7 ms·

The Energiewende is actually one of the reasons I still live in Germany: I want to see how it happens. It is stuff that our grandchildren will be proud of. And

by geff82 7y ago

The Energiewende is actually one of the reasons I still live in Germany: I want to see how it happens. It is stuff that our grandchildren will be proud of. And by the way, private energy consumption is heavily taxed (for a good reason), yet energy hungry industries are exempt from it. And they feel the effect: because of the growing effect of the renewable energies, they now pay one of the lowest electricity prices in the world. There are actually good books that explain how all this works, why there are also short term "unsuccessful" years and how about everything will benefit in the end. And, most importantly: why the Energiewende actually enables a comfortable, good life.

sampo 7y ago
> It is stuff that our grandchildren will be proud of. The French can be proud today, consuming electricity with 1/6 of the carbon footprint per kWh, compared to electricity in Germany. And paying half the price, too, compared to what electricity costs in Germany. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920916307933 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192091...
- geff82 7y ago
  CO2 is not the only thing that counts. One of those "clean" nuclear plants blows up and we can essentially close our countries or all die of cancer.
  - jwr 7y ago
    Nuclear plants do not "blow up", at least not the ones that are built after Chernobyl. Please stop spreading FUD.
    - geff82 7y ago
      Tell me about it and tell me why they seem to be no alternative.
    - choeger 7y ago
      Fukushima did blow up. Saw it live on TV. In fact, anything that creates that much thermal energy in a pressurized environment has a chance to blow up. Fission is a pointless, dirty, expensive technology when it comes to power generation on Earth. It is also not that friendly to the environment once you consider the huge infrastructure you have to operate. But the worst thing is that it is not scalable. Think about exchanging all coal and gas power plants with nuclear reactors, consider the safety and proliferation issues and then tell me that PV with chemical storage is not much simpler solution.
      - vidarh 7y ago
        You can blow up a Chernobyl type nuclear plant a year and it'd still be better than coal. Until we've gotten rid of coal shutting down nuclear and delaying decommissioning of coal to take up the slack involves causing mass death. Coal is only 'acceptable' because the consequences are not as immediately visible. PV might well be a better option once we've shut down all fossil fuel plants but in the meantime shutting down nuclear is irresponsible and immoral if it delays decommissioning of other types of plants.
    - jhayward 7y ago
      Why do you keep posting this lie? Chernobyl's unit 4 was destroyed by an explosion. Fukushima had multiple explosions that destroyed the upper levels of reactor buildings, and ruptured the containment of unit 2. During the three mile island accident there were several days where engineers were sweating bullets because there was a hydrogen gas bubble at the top of the pressure vessel, and they were afraid it would explode. It was only after about a week of effort that they were able to eliminate the H2 bubble. Every nuclear reactor has the possibility of immense damage due to explosion - steam explosions, explosive gas, and secondary systems such as diesel and electrical system. It is one of the primary hazards that control systems and emergency cooling and venting are there to deal with. Lying to everyone that it's not possible isn't helpful to the nuclear community.
      - Nimitz14 7y ago
        They do not blow up in the sense of a nuclear explosion. It's a normal explosion. With normal consequences.
        jhayward 7y ago
        When you blow up a bunch of radioactive material in a large steam explosion you get widespread contamination from fallout and a massive cleanup necessary to recover the scattered material, as well as dealing with the melted core material. That's not "normal".
        anoncake 7y ago
        They blow up in the sense of a dirty bomb. That's a lot worse. It would be great if NPPs just blew up in a nuclear explosion! We could safely use them by making the blast radius a forbidden zone.
        Nimitz14 7y ago
        > They blow up in the sense of a dirty bomb. That's a lot worse. It would be great if NPPs just blew up in a nuclear explosion! We could safely use them by making the blast radius a forbidden zone. I do not know how to respond politely to such a ridiculous statement.
  - scarmig 7y ago
    > CO2 is not the only thing that counts. In terms of existential threats to human life as we know it, it is. The choices aren't "renewables and nuclear" or "renewables and ponies and magical unicorns." The choice is what proportion of energy do we want from nuclear vs renewables vs fossil fuels. The best option is reducing energy requirements. After that, though, a large proportion of every unit of nuclear energy you ban goes straight to fossil fuels. Which is death.
    - geff82 7y ago
      Energiewende is no ponies and magical unicorns, it is a quite well thought out system to about zero CO2 ouput in 2050 (except some industries like steel production where fossils will be needed for some time to come until better chemical processes are found). 2050 is not the number that "Fridays for future" want to hear, but still ambitious enough to really make a difference. A lot of new infrastructure has to be built (and is currently built) and paid for (that is why I gladly pay my 28,9 cents/KwH). It is a giant project, but mostly it is using technology we know and can use today. We just have to scale it.
      - Gondolin 7y ago
        No it is not zero CO2 output in 2050 but about 65% reduction only, or 80% if a 25% reduction of electricity consumption is achieved. This is 1) too late, 2) not even on par with France's electricity C02 production. And a nuclear accident would not involve closing the whole country, it would involve an exclusion zone of 10-20 km (Fukushima exclusion zone is 20km, but it include zones where the residue radioactivity is <50 mSievert, way less than some natural radioactive places), a whole lot of economic damage (but negligible compared to climate change), and between 0 and (at worst) a few thousand deaths.
        ranbumo 7y ago
        When you put it this way, you might as well say that a major accident that takes out half of Western Europe would be neglige in comparison. German plants are old. There's issues with a few of them. Decommissioning them seems inevitable. The question is whether building new nuclear plants, at probably about 15+ years for the first plant to start operations, is really a better option than investing in renewables?
- petre 7y ago
  Not only that but their move to renewables will be more hassle free as they have enough base load power to compensate for lack of wind and sun, more shoreline and sunnier areas south of Bordeaux.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    No, it won't. To compensate for the fluctuating energy output of solar and wind, you need storage and plants that can be throttled quickly, not nuclear reactors that pretty much can't.
akrauss 7y ago
Which books are you referring to? I’m interested...
- geff82 7y ago
  Read this one and it is a compact, very well written book: Energiewende verstehen: Die Zukunft von Autoverkehr, Heizen und Strompreisen https://www.amazon.de/dp/3662577860 https://www.amazon.de/dp/3662577860 I gave it to many friends so they can educate themselves about the topic.
eukgoekoko 7y ago
> yet energy hungry industries are exempt from it. And they feel the effect: because of the growing effect of the renewable energies, they now pay one of the lowest electricity prices in the world. Not sure about the whole world, but Germany definitely has one of highest prices for elctricity in Europe: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Electricity_prices_for_non-household_consumers,_first_half_2018_(EUR_per_kWh).png https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
- geff82 7y ago
  You are not contradicting what I said. Consumers pay a lot (and always have). I said that energy hungry enterprises are exempt from it.
  - eukgoekoko 7y ago
    > I said that energy hungry enterprises are exempt from it. That's not what I was arguing with. Your statement about "they now pay one of the lowest electricity prices in the world" is just terribly untrue.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - geff82 7y ago
      I just looked up the 2015 numbers for you (I do not have newer data at my desk right now, but the number for Germany is supposed to shrink). In USA and France, energy hungry industries pay 4 cents/KwH, Germany pays 5 cents, China 6, UK 8 and Japan 12. As said, consumers pay more than in most or all other countries. But due to more energy efficient technologies, the actual percentage of income that is paid for electricity stayed about the same.

by geff82 7y ago

sampo 7y ago

> It is stuff that our grandchildren will be proud of. The French can be proud today, consuming electricity with 1/6 of the carbon footprint per kWh, compared to electricity in Germany. And paying half the price, too, compared to what electricity costs in Germany. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920916307933 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192091...

geff82 7y ago
CO2 is not the only thing that counts. One of those "clean" nuclear plants blows up and we can essentially close our countries or all die of cancer.
- jwr 7y ago
  Nuclear plants do not "blow up", at least not the ones that are built after Chernobyl. Please stop spreading FUD.
  - geff82 7y ago
    Tell me about it and tell me why they seem to be no alternative.
  - choeger 7y ago
    Fukushima did blow up. Saw it live on TV. In fact, anything that creates that much thermal energy in a pressurized environment has a chance to blow up. Fission is a pointless, dirty, expensive technology when it comes to power generation on Earth. It is also not that friendly to the environment once you consider the huge infrastructure you have to operate. But the worst thing is that it is not scalable. Think about exchanging all coal and gas power plants with nuclear reactors, consider the safety and proliferation issues and then tell me that PV with chemical storage is not much simpler solution.
    - vidarh 7y ago
      You can blow up a Chernobyl type nuclear plant a year and it'd still be better than coal. Until we've gotten rid of coal shutting down nuclear and delaying decommissioning of coal to take up the slack involves causing mass death. Coal is only 'acceptable' because the consequences are not as immediately visible. PV might well be a better option once we've shut down all fossil fuel plants but in the meantime shutting down nuclear is irresponsible and immoral if it delays decommissioning of other types of plants.
  - jhayward 7y ago
    Why do you keep posting this lie? Chernobyl's unit 4 was destroyed by an explosion. Fukushima had multiple explosions that destroyed the upper levels of reactor buildings, and ruptured the containment of unit 2. During the three mile island accident there were several days where engineers were sweating bullets because there was a hydrogen gas bubble at the top of the pressure vessel, and they were afraid it would explode. It was only after about a week of effort that they were able to eliminate the H2 bubble. Every nuclear reactor has the possibility of immense damage due to explosion - steam explosions, explosive gas, and secondary systems such as diesel and electrical system. It is one of the primary hazards that control systems and emergency cooling and venting are there to deal with. Lying to everyone that it's not possible isn't helpful to the nuclear community.
    - Nimitz14 7y ago
      They do not blow up in the sense of a nuclear explosion. It's a normal explosion. With normal consequences.
      - jhayward 7y ago
        When you blow up a bunch of radioactive material in a large steam explosion you get widespread contamination from fallout and a massive cleanup necessary to recover the scattered material, as well as dealing with the melted core material. That's not "normal".
      - anoncake 7y ago
        They blow up in the sense of a dirty bomb. That's a lot worse. It would be great if NPPs just blew up in a nuclear explosion! We could safely use them by making the blast radius a forbidden zone.
        Nimitz14 7y ago
        > They blow up in the sense of a dirty bomb. That's a lot worse. It would be great if NPPs just blew up in a nuclear explosion! We could safely use them by making the blast radius a forbidden zone. I do not know how to respond politely to such a ridiculous statement.
- scarmig 7y ago
  > CO2 is not the only thing that counts. In terms of existential threats to human life as we know it, it is. The choices aren't "renewables and nuclear" or "renewables and ponies and magical unicorns." The choice is what proportion of energy do we want from nuclear vs renewables vs fossil fuels. The best option is reducing energy requirements. After that, though, a large proportion of every unit of nuclear energy you ban goes straight to fossil fuels. Which is death.
  - geff82 7y ago
    Energiewende is no ponies and magical unicorns, it is a quite well thought out system to about zero CO2 ouput in 2050 (except some industries like steel production where fossils will be needed for some time to come until better chemical processes are found). 2050 is not the number that "Fridays for future" want to hear, but still ambitious enough to really make a difference. A lot of new infrastructure has to be built (and is currently built) and paid for (that is why I gladly pay my 28,9 cents/KwH). It is a giant project, but mostly it is using technology we know and can use today. We just have to scale it.
    - Gondolin 7y ago
      No it is not zero CO2 output in 2050 but about 65% reduction only, or 80% if a 25% reduction of electricity consumption is achieved. This is 1) too late, 2) not even on par with France's electricity C02 production. And a nuclear accident would not involve closing the whole country, it would involve an exclusion zone of 10-20 km (Fukushima exclusion zone is 20km, but it include zones where the residue radioactivity is <50 mSievert, way less than some natural radioactive places), a whole lot of economic damage (but negligible compared to climate change), and between 0 and (at worst) a few thousand deaths.
      - ranbumo 7y ago
        When you put it this way, you might as well say that a major accident that takes out half of Western Europe would be neglige in comparison. German plants are old. There's issues with a few of them. Decommissioning them seems inevitable. The question is whether building new nuclear plants, at probably about 15+ years for the first plant to start operations, is really a better option than investing in renewables?
petre 7y ago
Not only that but their move to renewables will be more hassle free as they have enough base load power to compensate for lack of wind and sun, more shoreline and sunnier areas south of Bordeaux.
- anoncake 7y ago
  No, it won't. To compensate for the fluctuating energy output of solar and wind, you need storage and plants that can be throttled quickly, not nuclear reactors that pretty much can't.

akrauss 7y ago

Which books are you referring to? I’m interested...

geff82 7y ago
Read this one and it is a compact, very well written book: Energiewende verstehen: Die Zukunft von Autoverkehr, Heizen und Strompreisen https://www.amazon.de/dp/3662577860 https://www.amazon.de/dp/3662577860 I gave it to many friends so they can educate themselves about the topic.

eukgoekoko 7y ago

> yet energy hungry industries are exempt from it. And they feel the effect: because of the growing effect of the renewable energies, they now pay one of the lowest electricity prices in the world. Not sure about the whole world, but Germany definitely has one of highest prices for elctricity in Europe: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Electricity_prices_for_non-household_consumers,_first_half_2018_(EUR_per_kWh).png https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

geff82 7y ago
You are not contradicting what I said. Consumers pay a lot (and always have). I said that energy hungry enterprises are exempt from it.
- eukgoekoko 7y ago
  > I said that energy hungry enterprises are exempt from it. That's not what I was arguing with. Your statement about "they now pay one of the lowest electricity prices in the world" is just terribly untrue.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - geff82 7y ago
    I just looked up the 2015 numbers for you (I do not have newer data at my desk right now, but the number for Germany is supposed to shrink). In USA and France, energy hungry industries pay 4 cents/KwH, Germany pays 5 cents, China 6, UK 8 and Japan 12. As said, consumers pay more than in most or all other countries. But due to more energy efficient technologies, the actual percentage of income that is paid for electricity stayed about the same.