17 ms·

Are they really replacing with coal, still? Natural gas contribution to energy is on the rise, but coal seems to be on the decline. (I'm not calling you wrong,

by jat850 10y ago

Are they really replacing with coal, still? Natural gas contribution to energy is on the rise, but coal seems to be on the decline. (I'm not calling you wrong, I just can't find data to back numbers of plants - only coal as an energy production method.)

aianus 10y ago
Germany replaced their nuclear power with new coal. It boggles the mind. https://cna.ca/news/germany-replaces-nuclear-coal-ghgs-skyrocket/ https://cna.ca/news/germany-replaces-nuclear-coal-ghgs-skyro...
- jat850 10y ago
  Thank you for the link. That is indeed mind-boggling.
- grzm 10y ago
  It sounds like this is something that's important to you. There were reasons why this is happening, regardless of whether you agree with them or that they're rational. If this is an issue you would like to be more active about, rather than remaining boggled, I encourage you to dig in to determine what those reasons are so you can effectively counteract them.
  - aianus 10y ago
    I don't know if you consider this an effective rebuttal but I live in a place (Ontario, Canada) that made the opposite move at the same time as Germany. All coal plants have been shut down and replaced with additional Nuclear, Hydro, and Natural Gas generation. We now have some of the cheapest electricity in the world (~$0.055 per kwh residential off peak vs. something crazy like $0.30 in Berlin) and haven't had a single smog day in Toronto for nearly two years.
    - tehabe 10y ago
      The actual electricity is getting cheaper in Germany, what drives the prices are the grid usage costs and other elements. One thing which drives me nuts is a cost sharing scheme for renewable energy. Actually a good idea but it has a flaw. Renewable energy actually decrease the price on the electricity exchange. So if more renewable energy is supplied the prices decreases even more. And the cost sharing scheme says, that the grid owners get the difference between the exchange price and the the fixed tariff for renewable energy. The result is: this part of the electricity price increases. It is a flaw in the way the electricity market is designed and it should be fixed. But currently the political is missing to do so.
    - grzm 10y ago
      It wasn't intended as a rebuttal. I'd rather not see increased CO₂ emissions as a result of electricity production. I was, however, pushing back a little at "It boggles the mind", which in this context carries with it snarky connotations of condescension, which does nothing to solve the problem, and doesn't admit to even the possibility of understanding the situation. As I mentioned in my initial comment, there are reasons why this decision was made, and the first step in changing the situation is understanding why it came about. And changing the situation is the goal, isn't it? What caused your locale to make this decision while Germany made another? Edit to add: Please note I'm not saying or even implying you don't know why Germany made the decision to build more coal plants. I don't know the situations in Germany or Ontario. I just think it's more constructive to discuss the situation than dismissing it as startling, confusing, or overwhelming.
    - brandon272 10y ago
      I see Ontario in the news frequently due to high and rising power costs. [1] What am I missing? 1. ‪http://www.cbc.ca/1.3860314‬ http://www.cbc.ca/1.3860314‬
      - grzm 10y ago
        I think that link may be session-based. I see "Sorry, we can't find the page you requested."
      - 10y ago
- tehabe 10y ago
  Except it isn't really true. The share of coal in the German energy mix is decreasing too. There was a hike in 2013 and 2014. And the construction of new coal plants in the last 10 years was big mistake but nevertheless, the switch to renewable sources is important and has to continue. In the end it will be cheaper than any new nuclear power plant which might or might not work. Also renewable energy has a big plus vs nuclear power, while current nuclear plants are huge and build to last 60 years, renewable energy can be small and last for 20 to 30 years. So in 60 years we could have gone through three improved generations of solar panels or wind mills or something else. While the nuclear power plant build today will be the same inefficient one in 60 years. The pro nuclear faction on HN baffles me every time. Nuclear power is a complex and big machine, the infrastructure and centralised systems you need is also expensive. For example, you need a also a huge grid. Renewable energy makes decentralised system possible, town and cities or even smaller community can produce their own electricity. Nationwide grids might be less important in a 100% renewable energy system than they are today. (At least I hope so) For me that is an exciting future, which opens up much more possibilities for more people, to get creative, to create businesses, to build new things. But well, I know what will happening.
  - aianus 10y ago
    Shutting down nuclear reactors as they age out and replacing them with renewables (even expensive renewables) is fine, but shutting down perfectly functioning nuclear reactors with years or decades of lifespan left to build new coal seems indefensible to me.
    - tehabe 10y ago
      Replacing them with coal plants is indeed stupid and indefensible. But shutting them down was the right choice. Some of them were in a bad shape. In one plant, Krümmel I think, they even had trouble getting replacement parts. Another one, it turned out had a flaw in the emergency power system and didn't even have an emergency control centre. Of course, you could refit them but also that will costs money and it might be better invested in newer technologies than in those old reactors. And we have enough issues with nuclear power already, no final repository, Asse II is still a problem. At one nuclear power plant it turned out, they store radio active waste in the basement and those barrel are complete eroded over the decades. AFAIK nobody knows what to do. The company didn't put CCTV in place because they wouldn't work well with the radiation.
- lispm 10y ago
  That article is false. > 2013, Germany’s electrical production required a 44 percent rise in coal power. That's total nonsense. Actually coal is under a lot of pressure in Germany. It helps a lot that Nuclear power in France is in such a bad shape: Germany can export a lot of surplus electricity during a cold winter to France.
  - hokkos 10y ago
    France is a net exporter of electricity in all months : https://opendata.rte-france.com/chart/embed/?dataChart=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&static=false&datasetcard=false https://opendata.rte-france.com/chart/embed/?dataChart=eyJ0a...
    - legulere 10y ago
      France is a net importer to Germany though.
    - lispm 10y ago
      http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5N1E24BU http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5N1E24BU > German power grid firms ready to help if French nuclear supply falls short https://global.handelsblatt.com/companies-markets/germanys-energy-fix-for-france-650039 https://global.handelsblatt.com/companies-markets/germanys-e... > Germany’s Energy Fix for France: France is at risk of blackouts this winter because a dozen nuclear reactors are off the grid. It’s going to need imports from countries including Germany, which has abundant supplies thanks to its heavy investment in green energy.
- legulere 10y ago
  Except that it's not true at all: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Energiem... (percentage) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#Bruttostromerzeugung_nach_Energietr.C3.A4gern_in_Deutschland https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#Bruttostromerze... (absolute) Kohle = coal, Kernenergie = nuclear energy,
mikeyouse 10y ago
Unless there are dramatic changes to the EPA, there will never be another coal plant built in the US after the Kemper Plant is turned on in Mississippi next year. Kemper was supposed to be an example of a modern 'clean coal' plant but is estimated to cost $4 billion over it's original $2.5 billion budget. It's going to cost over $11,000 per KW in CapEx, nearly twice what a nuclear plant costs on a per-KW basis and probably 8x - 10x what solar PV costs. In addition to the insane amount of CapEx, Mississippi politicians have decided to further subsidize the plant by paying $35/ton for the CO2 that the plant captures instead of the contracted $10/ton that was initially promised. This will be some of the most expensive, dirty power that's ever been produced.

by jat850 10y ago

aianus 10y ago

Germany replaced their nuclear power with new coal. It boggles the mind. https://cna.ca/news/germany-replaces-nuclear-coal-ghgs-skyrocket/ https://cna.ca/news/germany-replaces-nuclear-coal-ghgs-skyro...

jat850 10y ago
Thank you for the link. That is indeed mind-boggling.
grzm 10y ago
It sounds like this is something that's important to you. There were reasons why this is happening, regardless of whether you agree with them or that they're rational. If this is an issue you would like to be more active about, rather than remaining boggled, I encourage you to dig in to determine what those reasons are so you can effectively counteract them.
- aianus 10y ago
  I don't know if you consider this an effective rebuttal but I live in a place (Ontario, Canada) that made the opposite move at the same time as Germany. All coal plants have been shut down and replaced with additional Nuclear, Hydro, and Natural Gas generation. We now have some of the cheapest electricity in the world (~$0.055 per kwh residential off peak vs. something crazy like $0.30 in Berlin) and haven't had a single smog day in Toronto for nearly two years.
  - tehabe 10y ago
    The actual electricity is getting cheaper in Germany, what drives the prices are the grid usage costs and other elements. One thing which drives me nuts is a cost sharing scheme for renewable energy. Actually a good idea but it has a flaw. Renewable energy actually decrease the price on the electricity exchange. So if more renewable energy is supplied the prices decreases even more. And the cost sharing scheme says, that the grid owners get the difference between the exchange price and the the fixed tariff for renewable energy. The result is: this part of the electricity price increases. It is a flaw in the way the electricity market is designed and it should be fixed. But currently the political is missing to do so.
  - grzm 10y ago
    It wasn't intended as a rebuttal. I'd rather not see increased CO₂ emissions as a result of electricity production. I was, however, pushing back a little at "It boggles the mind", which in this context carries with it snarky connotations of condescension, which does nothing to solve the problem, and doesn't admit to even the possibility of understanding the situation. As I mentioned in my initial comment, there are reasons why this decision was made, and the first step in changing the situation is understanding why it came about. And changing the situation is the goal, isn't it? What caused your locale to make this decision while Germany made another? Edit to add: Please note I'm not saying or even implying you don't know why Germany made the decision to build more coal plants. I don't know the situations in Germany or Ontario. I just think it's more constructive to discuss the situation than dismissing it as startling, confusing, or overwhelming.
  - brandon272 10y ago
    I see Ontario in the news frequently due to high and rising power costs. [1] What am I missing? 1. ‪http://www.cbc.ca/1.3860314‬ http://www.cbc.ca/1.3860314‬
    - grzm 10y ago
      I think that link may be session-based. I see "Sorry, we can't find the page you requested."
    - 10y ago
tehabe 10y ago
Except it isn't really true. The share of coal in the German energy mix is decreasing too. There was a hike in 2013 and 2014. And the construction of new coal plants in the last 10 years was big mistake but nevertheless, the switch to renewable sources is important and has to continue. In the end it will be cheaper than any new nuclear power plant which might or might not work. Also renewable energy has a big plus vs nuclear power, while current nuclear plants are huge and build to last 60 years, renewable energy can be small and last for 20 to 30 years. So in 60 years we could have gone through three improved generations of solar panels or wind mills or something else. While the nuclear power plant build today will be the same inefficient one in 60 years. The pro nuclear faction on HN baffles me every time. Nuclear power is a complex and big machine, the infrastructure and centralised systems you need is also expensive. For example, you need a also a huge grid. Renewable energy makes decentralised system possible, town and cities or even smaller community can produce their own electricity. Nationwide grids might be less important in a 100% renewable energy system than they are today. (At least I hope so) For me that is an exciting future, which opens up much more possibilities for more people, to get creative, to create businesses, to build new things. But well, I know what will happening.
- aianus 10y ago
  Shutting down nuclear reactors as they age out and replacing them with renewables (even expensive renewables) is fine, but shutting down perfectly functioning nuclear reactors with years or decades of lifespan left to build new coal seems indefensible to me.
  - tehabe 10y ago
    Replacing them with coal plants is indeed stupid and indefensible. But shutting them down was the right choice. Some of them were in a bad shape. In one plant, Krümmel I think, they even had trouble getting replacement parts. Another one, it turned out had a flaw in the emergency power system and didn't even have an emergency control centre. Of course, you could refit them but also that will costs money and it might be better invested in newer technologies than in those old reactors. And we have enough issues with nuclear power already, no final repository, Asse II is still a problem. At one nuclear power plant it turned out, they store radio active waste in the basement and those barrel are complete eroded over the decades. AFAIK nobody knows what to do. The company didn't put CCTV in place because they wouldn't work well with the radiation.
lispm 10y ago
That article is false. > 2013, Germany’s electrical production required a 44 percent rise in coal power. That's total nonsense. Actually coal is under a lot of pressure in Germany. It helps a lot that Nuclear power in France is in such a bad shape: Germany can export a lot of surplus electricity during a cold winter to France.
- hokkos 10y ago
  France is a net exporter of electricity in all months : https://opendata.rte-france.com/chart/embed/?dataChart=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&static=false&datasetcard=false https://opendata.rte-france.com/chart/embed/?dataChart=eyJ0a...
  - legulere 10y ago
    France is a net importer to Germany though.
  - lispm 10y ago
    http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5N1E24BU http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5N1E24BU > German power grid firms ready to help if French nuclear supply falls short https://global.handelsblatt.com/companies-markets/germanys-energy-fix-for-france-650039 https://global.handelsblatt.com/companies-markets/germanys-e... > Germany’s Energy Fix for France: France is at risk of blackouts this winter because a dozen nuclear reactors are off the grid. It’s going to need imports from countries including Germany, which has abundant supplies thanks to its heavy investment in green energy.
legulere 10y ago
Except that it's not true at all: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Energiem... (percentage) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#Bruttostromerzeugung_nach_Energietr.C3.A4gern_in_Deutschland https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#Bruttostromerze... (absolute) Kohle = coal, Kernenergie = nuclear energy,

mikeyouse 10y ago

Unless there are dramatic changes to the EPA, there will never be another coal plant built in the US after the Kemper Plant is turned on in Mississippi next year. Kemper was supposed to be an example of a modern 'clean coal' plant but is estimated to cost $4 billion over it's original $2.5 billion budget. It's going to cost over $11,000 per KW in CapEx, nearly twice what a nuclear plant costs on a per-KW basis and probably 8x - 10x what solar PV costs. In addition to the insane amount of CapEx, Mississippi politicians have decided to further subsidize the plant by paying $35/ton for the CO2 that the plant captures instead of the contracted $10/ton that was initially promised. This will be some of the most expensive, dirty power that's ever been produced.