5 ms·

Ironic that after Germany shut down some nuclear plants they had, they started importing more energy from France, which has nuclear power plants near the border

Ironic that after Germany shut down some nuclear plants they had, they started importing more energy from France, which has nuclear power plants near the borders with Germany.

ketralnis 10y ago
If you believe that most of the cost is in disposing of waste and cleaning up a disaster, outsourcing that sounds like win/win
- coldtea 10y ago
  Yes, let's lower the cost of disposing of waste - with whatever means necessary, dump it into lakes if needed.
sqeezy 10y ago
actually you are wrong. germany is exporting way more as they are importing http://phasenpruefer.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Handelsbilanz-Strom-in-Terawattstunden.png http://phasenpruefer.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Handels...
- grzm 10y ago
  The image is from the German-language article "Stromexport Deutschlands erreicht immer neue Rekorde (aktualisiert)", 7 October 2015. http://phasenpruefer.info/deutschlands-stromexporte-bricht-rekorde/ http://phasenpruefer.info/deutschlands-stromexporte-bricht-r... English title courtesy of Google Translate: "Germany's electricity exports are constantly growing (updated)".
- JanezStupar 10y ago
  Offcourse they are exporting - or more accurately, forcing the neighbours to deal with their green energy surpluses. Context matters, a lot.
  - philipkglass 10y ago
    Both France and Germany are net electricity exporters on an annual basis. But when France sends surplus nuclear electricity to its neighbors that's supposed to be a plus for nuclear technology. When Germany sends surplus renewable electricity to its neighbors that's supposed to be a minus for renewable technology. Both nuclear and renewable generation are rigid in their own ways; neither is as flexible as gas powered generation, but of course neither has the substantial fuel costs or emissions of gas powered generation either.
    - JanezStupar 10y ago
      The point is that Germany is exporting energy when nobody needs it and is thus causing problems for the grid. France exports energy when German solar cells and wind are in a dip. My point is that German exports are peak surpluses that cause problems for the grid and French exports are on-demand because steel mills need to work when wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine. But thank you for proving my point. Although you tried to obfuscate away the context. Are you a renewables activist?
      - philipkglass 10y ago
        If "nobody needs it" then there will be no consumption in another country to take the German production. (Some production does actually get curtailed, never matched with consumption in Germany or in a connected country). It's not like Germans are smuggling waste-electricity past customs agents into another country. French reactors do very little "on-demand" adjustment either. You can see graphs here; look at the yearly ones: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ French electricity trade with neighboring countries makes a exports make a jagged line. Fossils make a jagged line. Nuclear is the smoothest line of any of them: it does hardly anything on-demand. It does the same thing day after day. That is an advantage in certain ways (no worries about lost production on a windless night) but a disadvantage in others; you cannot save money/resources by stopping a reactor the way you can by stopping a gas turbine. I am someone interested in post-fossil electricity. 15 years ago that meant I was primarily interested in nuclear power. Much to my surprise, the nuclear industry basically stalled and the renewable industry expanded scale and cut costs much faster than I thought possible. Following the change in the numbers, I am reading more about renewable technology than nuclear technology nowadays. That's where the most rapid improvements are coming from. I'll change my opinion again if the numbers change again and nuclear starts delivering aggressively on scale-up, costs-down. I'm interested only in numbers from real hardware, though. I've seen enough daydreams in the forms of PowerPoint and TED talks (from nuclear dreamers and renewable dreamers alike) to last me a lifetime.
soebbing 10y ago
Do you have a source for that? A quick search seems to suggest the contrary: https://energytransition.org/2015/06/is-germany-reliant-on-foreign-nuclear-power/ https://energytransition.org/2015/06/is-germany-reliant-on-f...
throwaway1892 10y ago
Well, Germany replaced its nuclear power plants with Wind turbines + coal/gas thermic power plants.
- zakk 10y ago
  So increasing emissions. That's very bad.
  - damptowel 10y ago
    I dont't get how people can choose possible local disaster (nuclear) over certain global disaster (co2 emmiting power generation). Not to mention deaths from air polution. I'm all for solar and improved storage solutions, but we have something we know works and works right now, without uncertainties regarding constant baseload. Worst of all are green parties everywhere wanting to shut down nuclear, resulting in the building of gas, coal, or paying for importing either those or nuclear. In which universe is that the green solution?
    - eeZah7Ux 10y ago
      If anything, nuclear disasters are 100x worse. Released CO2 will be decreased by being absorbed by vegetation and CO2 capture, once the world decreases its CO2 production. Increases in atmospheric background radiation, on the other hand...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
lispm 10y ago
Actually Germany is a net exporter of electricity.
- evgen 10y ago
  That relies upon other countries to handle its wide swings in production variance.
  - jerven 10y ago
    Yes and france depends on other countries for its incapability to quickly vary production. In other words the nuclear fleet of France has a significantly higher capacity factor than the average demand of the french grid because it can push power to other countries. If that did not exist the french nuclear power would be a lot more expensive (uranium is not free!) Power demands fluctuate as do power generation capabilities. If your generation is inflexible, as nuclear and solar both are at this time (economically speaking right now in this year). You need quick reaction power (e.g. gas peakers) or e.g. pumped hydro. The funny thing is a wholly nuclear grid needs storage as much as a full solar+wind grid does. Of course in a mixed grid both techs can play to their strengths. For example in Lazard's 10.0 LCOE analysis solar plus battery is 92 USD per Mwh, while Nuclear starts at $97. That is smack in the middle of LCOE coal costs! But the solar, will have a lot less of regulatory and construction uncertainty! And a much smaller financial risk. As 3 years from project start to completion is normal. With most projects being set up in independent financial contracts of about 100mw nameplate to allow cancellation if performance or market do not materialize.
  - lispm 10y ago
    That's temporary. New powerlines to south Germany are being built, a new HVDC line to Norway is under construction. Additionally we will see a lot of new ways to deal with surplus electricity. Surplus electricity in the North will grow over the next two decades. Power to gas, Power to Heat, etc. will be feasible then. France has the same problem, but different. Demand varies + production varies. On many weekends they have surplus power from the nuclear plants. In summer and winter nuclear power may not be able to meet demand. In hot summer weeks, the nuclear power plants overheat the rivers. In cold winter weeks, the electrical heating of French consumers creates more demand than nuclear electricity is available. This problem may increase, since France has aging reactors, but new reactors are not coming online - maybe one EPR - but when? 2018? 2020? 2022?

Ironic that after Germany shut down some nuclear plants they had, they started importing more energy from France, which has nuclear power plants near the borders with Germany.

ketralnis 10y ago

If you believe that most of the cost is in disposing of waste and cleaning up a disaster, outsourcing that sounds like win/win

coldtea 10y ago
Yes, let's lower the cost of disposing of waste - with whatever means necessary, dump it into lakes if needed.

sqeezy 10y ago

actually you are wrong. germany is exporting way more as they are importing http://phasenpruefer.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Handelsbilanz-Strom-in-Terawattstunden.png http://phasenpruefer.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Handels...

grzm 10y ago
The image is from the German-language article "Stromexport Deutschlands erreicht immer neue Rekorde (aktualisiert)", 7 October 2015. http://phasenpruefer.info/deutschlands-stromexporte-bricht-rekorde/ http://phasenpruefer.info/deutschlands-stromexporte-bricht-r... English title courtesy of Google Translate: "Germany's electricity exports are constantly growing (updated)".
JanezStupar 10y ago
Offcourse they are exporting - or more accurately, forcing the neighbours to deal with their green energy surpluses. Context matters, a lot.
- philipkglass 10y ago
  Both France and Germany are net electricity exporters on an annual basis. But when France sends surplus nuclear electricity to its neighbors that's supposed to be a plus for nuclear technology. When Germany sends surplus renewable electricity to its neighbors that's supposed to be a minus for renewable technology. Both nuclear and renewable generation are rigid in their own ways; neither is as flexible as gas powered generation, but of course neither has the substantial fuel costs or emissions of gas powered generation either.
  - JanezStupar 10y ago
    The point is that Germany is exporting energy when nobody needs it and is thus causing problems for the grid. France exports energy when German solar cells and wind are in a dip. My point is that German exports are peak surpluses that cause problems for the grid and French exports are on-demand because steel mills need to work when wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine. But thank you for proving my point. Although you tried to obfuscate away the context. Are you a renewables activist?
    - philipkglass 10y ago
      If "nobody needs it" then there will be no consumption in another country to take the German production. (Some production does actually get curtailed, never matched with consumption in Germany or in a connected country). It's not like Germans are smuggling waste-electricity past customs agents into another country. French reactors do very little "on-demand" adjustment either. You can see graphs here; look at the yearly ones: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ French electricity trade with neighboring countries makes a exports make a jagged line. Fossils make a jagged line. Nuclear is the smoothest line of any of them: it does hardly anything on-demand. It does the same thing day after day. That is an advantage in certain ways (no worries about lost production on a windless night) but a disadvantage in others; you cannot save money/resources by stopping a reactor the way you can by stopping a gas turbine. I am someone interested in post-fossil electricity. 15 years ago that meant I was primarily interested in nuclear power. Much to my surprise, the nuclear industry basically stalled and the renewable industry expanded scale and cut costs much faster than I thought possible. Following the change in the numbers, I am reading more about renewable technology than nuclear technology nowadays. That's where the most rapid improvements are coming from. I'll change my opinion again if the numbers change again and nuclear starts delivering aggressively on scale-up, costs-down. I'm interested only in numbers from real hardware, though. I've seen enough daydreams in the forms of PowerPoint and TED talks (from nuclear dreamers and renewable dreamers alike) to last me a lifetime.

soebbing 10y ago

Do you have a source for that? A quick search seems to suggest the contrary: https://energytransition.org/2015/06/is-germany-reliant-on-foreign-nuclear-power/ https://energytransition.org/2015/06/is-germany-reliant-on-f...

throwaway1892 10y ago

Well, Germany replaced its nuclear power plants with Wind turbines + coal/gas thermic power plants.

zakk 10y ago
So increasing emissions. That's very bad.
- damptowel 10y ago
  I dont't get how people can choose possible local disaster (nuclear) over certain global disaster (co2 emmiting power generation). Not to mention deaths from air polution. I'm all for solar and improved storage solutions, but we have something we know works and works right now, without uncertainties regarding constant baseload. Worst of all are green parties everywhere wanting to shut down nuclear, resulting in the building of gas, coal, or paying for importing either those or nuclear. In which universe is that the green solution?
  - eeZah7Ux 10y ago
    If anything, nuclear disasters are 100x worse. Released CO2 will be decreased by being absorbed by vegetation and CO2 capture, once the world decreases its CO2 production. Increases in atmospheric background radiation, on the other hand...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

lispm 10y ago

Actually Germany is a net exporter of electricity.

evgen 10y ago
That relies upon other countries to handle its wide swings in production variance.
- jerven 10y ago
  Yes and france depends on other countries for its incapability to quickly vary production. In other words the nuclear fleet of France has a significantly higher capacity factor than the average demand of the french grid because it can push power to other countries. If that did not exist the french nuclear power would be a lot more expensive (uranium is not free!) Power demands fluctuate as do power generation capabilities. If your generation is inflexible, as nuclear and solar both are at this time (economically speaking right now in this year). You need quick reaction power (e.g. gas peakers) or e.g. pumped hydro. The funny thing is a wholly nuclear grid needs storage as much as a full solar+wind grid does. Of course in a mixed grid both techs can play to their strengths. For example in Lazard's 10.0 LCOE analysis solar plus battery is 92 USD per Mwh, while Nuclear starts at $97. That is smack in the middle of LCOE coal costs! But the solar, will have a lot less of regulatory and construction uncertainty! And a much smaller financial risk. As 3 years from project start to completion is normal. With most projects being set up in independent financial contracts of about 100mw nameplate to allow cancellation if performance or market do not materialize.
- lispm 10y ago
  That's temporary. New powerlines to south Germany are being built, a new HVDC line to Norway is under construction. Additionally we will see a lot of new ways to deal with surplus electricity. Surplus electricity in the North will grow over the next two decades. Power to gas, Power to Heat, etc. will be feasible then. France has the same problem, but different. Demand varies + production varies. On many weekends they have surplus power from the nuclear plants. In summer and winter nuclear power may not be able to meet demand. In hot summer weeks, the nuclear power plants overheat the rivers. In cold winter weeks, the electrical heating of French consumers creates more demand than nuclear electricity is available. This problem may increase, since France has aging reactors, but new reactors are not coming online - maybe one EPR - but when? 2018? 2020? 2022?