5 ms·

Shutting down nuclear to buy coal sounds pretty countereffective. What was the justification for this decision?

by praptak 5y ago

kingkawn 5y ago
Fukushima.
rmbyrro 5y ago
No one decided to do this, it's just OP's predictions. OP might turn out to be wrong. Or right...
Ekaros 5y ago
Nuclear is "bad" and scary... Plus you know nuclear weapons. And solar and wind produce plenty... Apart form times when they do not, like many times during winter.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Continent sized landmasses can survive on wind and solar assuming HVDC interconnects. Some storage would be nice to have, preferably more than a weeks' worth.
  - dijit 5y ago
    This is an extremely naive assumption. Do you have any citations for such a theory? Everything I’ve read on the subject (admittedly not much) tells me that wind power is not only a disaster ecologically (kills too many birds, though not as many as domestic cats) but also unable to produce enough power to govern everything even with interconnects. Distribution of power is also difficult, but there was notably a “still” winter in Sweden which is driving up prices significantly due to hydro not being enough. (I live here, that’s how I know)
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      I don't really understand the strong position you take while at the same time admitting to not having read much on the subject, and then to regurgitate a bunch of debunked nonsense. This is not a good basis for a discussion.
      - dijit 5y ago
        “Citation please” “Everything I have read contradicts what you just stated.” Not sure how I could be clearer. Maybe I made a mistake by admitting my ignorance, but i would rather admit my ignorance than assume I know everything because I read 5 articles and watched a few YouTube videos.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        For starters HVDC lines are being installed in many places and many are already operational, and the 'windmills kill too many birds' thing was a push by the fossil fuel industry and has been debunked. I don't know which five articles you have read but I suggest you read a couple more and more recent ones. As for 'citation please': that does presume that you have done your own homework, I really don't see why I should do it for you but as to those first two points of yours: https://theconversation.com/wind-farms-are-hardly-the-bird-slayers-theyre-made-out-to-be-heres-why-79567 https://theconversation.com/wind-farms-are-hardly-the-bird-s... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects Some of those links are well over 1000 km long.
        dijit 5y ago
        I appreciate the citations and I will read them. > I really don't see why I should do it for you Because the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Only if the claim is an outrageous one, which it really isn't in this case.
  - jules 5y ago
    Let's approximate the cost of that. The energy consumption of my country (the Netherlands) was 3157 PJ in 2017. This was 980 kwh per person per week. Solar batteries cost a bit more than $1000 per kwh. So at these prices this plan costs approximately $1 million per person. Solar batteries last 5-15 years. If we say that they last 20 years, then the energy storage costs are $130 per person per day per week's worth of storage. This plan sounds feasible if costs come down by factor of 10.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      How does it compare to the cost of a nuclear power plant? Storing a weeks worth of consumption on a 'per person' basis can be done for a fraction of $1m. But energy scarcity will lead to an increase in prices, which in turn will lead to a reduction in consumption. One big problem with energy is that it is still way too cheap. Another problem is that there are a lot of subsidies involved for large consumers as well as extra taxation on small consumers.
      - jules 5y ago
        Generating that amount of energy using nuclear would cost approximately $13.4 per person per day (IIRC ~3x what we're currently paying for it). Note that I have not included the cost to generate the energy in the $130 storage costs, but that cost is negligible compared to the $130 anyway. The environmental damage would probably also be much less with nuclear, versus a ton of solar + wind + batteries. But there would be disaster danger. It is unclear to me how the danger of nuclear disaster would compare to the danger of running out of stored energy in a winter month. > Storing a weeks worth of consumption on a 'per person' basis can be done for a fraction of $1m. How? Since the costs of storage are currently so huge, it seems to me that if you want to go the solar + wind route, it makes sense to overprovision energy generation. That would reduce the amount of storage you need, and the extra energy during summer would be somewhat useful. Note however that you would need massive amounts of wind+solar. For an average household to satisfy its electricity needs, it needs ~10 average size solar panels (assuming perfect storage). However, household electricity use is only 5% of our energy use. So to satisfy energy needs with solar, you need approximately 200 solar panels per household. Even if you round that down to 50 due to reduction in energy consumption and use of wind energy, it's still a lot. But the Netherlands is obviously not a very good country for solar. In countries like Australia, the numbers would look way better.
whiteboardr 5y ago
Solely political for federal elections following the Fukushima incident. It’s sad, and almost infuriating, how an event that would never threaten safe nuclear plant operation in Germany set the stone rolling for “Energiewende”. Personally i think Germany is making a huge mistake and will regret this course down the road.
- jhgb 5y ago
  Germany finalized the plans for a nuclear shutdown somewhere around 2021 in a binding law in 2002 (apparently this was based on "remaining energy to be generated", which doesn't naturally allow to put a precise date on it because of annual variations of demand, but all estimates I've seen in the past basically amount to "by very early 2020s"). This was 9 years before the Fukushima disaster. So please explain to me how this was "solely political for federal elections following the Fukushima incident". They would have needed a working crystal ball for that.
  - whiteboardr 5y ago
    This actually dates back to 1998 when Schröder was chancellor and made the “Atomausstieg” a key topic for federal elections back then - agreed upon by the government and energy corps in 2000. Momentum really was gained after fukushima. Again, my personal opinion, this is a reactionary and short sighted approach answering emotional sentiments not scientific data and facts.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      As far as I can tell, it became a law in 2002. I'm not sure how "momentum really was gained after Fukushima" when the phase-out procedures had to be followed ever since 2002. The whole thing has been in motion for almost twenty years.
      - whiteboardr 5y ago
        My point is: it is a (really) dumb idea for a country that is facing serious infrastructural issues. The days of great “german engineering” are mostly (i said “mostly”, ok?) a thing of the past - reality has it that this country lost focus and misses out on vital long-term investements and vision. And unfortunately most of this is driven on a political scale intertwined with classic german big corporations. The “Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport” has been a joke from the beginning and is a showcase of how incompetent politicians can ruin a country. Try making a call longer than 20 minutes while driving without it being dropped, charge your car… Sorry for the rant, but it’s just sad where this is going.

Shutting down nuclear to buy coal sounds pretty countereffective. What was the justification for this decision?

kingkawn 5y ago

Fukushima.

rmbyrro 5y ago

No one decided to do this, it's just OP's predictions. OP might turn out to be wrong. Or right...

Ekaros 5y ago

Nuclear is "bad" and scary... Plus you know nuclear weapons. And solar and wind produce plenty... Apart form times when they do not, like many times during winter.

jacquesm 5y ago
Continent sized landmasses can survive on wind and solar assuming HVDC interconnects. Some storage would be nice to have, preferably more than a weeks' worth.
- dijit 5y ago
  This is an extremely naive assumption. Do you have any citations for such a theory? Everything I’ve read on the subject (admittedly not much) tells me that wind power is not only a disaster ecologically (kills too many birds, though not as many as domestic cats) but also unable to produce enough power to govern everything even with interconnects. Distribution of power is also difficult, but there was notably a “still” winter in Sweden which is driving up prices significantly due to hydro not being enough. (I live here, that’s how I know)
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    I don't really understand the strong position you take while at the same time admitting to not having read much on the subject, and then to regurgitate a bunch of debunked nonsense. This is not a good basis for a discussion.
    - dijit 5y ago
      “Citation please” “Everything I have read contradicts what you just stated.” Not sure how I could be clearer. Maybe I made a mistake by admitting my ignorance, but i would rather admit my ignorance than assume I know everything because I read 5 articles and watched a few YouTube videos.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        For starters HVDC lines are being installed in many places and many are already operational, and the 'windmills kill too many birds' thing was a push by the fossil fuel industry and has been debunked. I don't know which five articles you have read but I suggest you read a couple more and more recent ones. As for 'citation please': that does presume that you have done your own homework, I really don't see why I should do it for you but as to those first two points of yours: https://theconversation.com/wind-farms-are-hardly-the-bird-slayers-theyre-made-out-to-be-heres-why-79567 https://theconversation.com/wind-farms-are-hardly-the-bird-s... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects Some of those links are well over 1000 km long.
        dijit 5y ago
        I appreciate the citations and I will read them. > I really don't see why I should do it for you Because the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Only if the claim is an outrageous one, which it really isn't in this case.
- jules 5y ago
  Let's approximate the cost of that. The energy consumption of my country (the Netherlands) was 3157 PJ in 2017. This was 980 kwh per person per week. Solar batteries cost a bit more than $1000 per kwh. So at these prices this plan costs approximately $1 million per person. Solar batteries last 5-15 years. If we say that they last 20 years, then the energy storage costs are $130 per person per day per week's worth of storage. This plan sounds feasible if costs come down by factor of 10.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    How does it compare to the cost of a nuclear power plant? Storing a weeks worth of consumption on a 'per person' basis can be done for a fraction of $1m. But energy scarcity will lead to an increase in prices, which in turn will lead to a reduction in consumption. One big problem with energy is that it is still way too cheap. Another problem is that there are a lot of subsidies involved for large consumers as well as extra taxation on small consumers.
    - jules 5y ago
      Generating that amount of energy using nuclear would cost approximately $13.4 per person per day (IIRC ~3x what we're currently paying for it). Note that I have not included the cost to generate the energy in the $130 storage costs, but that cost is negligible compared to the $130 anyway. The environmental damage would probably also be much less with nuclear, versus a ton of solar + wind + batteries. But there would be disaster danger. It is unclear to me how the danger of nuclear disaster would compare to the danger of running out of stored energy in a winter month. > Storing a weeks worth of consumption on a 'per person' basis can be done for a fraction of $1m. How? Since the costs of storage are currently so huge, it seems to me that if you want to go the solar + wind route, it makes sense to overprovision energy generation. That would reduce the amount of storage you need, and the extra energy during summer would be somewhat useful. Note however that you would need massive amounts of wind+solar. For an average household to satisfy its electricity needs, it needs ~10 average size solar panels (assuming perfect storage). However, household electricity use is only 5% of our energy use. So to satisfy energy needs with solar, you need approximately 200 solar panels per household. Even if you round that down to 50 due to reduction in energy consumption and use of wind energy, it's still a lot. But the Netherlands is obviously not a very good country for solar. In countries like Australia, the numbers would look way better.

whiteboardr 5y ago

Solely political for federal elections following the Fukushima incident. It’s sad, and almost infuriating, how an event that would never threaten safe nuclear plant operation in Germany set the stone rolling for “Energiewende”. Personally i think Germany is making a huge mistake and will regret this course down the road.

jhgb 5y ago
Germany finalized the plans for a nuclear shutdown somewhere around 2021 in a binding law in 2002 (apparently this was based on "remaining energy to be generated", which doesn't naturally allow to put a precise date on it because of annual variations of demand, but all estimates I've seen in the past basically amount to "by very early 2020s"). This was 9 years before the Fukushima disaster. So please explain to me how this was "solely political for federal elections following the Fukushima incident". They would have needed a working crystal ball for that.
- whiteboardr 5y ago
  This actually dates back to 1998 when Schröder was chancellor and made the “Atomausstieg” a key topic for federal elections back then - agreed upon by the government and energy corps in 2000. Momentum really was gained after fukushima. Again, my personal opinion, this is a reactionary and short sighted approach answering emotional sentiments not scientific data and facts.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    As far as I can tell, it became a law in 2002. I'm not sure how "momentum really was gained after Fukushima" when the phase-out procedures had to be followed ever since 2002. The whole thing has been in motion for almost twenty years.
    - whiteboardr 5y ago
      My point is: it is a (really) dumb idea for a country that is facing serious infrastructural issues. The days of great “german engineering” are mostly (i said “mostly”, ok?) a thing of the past - reality has it that this country lost focus and misses out on vital long-term investements and vision. And unfortunately most of this is driven on a political scale intertwined with classic german big corporations. The “Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport” has been a joke from the beginning and is a showcase of how incompetent politicians can ruin a country. Try making a call longer than 20 minutes while driving without it being dropped, charge your car… Sorry for the rant, but it’s just sad where this is going.