11 ms·

The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. Can you cut this "future generations are going to have to carry the cost" when the alternative is literally help

by izacus 5y ago

The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. Can you cut this "future generations are going to have to carry the cost" when the alternative is literally helping destroy the whole planet's ecosystems? Not to mention they spew up significantly more radioactivity in the air than nuclear powerplants. A 30x30m pool of radioactive fuel is nothing compared to what their powerplants are doing to the future of young generations. Is cancer caused by coal particulates really something you wish on people around you?

jhgb 5y ago
> The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. No, they did not. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/paragraph_text_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2020.png https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/p...
- melling 5y ago
  There have been several recent stories about the increase in coal usage this year. https://amp.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105 https://amp.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec... Coal is the primary source of electricity this year
  - cesarb 5y ago
    > > > The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. > > No, they did not. > There have been several recent stories about the increase in coal usage this year. But was there any closure of nuclear power plants in Germany this year? If not, you cannot say that this increase was because they have switched from nuclear to coal; they must have switched from something else. > https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec... That story implies that Germany this year switched from wind to coal (due to weaker winds), not from nuclear.
    - melling 5y ago
      So they switched from nuclear to wind to coal? Coal in the primary source of electricity. If they hadn’t reduced nuclear, coal could almost be gone? “ Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 11.63% of electricity supply in 2017[3] compared to 22.4% in 2010” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
      - jhgb 5y ago
        No, if they hadn't reduced nuclear production, the relative changes between coal and renewables would have exactly been the same, only coal would have had the same uptick from a lower 2020 value. "The increase in coal usage" would have been exactly the same regardless of whether they shut down some nuclear power plants or not. That should be obvious to you. Since this inter-annual change would have happened regardless of nuclear generation levels (unless you for some reason assume that the number of nuclear power plants operating in Germany affects German inter-annual weather changes), you can't use the nuclear generation levels to make this argument.
        talolard 5y ago
        Could you elaborate, im interested in understanding your perspective but couldn’t follow it. In my mind , uptick in coal usage was directly caused by a decrease in wind power production. I understand that if Germany had chosen nuclear over wind, that decline would not happen and thus the usage of coal would not increase. Is that not true ?
        jhgb 5y ago
        > I understand that if Germany had chosen nuclear over wind, that decline would not happen This doesn't make sense unless nuclear power plants blow additional wind. See my other comment for a simple example. Keeping nuclear plants alive vs. not keeping them alive doesn't change the picture of inter-annual generation changes unless those shutdowns happened exactly between those two years.
        5y ago
  - jhgb 5y ago
    This is completely irrelevant. The inter-annual variability means nothing in the long run since the climate only cares about long-term averages. You're ignoring the long-term trend on purpose. This doesn't mean in any way that Germany is switching from nuclear to coal. They're switching from nuclear AND coal to renewables.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      They could reduce coal dramatically by not switching from nuclear, all else being equal.
- izacus 5y ago
  This graph does not show the failure of renewables to provide sufficient power this year (it ends at 2020). The renewable power production is down for up to 40% and french nuclear power being in maintenance mode has caused the coal consumption to rise significantly.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    It's completely irrelevant. The reason for the transition is climate protection and the climate cares about long term averages - the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the order of centuries. Pushing that average baseline lower is what matters, even in the presence of occasional spikes.
aagd 5y ago
In Germany renewables are at over 42% in 2021, despite a 'conservative' government that for decades has blocked the development of windfarms and solar for the benefit of the coal and nuclear lobby. That kind of lobby-work is the actual problem here. The way forward is renewable energy. The huge difference is that the source of renewable energy is free and basically limitless.
- earthnail 5y ago
  The problem is that only a fraction of power consumption is electric. The rest is burning fossil fuels. In order to get away from these, we have to increase electricity production significantly. And we have to build a better electricity grid. It is completely unclear how renewable energy should provide this in the short or medium term (i.e. until 2050). Without nuclear, we’ll just continue burning fossil fuels.
  - WhompingWindows 5y ago
    Renewables paired with batteries can improve grid resilience, actually. Distribution of generators means less loss in the wires travelling, batteries paired with renewables to provide overnight power and load-smoothing, these are good things. Renewables also are very predictable, so you can use a little natural gas to supplement at night while you build out batteries and more wind. Solar will take care of our day-time needs no problem, it's the overnight stretches and the wind-less winters where nuclear would really shine.
    - izacus 5y ago
      How much batteries and renewables do you need to provide baseline power on the level of a single 1000MW nuclear plant? And how will you construct all that sooner than constructing those plants?
      - jhgb 5y ago
        Batteries are a bit of a red herring. The combination of pumped storage plants, overgeneration, and demand response already has you covered for at least two decades even in Germany. The minimal cost solution calculated for Germany assumes 1.6 GWh of storage for your 1000 MW nuclear equivalent for a 60% RE penetration scenario, only some of which needs to be batteries (Germany is currently at ~45% or so, many other countries are considerably behind). At the expense of extra costs, lower storage could be compensated for by higher overgeneration (= by not consuming all the power you produce). However, this was all calculated for current grid conditions. Spread of BEVs would likely put dedicated grid storage needs lower, since in Germany, for each of your 1000 MW nuclear equivalents, there's 700k cars which already have ~600 MWh of storage capacity even just in form of lead-acid batteries, and even replacing just 10% of these cars with 40 kWh BEVs would give you a whopping 2.8 GWh of capacity per your 1000 MW nuclear equivalent, necessitating higher overgeneration to provide the vehicles with motive energy and lowering grid storage capacity because of demand response ("smart charging"). For reference, a 100% replacement of ICE cars with BEVs in Germany would require a ~25% increase in average power generation - by around 250 MW of average power per your 1000 MW nuclear equivalent. Electrolytic hydrogen production would do exactly the same thing to grid storage - require more generators, and with demand response, lower grid storage capacity. Just replacing German ammonia with "green" ammonia using electrolysis would necessitate another 60 MW of average power generation per your 1000 MW equivalent that could be subject to demand response.
svara 5y ago
I agree it would have been better to phase out coal before nuclear, but it's not correct to say that there was a switch from nuclear to coal. The switch was from nuclear to renewables. Coal was stable for a long time, and is now decreasing. Coal is currently scheduled to be phased out by 2038. Source: Quick Google image search for the power sources over time plots.
- hiq 5y ago
  > Source: Quick Google image search for the power sources over time plots. Which plot did you use exactly? Another comment written before yours seems to indicate it's not the case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28856599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28856599 > Coal was stable for a long time, and is now decreasing. Over which time period? The stats in the article they link indicate a switch from 21 to 27% for coal, from 52 to 44% for renewables, when comparing the first halves of 2020 and 2021. If there's a downward trend, it's less than obvious.
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    A time period of one year is too short to draw trend conclusions, it really doesn't tell us anything about the (long term) trend. It's like using the weather from last year and comparing it to this year to say something about the climate. Look at 5 years or 10 years to spot energy trends.
- google234123 5y ago
  You shouldn't believe a plot the projects that far :P
xg15 5y ago
Coal is being phased out until 2038 if not earlier. The future is neither coal, nor nuclear.
inter_netuser 5y ago
There is no "waste". Waste is just partially burned fuel. There is only ONE reason why it exists. We made a political choice that storing partially burned fuel instead of reprocessing is safer than allow people have technology that can also create nuclear weapons.

by izacus 5y ago

jhgb 5y ago

> The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. No, they did not. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/paragraph_text_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2020.png https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/p...

melling 5y ago
There have been several recent stories about the increase in coal usage this year. https://amp.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105 https://amp.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec... Coal is the primary source of electricity this year
- cesarb 5y ago
  > > > The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. > > No, they did not. > There have been several recent stories about the increase in coal usage this year. But was there any closure of nuclear power plants in Germany this year? If not, you cannot say that this increase was because they have switched from nuclear to coal; they must have switched from something else. > https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec... That story implies that Germany this year switched from wind to coal (due to weaker winds), not from nuclear.
  - melling 5y ago
    So they switched from nuclear to wind to coal? Coal in the primary source of electricity. If they hadn’t reduced nuclear, coal could almost be gone? “ Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 11.63% of electricity supply in 2017[3] compared to 22.4% in 2010” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
    - jhgb 5y ago
      No, if they hadn't reduced nuclear production, the relative changes between coal and renewables would have exactly been the same, only coal would have had the same uptick from a lower 2020 value. "The increase in coal usage" would have been exactly the same regardless of whether they shut down some nuclear power plants or not. That should be obvious to you. Since this inter-annual change would have happened regardless of nuclear generation levels (unless you for some reason assume that the number of nuclear power plants operating in Germany affects German inter-annual weather changes), you can't use the nuclear generation levels to make this argument.
      - talolard 5y ago
        Could you elaborate, im interested in understanding your perspective but couldn’t follow it. In my mind , uptick in coal usage was directly caused by a decrease in wind power production. I understand that if Germany had chosen nuclear over wind, that decline would not happen and thus the usage of coal would not increase. Is that not true ?
        jhgb 5y ago
        > I understand that if Germany had chosen nuclear over wind, that decline would not happen This doesn't make sense unless nuclear power plants blow additional wind. See my other comment for a simple example. Keeping nuclear plants alive vs. not keeping them alive doesn't change the picture of inter-annual generation changes unless those shutdowns happened exactly between those two years.
      - 5y ago
- jhgb 5y ago
  This is completely irrelevant. The inter-annual variability means nothing in the long run since the climate only cares about long-term averages. You're ignoring the long-term trend on purpose. This doesn't mean in any way that Germany is switching from nuclear to coal. They're switching from nuclear AND coal to renewables.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    They could reduce coal dramatically by not switching from nuclear, all else being equal.
izacus 5y ago
This graph does not show the failure of renewables to provide sufficient power this year (it ends at 2020). The renewable power production is down for up to 40% and french nuclear power being in maintenance mode has caused the coal consumption to rise significantly.
- jhgb 5y ago
  It's completely irrelevant. The reason for the transition is climate protection and the climate cares about long term averages - the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the order of centuries. Pushing that average baseline lower is what matters, even in the presence of occasional spikes.

aagd 5y ago

In Germany renewables are at over 42% in 2021, despite a 'conservative' government that for decades has blocked the development of windfarms and solar for the benefit of the coal and nuclear lobby. That kind of lobby-work is the actual problem here. The way forward is renewable energy. The huge difference is that the source of renewable energy is free and basically limitless.

earthnail 5y ago
The problem is that only a fraction of power consumption is electric. The rest is burning fossil fuels. In order to get away from these, we have to increase electricity production significantly. And we have to build a better electricity grid. It is completely unclear how renewable energy should provide this in the short or medium term (i.e. until 2050). Without nuclear, we’ll just continue burning fossil fuels.
- WhompingWindows 5y ago
  Renewables paired with batteries can improve grid resilience, actually. Distribution of generators means less loss in the wires travelling, batteries paired with renewables to provide overnight power and load-smoothing, these are good things. Renewables also are very predictable, so you can use a little natural gas to supplement at night while you build out batteries and more wind. Solar will take care of our day-time needs no problem, it's the overnight stretches and the wind-less winters where nuclear would really shine.
  - izacus 5y ago
    How much batteries and renewables do you need to provide baseline power on the level of a single 1000MW nuclear plant? And how will you construct all that sooner than constructing those plants?
    - jhgb 5y ago
      Batteries are a bit of a red herring. The combination of pumped storage plants, overgeneration, and demand response already has you covered for at least two decades even in Germany. The minimal cost solution calculated for Germany assumes 1.6 GWh of storage for your 1000 MW nuclear equivalent for a 60% RE penetration scenario, only some of which needs to be batteries (Germany is currently at ~45% or so, many other countries are considerably behind). At the expense of extra costs, lower storage could be compensated for by higher overgeneration (= by not consuming all the power you produce). However, this was all calculated for current grid conditions. Spread of BEVs would likely put dedicated grid storage needs lower, since in Germany, for each of your 1000 MW nuclear equivalents, there's 700k cars which already have ~600 MWh of storage capacity even just in form of lead-acid batteries, and even replacing just 10% of these cars with 40 kWh BEVs would give you a whopping 2.8 GWh of capacity per your 1000 MW nuclear equivalent, necessitating higher overgeneration to provide the vehicles with motive energy and lowering grid storage capacity because of demand response ("smart charging"). For reference, a 100% replacement of ICE cars with BEVs in Germany would require a ~25% increase in average power generation - by around 250 MW of average power per your 1000 MW nuclear equivalent. Electrolytic hydrogen production would do exactly the same thing to grid storage - require more generators, and with demand response, lower grid storage capacity. Just replacing German ammonia with "green" ammonia using electrolysis would necessitate another 60 MW of average power generation per your 1000 MW equivalent that could be subject to demand response.

svara 5y ago

I agree it would have been better to phase out coal before nuclear, but it's not correct to say that there was a switch from nuclear to coal. The switch was from nuclear to renewables. Coal was stable for a long time, and is now decreasing. Coal is currently scheduled to be phased out by 2038. Source: Quick Google image search for the power sources over time plots.

hiq 5y ago
> Source: Quick Google image search for the power sources over time plots. Which plot did you use exactly? Another comment written before yours seems to indicate it's not the case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28856599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28856599 > Coal was stable for a long time, and is now decreasing. Over which time period? The stats in the article they link indicate a switch from 21 to 27% for coal, from 52 to 44% for renewables, when comparing the first halves of 2020 and 2021. If there's a downward trend, it's less than obvious.
- cinntaile 5y ago
  A time period of one year is too short to draw trend conclusions, it really doesn't tell us anything about the (long term) trend. It's like using the weather from last year and comparing it to this year to say something about the climate. Look at 5 years or 10 years to spot energy trends.
google234123 5y ago
You shouldn't believe a plot the projects that far :P

xg15 5y ago

Coal is being phased out until 2038 if not earlier. The future is neither coal, nor nuclear.

inter_netuser 5y ago

There is no "waste". Waste is just partially burned fuel. There is only ONE reason why it exists. We made a political choice that storing partially burned fuel instead of reprocessing is safer than allow people have technology that can also create nuclear weapons.