3 ms·

Another reason for the "country’s shrinking appetite for nuclear" that I can cite is the North Korean terrorist threat. Rationally, there is little reason for

by mrpopo 7y ago

Another reason for the "country’s shrinking appetite for nuclear" that I can cite is the North Korean terrorist threat. Rationally, there is little reason for the North Korean state to cause long term damage to a soil that they claim belongs to them, and also the number of such attacks is now close to zero, but as we all know this kind of fear will not go away. Renewables could work as a replacement, but this may only further weaken South Korea's position in the energy sector in the 21st century. They have a large petroleum and natural gas refining sector, which as we know needs to be phased out. What will be their trajectory in this context?

bboygravity 7y ago
"Renewables could work as a replacement" No. They can't as long as cheap energy storage on mass scales doesn't exist. Case in point: closing nuclear plants and replacing them with renewables is what Germany has been trying to do and has failed to do so far. They essentially replaced (and will continue to replace) nuclear by renewables paired with coal and gas plants running on standby. They can't cold start these plants fast enough to catch dips in energy production from renewables. You simply can't replace a constant energy source (nuclear) by an intermittent one (most renewables). I'm guessing South Korea will go the same route as "good example" Germany. Push renewables. Which translates to; close nuclear plants, invest heavily in solar and wind paired with gas and coal. End result: more CO2 emissions, higher consumer energy prices, but most importantly: a clean reputation through good intentions. Renewables at this stage are more about politically correct marketing than about clean and safe energy.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > No. They can't as long as cheap energy storage on mass scales doesn't exist. It does, Tesla's grid-scale Powerwall made 25% of its cost in profits in 6 months (per https://insideevs.com/news/340702/tesla-powerpack-in-australia-generated-17-million-in-revenue-in-6-months/ https://insideevs.com/news/340702/tesla-powerpack-in-austral...). Aside from using Powerwalls, us Europeans have extensive experience with using hydro pump storage.
  - jjoonathan 7y ago
    So why did Germany go with gas and coal?
    - Tomte 7y ago
      Germany has always had a lot of coal. It's not like Germany just started building a lot of coal plants, to replace the closed nuclear plants.
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      Our coal infrastructure is on the way to be phased out, it won't be around for long-term any more - the Kohlekommission proposed 2035-2038 for the final shutdown, with 12.5 GW of 42.6 GW capacity going offline until 2022 (per https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2019-01/kohlekommission-kohleausstieg-bundesregierung-plan-kraftwerke-braunkohle https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2019-01/kohlekommission-kohle...). What's left will be gas and renewables.
      - bboygravity 7y ago
        It is planned to be phased out. Just like nuclear. That means that within 15 years Germany will have to replace roughly 70 % of its constant energy sources (nuclear and coals) by the only scalable constant energy source left: gas. Thereby becoming completely reliant on gas from Russia. Creating a massive geopolicital risk that didn't exist previously. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Germany-Electricity-Generation.png http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/201... I'll believe it when I see it. Also. What problem exactly is that supposed to solve? I thought the whole energiewende stunt was about decreasing CO2 emissions. I'm not seeing this.
        imtringued 7y ago
        >by the only scalable constant energy source left: gas. What makes you think coal and nuclear are scalable? Gas has been the only option from the start and simply switching from coal to gas already results in a 50-60% CO2 reduction.
- freeflight 7y ago
  > Case in point: closing nuclear plants and replacing them with renewables is what Germany has been trying to do and has failed to do so far. Germany was the global top electricity exporter, by dollar value, in 2017 [0]. If that's what "failing" looks like, then maybe more countries should start "failing" like that? In that context, coal and gas are only stop-gap technologies until storage technology and deployment has caught up, and coal is mostly only around for the same reasons as in the US: To not piss off the miners/lose those jobs. [0] http://www.worldstopexports.com/electricity-exports-country/ http://www.worldstopexports.com/electricity-exports-country/
  - Faark 7y ago
    The talking point i usually hear against this is "germany exports the huge fluctuation in production caused by green energy to the eu grid, straining the entire system". I haven't come across a good argument against this. Import/Export does indeed seem to vary widely based on time of day [0]. But this doesn't mean there are negative effects. Net frequency might be a better indicator, but I haven't found good graphs, yet. > coal is mostly only around for the same reasons as in the US: To not piss off the miners/lose those jobs. Totally agree, especially lignite heavy regions don't have a lot of other industry. [0] select "import, export" at https://energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2019&week=18 https://energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2...

by mrpopo 7y ago

bboygravity 7y ago

"Renewables could work as a replacement" No. They can't as long as cheap energy storage on mass scales doesn't exist. Case in point: closing nuclear plants and replacing them with renewables is what Germany has been trying to do and has failed to do so far. They essentially replaced (and will continue to replace) nuclear by renewables paired with coal and gas plants running on standby. They can't cold start these plants fast enough to catch dips in energy production from renewables. You simply can't replace a constant energy source (nuclear) by an intermittent one (most renewables). I'm guessing South Korea will go the same route as "good example" Germany. Push renewables. Which translates to; close nuclear plants, invest heavily in solar and wind paired with gas and coal. End result: more CO2 emissions, higher consumer energy prices, but most importantly: a clean reputation through good intentions. Renewables at this stage are more about politically correct marketing than about clean and safe energy.

mschuster91 7y ago
> No. They can't as long as cheap energy storage on mass scales doesn't exist. It does, Tesla's grid-scale Powerwall made 25% of its cost in profits in 6 months (per https://insideevs.com/news/340702/tesla-powerpack-in-australia-generated-17-million-in-revenue-in-6-months/ https://insideevs.com/news/340702/tesla-powerpack-in-austral...). Aside from using Powerwalls, us Europeans have extensive experience with using hydro pump storage.
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  So why did Germany go with gas and coal?
  - Tomte 7y ago
    Germany has always had a lot of coal. It's not like Germany just started building a lot of coal plants, to replace the closed nuclear plants.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    Our coal infrastructure is on the way to be phased out, it won't be around for long-term any more - the Kohlekommission proposed 2035-2038 for the final shutdown, with 12.5 GW of 42.6 GW capacity going offline until 2022 (per https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2019-01/kohlekommission-kohleausstieg-bundesregierung-plan-kraftwerke-braunkohle https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2019-01/kohlekommission-kohle...). What's left will be gas and renewables.
    - bboygravity 7y ago
      It is planned to be phased out. Just like nuclear. That means that within 15 years Germany will have to replace roughly 70 % of its constant energy sources (nuclear and coals) by the only scalable constant energy source left: gas. Thereby becoming completely reliant on gas from Russia. Creating a massive geopolicital risk that didn't exist previously. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Germany-Electricity-Generation.png http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/201... I'll believe it when I see it. Also. What problem exactly is that supposed to solve? I thought the whole energiewende stunt was about decreasing CO2 emissions. I'm not seeing this.
      - imtringued 7y ago
        >by the only scalable constant energy source left: gas. What makes you think coal and nuclear are scalable? Gas has been the only option from the start and simply switching from coal to gas already results in a 50-60% CO2 reduction.
freeflight 7y ago
> Case in point: closing nuclear plants and replacing them with renewables is what Germany has been trying to do and has failed to do so far. Germany was the global top electricity exporter, by dollar value, in 2017 [0]. If that's what "failing" looks like, then maybe more countries should start "failing" like that? In that context, coal and gas are only stop-gap technologies until storage technology and deployment has caught up, and coal is mostly only around for the same reasons as in the US: To not piss off the miners/lose those jobs. [0] http://www.worldstopexports.com/electricity-exports-country/ http://www.worldstopexports.com/electricity-exports-country/
- Faark 7y ago
  The talking point i usually hear against this is "germany exports the huge fluctuation in production caused by green energy to the eu grid, straining the entire system". I haven't come across a good argument against this. Import/Export does indeed seem to vary widely based on time of day [0]. But this doesn't mean there are negative effects. Net frequency might be a better indicator, but I haven't found good graphs, yet. > coal is mostly only around for the same reasons as in the US: To not piss off the miners/lose those jobs. Totally agree, especially lignite heavy regions don't have a lot of other industry. [0] select "import, export" at https://energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2019&week=18 https://energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2...