6 ms·

> Mortality from existing fossil fuels is significantly worse That may very well be true but it's completely irrelevant for future choices. Not building more n

by jhgb 5y ago

> Mortality from existing fossil fuels is significantly worse That may very well be true but it's completely irrelevant for future choices. Not building more nuclear plants doesn't mean you'll be building more fossil fuel plants instead. EDIT: For all the downvoters, see the fourth chart (Gross power production in Germany 1990-2021, by source (non-stacked)) on https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c... and explain to me how they're building more fossil fuel power plants over the years while building zero nuclear power plants.

Ekaros 5y ago
So what is the currently available and reasonable in cost grid scale solution? That is to provide needed power 24/7/365 for decades to come?
- jhgb 5y ago
  So far, probably what Zerrahn et al. suggested in 2018 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292118301107 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429211...), namely overbuild renewable generation to achieve a Pareto-optimal mix of generation of storage. This doesn't prevent opportunistic uses such as demand-controlled charging of electric vehicles or demand-controlled hydrogen generation from the overgeneration which further increases the appeal of this option.
sharklazer 5y ago
Actually... it probably does. Look at the respective increase in NatGas consumption as California closes things down. Renewables can only do so much.
- jhgb 5y ago
  I don't care about California. I was talking about Germany. This whole thread is about an article on Germany. There is no such trend in Germany, as data shows.
GoldenMonkey 5y ago
It sure does.
neoromantique 5y ago
Unfortunately if we look at Germany, it means exactly that, as the electricity deficit from closing down these plants is largely offset by coal plants.
- jhgb 5y ago
  Completely wrong, as German statistics for power generation by source show. As nuclear power plants generate less and less electricity, so does German coal (with some inter-annual noise, of course, but the German trend is clear).
yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
> Not building more nuclear plants doesn't mean you'll be building more fossil fuel plants instead. Uhh… Yes it does. The data shows that. An increased reliance on renewables means a large increase in reliance on LNG.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > The data shows that. Many people are saying this. > An increased reliance on renewables means a large increase in reliance on LNG. What matters is whether increased reliance on renewables slows down the decarbonisation effort. If you have data which shows that, I'd be interested to see it. In return, let me offer a study from last year which found: "in countries with a high GDP per capita, nuclear electricity production does associate with a small drop in CO2 emissions. But in comparative terms, this drop is smaller than that associated with investments in renewable energy. And in countries with a low GDP per capita, nuclear electricity production clearly associates with CO2 emissions that tend to be higher." https://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/53376 https://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/53376
  - vlovich123 5y ago
    Solar and wind mean you need batteries (can’t do off-peak without it). This means you still need peaker plants. Even if you accelerated battery technology drastically (which I’d say is already at max R&D speed mostly), you’re looking at some fundamental challenges getting the precious materials (total volume/cost and also energy required to do the mining). Finally, my understanding is that solar and wind can’t actually be used in some energy-intensive industrial processes because they can’t generate enough heat. This means those power needs are still powered by traditional fossil fuel power plants (and too expensive to use just for the industrial purpose so it’s actually part of the energy mix for good). Solar and wind are important parts of the energy mix and.OF COURSE we need them. Nuclear is where the bulk of the focus needs to go though to actually decarbonize because it can handle literally every use case that fossil fuels do but cheaper, safer and less polluting.
    - 988747 5y ago

by jhgb 5y ago

Ekaros 5y ago

So what is the currently available and reasonable in cost grid scale solution? That is to provide needed power 24/7/365 for decades to come?

jhgb 5y ago
So far, probably what Zerrahn et al. suggested in 2018 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292118301107 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429211...), namely overbuild renewable generation to achieve a Pareto-optimal mix of generation of storage. This doesn't prevent opportunistic uses such as demand-controlled charging of electric vehicles or demand-controlled hydrogen generation from the overgeneration which further increases the appeal of this option.

sharklazer 5y ago

Actually... it probably does. Look at the respective increase in NatGas consumption as California closes things down. Renewables can only do so much.

jhgb 5y ago
I don't care about California. I was talking about Germany. This whole thread is about an article on Germany. There is no such trend in Germany, as data shows.

GoldenMonkey 5y ago

It sure does.

neoromantique 5y ago

Unfortunately if we look at Germany, it means exactly that, as the electricity deficit from closing down these plants is largely offset by coal plants.

jhgb 5y ago
Completely wrong, as German statistics for power generation by source show. As nuclear power plants generate less and less electricity, so does German coal (with some inter-annual noise, of course, but the German trend is clear).

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago

> Not building more nuclear plants doesn't mean you'll be building more fossil fuel plants instead. Uhh… Yes it does. The data shows that. An increased reliance on renewables means a large increase in reliance on LNG.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> The data shows that. Many people are saying this. > An increased reliance on renewables means a large increase in reliance on LNG. What matters is whether increased reliance on renewables slows down the decarbonisation effort. If you have data which shows that, I'd be interested to see it. In return, let me offer a study from last year which found: "in countries with a high GDP per capita, nuclear electricity production does associate with a small drop in CO2 emissions. But in comparative terms, this drop is smaller than that associated with investments in renewable energy. And in countries with a low GDP per capita, nuclear electricity production clearly associates with CO2 emissions that tend to be higher." https://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/53376 https://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/53376
- vlovich123 5y ago
  Solar and wind mean you need batteries (can’t do off-peak without it). This means you still need peaker plants. Even if you accelerated battery technology drastically (which I’d say is already at max R&D speed mostly), you’re looking at some fundamental challenges getting the precious materials (total volume/cost and also energy required to do the mining). Finally, my understanding is that solar and wind can’t actually be used in some energy-intensive industrial processes because they can’t generate enough heat. This means those power needs are still powered by traditional fossil fuel power plants (and too expensive to use just for the industrial purpose so it’s actually part of the energy mix for good). Solar and wind are important parts of the energy mix and.OF COURSE we need them. Nuclear is where the bulk of the focus needs to go though to actually decarbonize because it can handle literally every use case that fossil fuels do but cheaper, safer and less polluting.
  - 988747 5y ago