6 ms·

Nuclear I can understand. But gas?

by hadrien01 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
drran 5y ago
Yeah, nuclear is very green. Just look at Chornobyl: it's very green with lots of wild life. But gas?
- akmarinov 5y ago
  Look at all fossil fuels - they’re cooking the planet to death.
  - drran 5y ago
    So, replace fossil fuels with renewables + batteries, such as salt water battery. Moreover, batteries will improve usable performance of nuclear power stations a lot: from 1/3 of peak demand (known as base-load) up to 3/4 of peak demand, or by 2x.
- csee 5y ago
  Gas kills 40x more people than nuclear, notwithstanding climate change impact. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
  - drran 5y ago
    Nuclear make inhabitant 400x more land than gas.
    - csee 5y ago
      Nope. Nuclear is very land efficient, and you can build them in the desert far away from civilization, and the new reactors are much safer than the Chernobyl reactors.
      - drran 5y ago
        Nuclear stations are efficient until they leak or blow up. We cannot build a nuclear station in a desert, because it needs a river or a lake with fresh water for cooling. Nuclear station is the huge steam machine. It cannot work without water. Fresh water is a scarce resource. For example, nuclear station near to me (Rivne Nuclear station, North Ukraine) is at edge of closing since 2015 because of drought. It competes with the city for drinking water. The same situation is at Khmelnyck Nuclear station, Western Ukraine. New reactors are better protected from mistakes, but they are not protected from evil intent. We are at the war with RF since 2014 and this is THE problem. We already had issues with drinking water in Dnipro river, which supplies lots of cities including capital, and food after Chornobyl, but Chornobyl was just a mistake, not an act of war. Potentially, a nuclear station has enough uranium to cause environmental damage equivalent to 1M of Chornobyls.
Chyzwar 5y ago
I think Germans hope that new generation gas plants could be powered by hydrogen in the future[1]. The idea is that once we have cheap energy from wind and solar, it can be stored in hydrogen. Problem is safe storage of hydrogen[2] and problematic relationship with Russia[3] [1] https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/why-hydrogen-fired-power-plants-will-play-a-major-role-in-the-energy-transition/2-1-1045768 https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/why-hydrogen-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage [3] https://www.politico.eu/article/nord-stream-2-gas-energy-prices-europe-germany-russia-gazprom/ https://www.politico.eu/article/nord-stream-2-gas-energy-pri...
- alkonaut 5y ago
  Why not biogas? Not possible to produce enough?
  - Chyzwar 5y ago
    Previous ideas about bio fuels created disaster in Third World countries. https://www.livekindly.co/norway-ban-palm-oil-biofuel/ https://www.livekindly.co/norway-ban-palm-oil-biofuel/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-palm-oil-deforestation-climate-change/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-palm-oil-deforestati... Initially, Europe was thinking that biofuels would be a good way to support some counties, but the result was far from good. Wind and solar are the best sources of energy, but lack of good grid scale energy storage make them impractical. Once we have good and cheap batteries to store energy, than solar and wind from Africa could resolve Europe energy needs. https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/ https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      Using palm oil for biofuel sounds like the worst idea ever. I thought biogas was normally produced from wastewater treatment and trash. Sweden does around 2TWh a year of it that way which isn’t a lot (2-3% of total energy use perhaps?) but it’s, for example the only gas used to heat stockholm.
  - 5y ago
Dma54rhs 5y ago
German political interests, that's about it.
xdennis 5y ago
It's because the EU is almost entirely controlled by France and Germany. If this were up to the people of the EU (or their representatives in the EU parliament), it wouldn't stand a chance. They'd never declare gas green. But this decision was taken by the European Commission, a group that's not elected. And who leads the commission: von der Leyen, a German. It's like when they forced truckers to continuously return to their home countries. [1] Romania has basically no competitive advantage in the EU, except a cheaper workforce. When eastern European truckers started dominating transport in western Europe, Macron forced the EU to change regulations and mandate that drivers must go home every 4 weeks, wasting fuel, and thus being less competitive. [1]: https://www.transportnews.co.uk/2020/08/14/new-international-haulage-rules-force-drivers-to-return-home-every-four-weeks/ https://www.transportnews.co.uk/2020/08/14/new-international...
- relix 5y ago
  Explain how a commission of 27 commissioners, one from each member state (so 1 person from Germany and 1 person from France and 25 from the other 25 member states), with at the head a person who was elected to that position by the European Parliament, which is the group of 705 MEPs who each are in turn elected proportionally by the population of the EU, amounts to "France and Germany basically control the EU". The laws proposed by the European Commission still need to be accepted by the European Parliament as well, indeed the commission is basically fully subordinate to the parliament, so even if the European Commission was somehow "unfairly controlled by France and Germany", which I find highly suspect considering the specifications of it, the parliament is responsible in the end, and that consists entirely of elected representatives. This sounds more like typical Brexit-style anti-EU propaganda than a valid summarisation of the politics of the EU.
- timeon 5y ago
  However Germani is producing < 6% of power from gas even if the capacity is already much bigger. (heating is other story) > But this decision was taken by the European Commission, a group that's not elected. The members of European Commission are proposed by their member state governments, one from each. Do you elect directly minister or most of the posts in government? Commission and Council are appointed by national governments while only European Parliament is directly elected by citizens. Reason for this is that no national government want to lose the power. [1]: https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE

Nuclear I can understand. But gas?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

drran 5y ago

Yeah, nuclear is very green. Just look at Chornobyl: it's very green with lots of wild life. But gas?

akmarinov 5y ago
Look at all fossil fuels - they’re cooking the planet to death.
- drran 5y ago
  So, replace fossil fuels with renewables + batteries, such as salt water battery. Moreover, batteries will improve usable performance of nuclear power stations a lot: from 1/3 of peak demand (known as base-load) up to 3/4 of peak demand, or by 2x.
csee 5y ago
Gas kills 40x more people than nuclear, notwithstanding climate change impact. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- drran 5y ago
  Nuclear make inhabitant 400x more land than gas.
  - csee 5y ago
    Nope. Nuclear is very land efficient, and you can build them in the desert far away from civilization, and the new reactors are much safer than the Chernobyl reactors.
    - drran 5y ago
      Nuclear stations are efficient until they leak or blow up. We cannot build a nuclear station in a desert, because it needs a river or a lake with fresh water for cooling. Nuclear station is the huge steam machine. It cannot work without water. Fresh water is a scarce resource. For example, nuclear station near to me (Rivne Nuclear station, North Ukraine) is at edge of closing since 2015 because of drought. It competes with the city for drinking water. The same situation is at Khmelnyck Nuclear station, Western Ukraine. New reactors are better protected from mistakes, but they are not protected from evil intent. We are at the war with RF since 2014 and this is THE problem. We already had issues with drinking water in Dnipro river, which supplies lots of cities including capital, and food after Chornobyl, but Chornobyl was just a mistake, not an act of war. Potentially, a nuclear station has enough uranium to cause environmental damage equivalent to 1M of Chornobyls.

Chyzwar 5y ago

I think Germans hope that new generation gas plants could be powered by hydrogen in the future[1]. The idea is that once we have cheap energy from wind and solar, it can be stored in hydrogen. Problem is safe storage of hydrogen[2] and problematic relationship with Russia[3] [1] https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/why-hydrogen-fired-power-plants-will-play-a-major-role-in-the-energy-transition/2-1-1045768 https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/why-hydrogen-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage [3] https://www.politico.eu/article/nord-stream-2-gas-energy-prices-europe-germany-russia-gazprom/ https://www.politico.eu/article/nord-stream-2-gas-energy-pri...

alkonaut 5y ago
Why not biogas? Not possible to produce enough?
- Chyzwar 5y ago
  Previous ideas about bio fuels created disaster in Third World countries. https://www.livekindly.co/norway-ban-palm-oil-biofuel/ https://www.livekindly.co/norway-ban-palm-oil-biofuel/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-palm-oil-deforestation-climate-change/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-palm-oil-deforestati... Initially, Europe was thinking that biofuels would be a good way to support some counties, but the result was far from good. Wind and solar are the best sources of energy, but lack of good grid scale energy storage make them impractical. Once we have good and cheap batteries to store energy, than solar and wind from Africa could resolve Europe energy needs. https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/ https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    Using palm oil for biofuel sounds like the worst idea ever. I thought biogas was normally produced from wastewater treatment and trash. Sweden does around 2TWh a year of it that way which isn’t a lot (2-3% of total energy use perhaps?) but it’s, for example the only gas used to heat stockholm.
- 5y ago

Dma54rhs 5y ago

German political interests, that's about it.

xdennis 5y ago

It's because the EU is almost entirely controlled by France and Germany. If this were up to the people of the EU (or their representatives in the EU parliament), it wouldn't stand a chance. They'd never declare gas green. But this decision was taken by the European Commission, a group that's not elected. And who leads the commission: von der Leyen, a German. It's like when they forced truckers to continuously return to their home countries. [1] Romania has basically no competitive advantage in the EU, except a cheaper workforce. When eastern European truckers started dominating transport in western Europe, Macron forced the EU to change regulations and mandate that drivers must go home every 4 weeks, wasting fuel, and thus being less competitive. [1]: https://www.transportnews.co.uk/2020/08/14/new-international-haulage-rules-force-drivers-to-return-home-every-four-weeks/ https://www.transportnews.co.uk/2020/08/14/new-international...

relix 5y ago
Explain how a commission of 27 commissioners, one from each member state (so 1 person from Germany and 1 person from France and 25 from the other 25 member states), with at the head a person who was elected to that position by the European Parliament, which is the group of 705 MEPs who each are in turn elected proportionally by the population of the EU, amounts to "France and Germany basically control the EU". The laws proposed by the European Commission still need to be accepted by the European Parliament as well, indeed the commission is basically fully subordinate to the parliament, so even if the European Commission was somehow "unfairly controlled by France and Germany", which I find highly suspect considering the specifications of it, the parliament is responsible in the end, and that consists entirely of elected representatives. This sounds more like typical Brexit-style anti-EU propaganda than a valid summarisation of the politics of the EU.
timeon 5y ago
However Germani is producing < 6% of power from gas even if the capacity is already much bigger. (heating is other story) > But this decision was taken by the European Commission, a group that's not elected. The members of European Commission are proposed by their member state governments, one from each. Do you elect directly minister or most of the posts in government? Commission and Council are appointed by national governments while only European Parliament is directly elected by citizens. Reason for this is that no national government want to lose the power. [1]: https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE