don't Electrolyse Hydrogen in Germany there is not one large-scale installation. You can't pump 100% hydrogen in the natural gas infrastructure, and the gas plants need to support hydrogen burning.
You also need a surplus of energy, which Germany obviously not has.
There is no large scale hydrogen storage facility that could take even 1% of German's energy needs.
Yet.
Indeed. If the annual natural gas use of all of Germany was represented as liquid hydrogen, it would be a ~700m cube.
A year is probably more than is needed, but I don't know how low storage can go before it causes problems. If I guess a week is sufficient then every million German residents need a 43m cube.
This isn't unbuildable if there is sufficient political will.
A year is probably more than is needed, but I don't know how low storage can go before it causes problems. If I guess a week is sufficient then every million German residents need a 43m cube.
This isn't unbuildable if there is sufficient political will.
"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.
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.
> 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.
No you don't. Just because you pay for Ökostrom or whatever doesn't mean that the electricity you actually use was produced by renewables. It's one grid. You use the electricity produced by coal plants just like everyone else.
No you don't. Just because you pay for Ökostrom or whatever doesn't mean that the electricity you actually use was produced by renewables. It's one grid. You use the electricity produced by coal plants just like everyone else.
I am glad you got my point: My share of energy consumption is completly covered by renewables.
> My share of energy consumption is completly covered by renewables.
Only if you
a) Pretend that the electricity you get doesn't come from the same grid as everyone else's, where the input to that grid is a mixture of renewable and non-renewable energy, and
b) Don't look too hard at how many others make that same boast: Being "green" is "in", so lots of people's consumption "is completly covered by renewables"... Perhaps a larger proportion of electricity consumers than he proportion of electricity actually generated by renewables?
I mean, if you can happily -- and unthinkingly -- echo the empty promise on your electricity bill, so can everyone else.
Your claim is point-less.
Only if you
a) Pretend that the electricity you get doesn't come from the same grid as everyone else's, where the input to that grid is a mixture of renewable and non-renewable energy, and
b) Don't look too hard at how many others make that same boast: Being "green" is "in", so lots of people's consumption "is completly covered by renewables"... Perhaps a larger proportion of electricity consumers than he proportion of electricity actually generated by renewables?
I mean, if you can happily -- and unthinkingly -- echo the empty promise on your electricity bill, so can everyone else.
Your claim is point-less.
Those renewable energy contracts were mostly a scam in my opinion, most of these providers just bought renewable electricity from the stock market when it was cheap and sold it to consumers at a premium, creating zero new renewable capacity in the process. Greenwashing at its finest. And last year when prices for renewables went through the roof due to several unanticipated factors most of them went belly-up and had to "fire" their long-time customers (myself included) because their business models stopped working as they had built zero renewable energy production themselves.
The whole "Energiewende" feels a bit like that: Electricity production was privatized and more than 300 billion € in subsidies went into investors' hands. Now the infrastructure that was created is mostly privately owned and even though renewable energy production currently peaks the prices go through the roof because consumer prices align with the stock market price of electricity and not the cost of production. It really matters how you create renewable energy.
The whole "Energiewende" feels a bit like that: Electricity production was privatized and more than 300 billion € in subsidies went into investors' hands. Now the infrastructure that was created is mostly privately owned and even though renewable energy production currently peaks the prices go through the roof because consumer prices align with the stock market price of electricity and not the cost of production. It really matters how you create renewable energy.
While you do make a fair point on greenwashing being a problem in general, your opinion does not apply to my non greenwashed contract. 100% green energy and a coop investing heavily in more capacity.
This is true for gas (heating) and electricity, btw.
This is true for gas (heating) and electricity, btw.
> does not apply to my non greenwashed contract. 100% green energy and a coop investing heavily in more capacity.
So you're connected directly to a co-op's green power plant; neither your house nor that power plant are on the national grid where your "100% green energy" gets mixed up with all the other -- non-green -- electricity being produced nationwide?
So you're connected directly to a co-op's green power plant; neither your house nor that power plant are on the national grid where your "100% green energy" gets mixed up with all the other -- non-green -- electricity being produced nationwide?
> 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.
On paper maybe, most people are actually using electricity generated from conventional power plants most of the time, and we are paying the highest energy prices in the world for that.
> On nuclear: The cost of nuclear power is wildly underestimated, especially for the generation of nuclear power plants in use right now. They are expensive both in terms of dollars and in terms of their ecological footprint. Building thousands of windmills in forests and installing solar on farmland also has a high ecological footprint.
> On nuclear: The cost of nuclear power is wildly underestimated, especially for the generation of nuclear power plants in use right now. They are expensive both in terms of dollars and in terms of their ecological footprint. Building thousands of windmills in forests and installing solar on farmland also has a high ecological footprint.
> Building thousands of windmills in forests and installing solar on farmland also has a high ecological footprint.
False dichotomies. See for example Flugplatz Brandenburg-Briest: https://goo.gl/maps/WATEJANE9wiHk7UAA
And pastureland can continue to be used as pastureland simultaneously with both PV and wind.
False dichotomies. See for example Flugplatz Brandenburg-Briest: https://goo.gl/maps/WATEJANE9wiHk7UAA
And pastureland can continue to be used as pastureland simultaneously with both PV and wind.
> 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.
How can you receive energy purely from renewable energy sources when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? Germany doesn't have any significant capacity for electricity storage. It's such a bold statement but it seems physically impossible.
How can you receive energy purely from renewable energy sources when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? Germany doesn't have any significant capacity for electricity storage. It's such a bold statement but it seems physically impossible.
One example: my energy provider builds biogas plants. Guess what, they turn agricultural waste into electricity. Even at night.
Your argumentation is similar to suggesting Tesla should stop developing electrical cars because there is no charger infrastructure. So 2010.
Your argumentation is similar to suggesting Tesla should stop developing electrical cars because there is no charger infrastructure. So 2010.
I thought biomass was marginal but you actually produce almost as much electricity with biomass as with natural gas. I stand corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany
> 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…
More probably you‘re running on green (washing) electricity certificates from Norway…
Nope, 100% green energy in the hands of the citizens.
This. It is 100% green energy. No certificates or whatsoever.
Then they're lying to you. Unless you're on a completely separate power grid, your energy is, in reality, provided by the power source closest to you. It might be solar or wind sometimes, but the rest of the time it's probably a non-renewable source.
German companies claiming to get their energy through renewable sources are primarily buying credits from Norway and a few other sources in Europe.
You can stick your head in the ground and pretend all of the electricity you use is being generated by renewable resources, but as long as plants in Germany are producing power using coal and natural gas, it means you're using that energy.
German companies claiming to get their energy through renewable sources are primarily buying credits from Norway and a few other sources in Europe.
You can stick your head in the ground and pretend all of the electricity you use is being generated by renewable resources, but as long as plants in Germany are producing power using coal and natural gas, it means you're using that energy.
This is not true. There are multiple energy providers selling only renewables. There even is one village that managed to do so on its own for itself.
Your argumentation is wrong. What you say is: There is no use in limiting pollution, because there will still be some pollution left anyways. I bet you never clean your place, because it will get dirty soon after.
Your argumentation is wrong. What you say is: There is no use in limiting pollution, because there will still be some pollution left anyways. I bet you never clean your place, because it will get dirty soon after.
It's funny that those wind and solar contracts don't stop delivering when there is no supply... Makes one wonder about truth.
One of the worst articles I have ever read in my life.