5 ms·

Germany has been taking coal offline after taking nuclear offline; and are replacing coal by gas (so they depend even more on Russia) instead of replacing it by

Germany has been taking coal offline after taking nuclear offline; and are replacing coal by gas (so they depend even more on Russia) instead of replacing it by nuclear or renewable. They produce 3x the CO2 of France, despite their commitment against global warming. In an ideal world, renewable would replace everything. We are not yet in this ideal world, and we don't know the time frame to get to it (there are huge technological challenges, while the challenge for nuclear reactor are solved since 50 years. Of course they are still RD to be done on the nuclear side too, like molten salt reactors). Given the economic and human cost of global warming, investing into nuclear too alongside renewable (rather than instead) seems the safer bet. Again, I am not saying that nuclear is a miracle energy that will solve all our problem (fusion would be). Nuclear energy does have a lot of problems. But these problems are trivial which respect to global warming, and we should solve global warming first (which again will involve even more electricity than we produce right now). Focusing on closing nuclear first (like Germany did!) is like worrying about a leak under the sink while the whole house is on fire.

lispm 8y ago
> Germany has been taking coal offline after taking nuclear offline; and are replacing coal by gas (so they depend even more on Russia) instead of replacing it by nuclear or renewable Germany's Energiewende is a many decade long plan with going beyond 80+ renewable energy for electricity in 2050. The Energiewende is not just about CO2 reductions, it is about making renewable energy viable in an industrialized country. This has impact for all of us. Not just in Germany. If the US had a forward looking government and population, we would much further along the way. The energy consumption in the US is twice as high per capita as in Germany and there is no credible energy policy beyond fracking gas. The current US president is a coal lover and he was voted for that into his office. Imagine the amount of research money and infrastructure money the US COULD invest into a new energy systems - instead it wastes money on wars, consumption and trillion dollar deficits. > investing into nuclear too alongside renewable (rather than instead) seems the safer bet That's why it has to go and somebody has to invest to make that viable. Germany is doing exactly that. > Focusing on closing nuclear first (like Germany did!) Germany did focus on renewable energy and the most incompatible industry had to go first. Renewable energy is not about nuclear and renewable side by side - this won't work. Nuclear is a huge state owned monopolistic system. Renewable is market oriented, decentralized, non-monopolistic. The break-up of the old system was inevitable to jump-start the new energy system. It's a complete paradigm shift like going from Mainframe computing to a distributed Internet.
- Gondolin 8y ago
  Germany's goal is laudable, but even if it manages to go full renewable by 2050 that's still 40 years of green house gas emissions it could have avoided had it gone both nuclear and renewable. Nuclear can be made smaller (molten salt reactor, but I do admit that there are huge challenges for that too), and more flexible. Germany's plant were not as flexible as France's, but France's can be quite flexible: for those of you who can read French <https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1102620969808658432.html> https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1102620969808658432.html> a variation of 10GW of nuclear production in a few hours.
  - lispm 8y ago
    > molten salt reactor will have zero impact in the next three decades. There is no market offering and no buyer. No one is investing in yet another fuel cycle and nuclear technology. There are no reactors of scale and there is no industry surrounding it. > Germany's plant were not as flexible as France's Germany had a few flexible nuclear plants. But all old. > a variation of 10GW of nuclear production in a few hours. The result is that France has invested very little in renewable energy in the last decades and created a very inefficient and state owned energy system. France's centralized nuclear state owned energy system and distributed multi-producer/owner renewable energy are largely incompatible systems. Proof: the lack of investments into renewable in the last decades in France. The main question is this: where are CURRENT investments going. Not nuclear, but renewable. This future had been made possible by investments like the German Energiewende, while other countries did invest in mostly nothing. They even failed to bring nuclear forward (-> US). The US sits on a bunch of outdated reactors and not much idea how to replace them economically with newer and better ones.
    - pfdietz 8y ago
      The big trend in the US was the switch to natural gas (a trend now ended by the rise of renewables and soon storage.) Natural gas had the big advantage of being burned in combustion turbines, which are cheaper than other thermal cycles. Heat exchangers are costly, but a simple cycle turbine doesn't need any (if it doesn't have a regenerator). The biggest nuclear operator here (Exelon) is shit talking new nuclear, putting their investment into CO2 capture, renewables, and storage.
pytester 8y ago
It certainly doesn't look like natural gas usage is ramping up: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/fig1_installed_net_power_generation_capacity_in_germany_2002_2018.png?itok=-3jZK5AB https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... >They produce 3x the CO2 of France, despite their commitment against global warming. That's because France started replacing fossil fuels with nuclear in the 80s. That was the only sensible approach to reducing CO2 in the 80s. This isn't the 80s though. >In an ideal world, renewable would replace everything. We are not yet in this ideal world I mean, it's half the cost of nuclear and it doesn't include the risks (however small) of catastrophe. In an ideal world we could swap out fossil fuels for something clean overnight - obviously it takes about 30 years. The question isn't "what can we replace fossil fuels with overnight", it's "what can take over from fossil fuels?"
- Gondolin 8y ago
  If I count lignite + coal + natural gas + mineral oil, it goes from 76.9GW in 2010 to 79.3GW in 2019. So it did not go down either. That's because Germany needs a back up energy source for now. It could have gone down by 10GW had Germany closed coal rather than nuclear first.
  - lispm 8y ago
    What does GW measure in this context? Electricity production is usually measured in TWh.
    - Gondolin 8y ago
      This is the production capacity (you are right it is not a good measure), but I was replying based on the graphic. If I look at wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany Germany went from 60% fossil, 23% nuclear, 17% renewable to 49%/13%/38% respectively. How much further down do you expect fossil to go in ten years? I am pretty sure that by investing both on nuclear and renewable germany could have been at close to 0% right now or in a few years.

lispm 8y ago

> Germany has been taking coal offline after taking nuclear offline; and are replacing coal by gas (so they depend even more on Russia) instead of replacing it by nuclear or renewable Germany's Energiewende is a many decade long plan with going beyond 80+ renewable energy for electricity in 2050. The Energiewende is not just about CO2 reductions, it is about making renewable energy viable in an industrialized country. This has impact for all of us. Not just in Germany. If the US had a forward looking government and population, we would much further along the way. The energy consumption in the US is twice as high per capita as in Germany and there is no credible energy policy beyond fracking gas. The current US president is a coal lover and he was voted for that into his office. Imagine the amount of research money and infrastructure money the US COULD invest into a new energy systems - instead it wastes money on wars, consumption and trillion dollar deficits. > investing into nuclear too alongside renewable (rather than instead) seems the safer bet That's why it has to go and somebody has to invest to make that viable. Germany is doing exactly that. > Focusing on closing nuclear first (like Germany did!) Germany did focus on renewable energy and the most incompatible industry had to go first. Renewable energy is not about nuclear and renewable side by side - this won't work. Nuclear is a huge state owned monopolistic system. Renewable is market oriented, decentralized, non-monopolistic. The break-up of the old system was inevitable to jump-start the new energy system. It's a complete paradigm shift like going from Mainframe computing to a distributed Internet.

Gondolin 8y ago
Germany's goal is laudable, but even if it manages to go full renewable by 2050 that's still 40 years of green house gas emissions it could have avoided had it gone both nuclear and renewable. Nuclear can be made smaller (molten salt reactor, but I do admit that there are huge challenges for that too), and more flexible. Germany's plant were not as flexible as France's, but France's can be quite flexible: for those of you who can read French <https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1102620969808658432.html> https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1102620969808658432.html> a variation of 10GW of nuclear production in a few hours.
- lispm 8y ago
  > molten salt reactor will have zero impact in the next three decades. There is no market offering and no buyer. No one is investing in yet another fuel cycle and nuclear technology. There are no reactors of scale and there is no industry surrounding it. > Germany's plant were not as flexible as France's Germany had a few flexible nuclear plants. But all old. > a variation of 10GW of nuclear production in a few hours. The result is that France has invested very little in renewable energy in the last decades and created a very inefficient and state owned energy system. France's centralized nuclear state owned energy system and distributed multi-producer/owner renewable energy are largely incompatible systems. Proof: the lack of investments into renewable in the last decades in France. The main question is this: where are CURRENT investments going. Not nuclear, but renewable. This future had been made possible by investments like the German Energiewende, while other countries did invest in mostly nothing. They even failed to bring nuclear forward (-> US). The US sits on a bunch of outdated reactors and not much idea how to replace them economically with newer and better ones.
  - pfdietz 8y ago
    The big trend in the US was the switch to natural gas (a trend now ended by the rise of renewables and soon storage.) Natural gas had the big advantage of being burned in combustion turbines, which are cheaper than other thermal cycles. Heat exchangers are costly, but a simple cycle turbine doesn't need any (if it doesn't have a regenerator). The biggest nuclear operator here (Exelon) is shit talking new nuclear, putting their investment into CO2 capture, renewables, and storage.

pytester 8y ago

It certainly doesn't look like natural gas usage is ramping up: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/fig1_installed_net_power_generation_capacity_in_germany_2002_2018.png?itok=-3jZK5AB https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... >They produce 3x the CO2 of France, despite their commitment against global warming. That's because France started replacing fossil fuels with nuclear in the 80s. That was the only sensible approach to reducing CO2 in the 80s. This isn't the 80s though. >In an ideal world, renewable would replace everything. We are not yet in this ideal world I mean, it's half the cost of nuclear and it doesn't include the risks (however small) of catastrophe. In an ideal world we could swap out fossil fuels for something clean overnight - obviously it takes about 30 years. The question isn't "what can we replace fossil fuels with overnight", it's "what can take over from fossil fuels?"

Gondolin 8y ago
If I count lignite + coal + natural gas + mineral oil, it goes from 76.9GW in 2010 to 79.3GW in 2019. So it did not go down either. That's because Germany needs a back up energy source for now. It could have gone down by 10GW had Germany closed coal rather than nuclear first.
- lispm 8y ago
  What does GW measure in this context? Electricity production is usually measured in TWh.
  - Gondolin 8y ago
    This is the production capacity (you are right it is not a good measure), but I was replying based on the graphic. If I look at wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany Germany went from 60% fossil, 23% nuclear, 17% renewable to 49%/13%/38% respectively. How much further down do you expect fossil to go in ten years? I am pretty sure that by investing both on nuclear and renewable germany could have been at close to 0% right now or in a few years.