9 ms·

If you double-down on renewables, then you double-down on natural gas. Germany decided to close down their nuclear and coal generation, so the only thing that i

If you double-down on renewables, then you double-down on natural gas. Germany decided to close down their nuclear and coal generation, so the only thing that is left is natural gas for base load (and to augment renewable intermittency problems).

wffurr 5y ago
Storage, transmission lines, and over provisioning are also alternatives. Still blows my mind that Germany and other countries are closing nuclear facilities though.
- chmod775 5y ago
  > Still blows my mind that Germany and other countries are closing nuclear facilities though. That's kind of a misconception. Germany isn't (and wasn't) closing any nuclear plants that weren't about to closed anyways - it was all old plants. What Germany did was not bringing online new ones and instead choosing to invest that money elsewhere.
  - HyperRational 5y ago
  - wffurr 5y ago
    That's one way to spin choosing not to extend the operating licenses of existing plants operating safely.
  - tempnow987 5y ago
    Haha. For those not following this post Fukushima germany basically cancelled / shortened the permits for a bunch of plants. This had nothing to do with plants being in such bad condition they would have closed anyways, that's a total lie in almost all cases. Germany is shutting down pretty nice later gen plants commissioned in 1989. The US is still operating much older designs commissioned in 1969 (20 years older).
  - aktenlage 5y ago
    Do you have sources? If I remember correctly the closing of nuclear facilities (that weren't about to be closed anyways) was decided in the beginning of the century, when the green party was in the government the last time. Then a Merkel-led government dropped that decision. Then the Fukushima catastrophe happened and Merkel reinstated the exit from nuclear power. What blows my mind is that by using nuclear power and creating nuclear waste for a few decades, society created a problem that coming generations have to take care of for millenia.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  Angela Merkal called this a destruction of national property, and they (CDU) extended life of plants 8-14 years. There were 17 plants at the time. Total production that has been shutdown (baseload power) is around 19,689MW now post fukushima. They've been able to replace maybe 4MW's with solar at this point? It's kind of mind boggling how much was shut down - the problem this has caused for electrification in germany is significant as now german electric prices are actually very high not low. Annual contracts for electricity are running 46 cents / kwH which is CRAZY if you want to electrify your country. France which is right next door, has much more annoying labor laws / high cost of labor is perhaps half that price.
  - orwin 5y ago
    it was 21cts/kwH last year (but sold 18cts to EDF own competitors, the liberalizations laws in europe make no sense) so i guess less than half that price.
    - tempnow987 5y ago
      My pricing was in US Dollars, so the french cost (if in euros) would be 24 cents or so. Still an amazing difference.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > They've been able to replace maybe 4MW's with solar at this point? Germany has 5.3 GW of installed solar, how can you be off by a factor of 1200?
    - tempnow987 5y ago
      Sorry - yes, should be 5,800MW. They produced 51Twh/365/24 = 5.8GW in avg delivery. Nuclear generated it's power around the clock. I'm not sure solar is covering the evening peaks and the prices for electricity make going to things like heat pumps and electric dryers much more expensive than you'd expect in germany so the economic case for electrification in germany has started to run way way behind the case in other places that have kept nuclear in the mix.
kitkat_new 5y ago
better double down on green gas
j-pb 5y ago
Or on batteries, or on liquid salt thermal storage upgrades for old fossil plants, or on hydro storage, or on salt cavern pneumatic pressure, or on hydrogen, or on regenerative iron dust cycles, or... The idea that it's nuclear or fossil for baseload is a false dichotomy, that ingores the dozens of intermediary storage solutions. Solar is currently the cheapest source of energy with a margin. Add storage to an overproduction system, and it's still cheaper. The german failure to finish the "energiewende" is a political one, driven by corrupt conservative politicians and the privatized energy sector, to press as much return out of their old investments as possible.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > The german failure to finish the "energiewende" is a political one, And that is one of the reasons that the most recent election led to the elevation of the Green Party.
  - macspoofing 5y ago
    And I'm going to make a prediction: Nothing will change because this isn't a political issue. This is a materials science, physics, and chemistry issue. We do have have a battery technology to get around solar/wind intermittency issues. Doesn't matter who is in charge.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      I assume you're saying that we don't have the battery technology. But we don't need batteries in this system. I imagine energy storage via lifting rocks uphill or giant flywheels or molten salt caves.
      - macspoofing 5y ago
        Those are batteries (i.e. things that store energy for later use). You'll notice that none of them are actually used at any scale, and certainly not to provide baseload for solar/wind.
deeviant 5y ago
I was previously ardently against nuclear power, and now I'm staunchly for it. The world needs to be rid of oil, there are few other things that have caused as much human and environment suffering as oil. Hell, I even back bio fuels, as bad as they are, as long we can conclusively show they have a major impact in oil use and aren't just a subsidy handout farmers.
- antattack 5y ago
  As invasion in Ukraine shows nuclear power plants can be taken hostage, then you're somewhat at the mercy of whomever is controlling it.
  - deeviant 5y ago
    Yep. Still for it. The plants don't need to be in non-nato countries, they need to be in NATO countries and help eliminate the need for oil.
- jka 5y ago
  Glad to hear that you're keen to move away from fossil fuels. I'd add that renewable energy production methods are currently cheaper, faster to construct, easier to secure (both in terms of perimeter and supply chain), easier to train staff for and maintain, and safer long-term than nuclear energy production methods.
  - macspoofing 5y ago
    >I'd add that renewable energy production methods are currently cheaper, faster to construct, easier to secure (both in terms of perimeter and supply chain), easier to train staff for and maintain, and safer long-term than nuclear energy production methods. ... and are not viable without baseload provided by fossil fuels. Unfortunately there is such a thing as cloudy days, night time, and days without wind.
cinntaile 5y ago
This is a bit of a blanket statement. It's more nuanced than this of course. If your energy generation is geographically spread out, there might not be a need for gas as a base load. Since Europe is getting more and more interconnected wrt electricity transport I suspect we'll get there sometime in the future but right now it's an issue. Different storage mechanisms will also help alleviate the issues, but that's also sometime in the future.
agapon 5y ago
Natural gas is not renewable though. Unless you live on a billion year timescale.

wffurr 5y ago

Storage, transmission lines, and over provisioning are also alternatives. Still blows my mind that Germany and other countries are closing nuclear facilities though.

chmod775 5y ago
> Still blows my mind that Germany and other countries are closing nuclear facilities though. That's kind of a misconception. Germany isn't (and wasn't) closing any nuclear plants that weren't about to closed anyways - it was all old plants. What Germany did was not bringing online new ones and instead choosing to invest that money elsewhere.
- HyperRational 5y ago
- wffurr 5y ago
  That's one way to spin choosing not to extend the operating licenses of existing plants operating safely.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  Haha. For those not following this post Fukushima germany basically cancelled / shortened the permits for a bunch of plants. This had nothing to do with plants being in such bad condition they would have closed anyways, that's a total lie in almost all cases. Germany is shutting down pretty nice later gen plants commissioned in 1989. The US is still operating much older designs commissioned in 1969 (20 years older).
- aktenlage 5y ago
  Do you have sources? If I remember correctly the closing of nuclear facilities (that weren't about to be closed anyways) was decided in the beginning of the century, when the green party was in the government the last time. Then a Merkel-led government dropped that decision. Then the Fukushima catastrophe happened and Merkel reinstated the exit from nuclear power. What blows my mind is that by using nuclear power and creating nuclear waste for a few decades, society created a problem that coming generations have to take care of for millenia.
tempnow987 5y ago
Angela Merkal called this a destruction of national property, and they (CDU) extended life of plants 8-14 years. There were 17 plants at the time. Total production that has been shutdown (baseload power) is around 19,689MW now post fukushima. They've been able to replace maybe 4MW's with solar at this point? It's kind of mind boggling how much was shut down - the problem this has caused for electrification in germany is significant as now german electric prices are actually very high not low. Annual contracts for electricity are running 46 cents / kwH which is CRAZY if you want to electrify your country. France which is right next door, has much more annoying labor laws / high cost of labor is perhaps half that price.
- orwin 5y ago
  it was 21cts/kwH last year (but sold 18cts to EDF own competitors, the liberalizations laws in europe make no sense) so i guess less than half that price.
  - tempnow987 5y ago
    My pricing was in US Dollars, so the french cost (if in euros) would be 24 cents or so. Still an amazing difference.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > They've been able to replace maybe 4MW's with solar at this point? Germany has 5.3 GW of installed solar, how can you be off by a factor of 1200?
  - tempnow987 5y ago
    Sorry - yes, should be 5,800MW. They produced 51Twh/365/24 = 5.8GW in avg delivery. Nuclear generated it's power around the clock. I'm not sure solar is covering the evening peaks and the prices for electricity make going to things like heat pumps and electric dryers much more expensive than you'd expect in germany so the economic case for electrification in germany has started to run way way behind the case in other places that have kept nuclear in the mix.

kitkat_new 5y ago

better double down on green gas

j-pb 5y ago

Or on batteries, or on liquid salt thermal storage upgrades for old fossil plants, or on hydro storage, or on salt cavern pneumatic pressure, or on hydrogen, or on regenerative iron dust cycles, or... The idea that it's nuclear or fossil for baseload is a false dichotomy, that ingores the dozens of intermediary storage solutions. Solar is currently the cheapest source of energy with a margin. Add storage to an overproduction system, and it's still cheaper. The german failure to finish the "energiewende" is a political one, driven by corrupt conservative politicians and the privatized energy sector, to press as much return out of their old investments as possible.

HWR_14 5y ago
> The german failure to finish the "energiewende" is a political one, And that is one of the reasons that the most recent election led to the elevation of the Green Party.
- macspoofing 5y ago
  And I'm going to make a prediction: Nothing will change because this isn't a political issue. This is a materials science, physics, and chemistry issue. We do have have a battery technology to get around solar/wind intermittency issues. Doesn't matter who is in charge.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I assume you're saying that we don't have the battery technology. But we don't need batteries in this system. I imagine energy storage via lifting rocks uphill or giant flywheels or molten salt caves.
    - macspoofing 5y ago
      Those are batteries (i.e. things that store energy for later use). You'll notice that none of them are actually used at any scale, and certainly not to provide baseload for solar/wind.

deeviant 5y ago

I was previously ardently against nuclear power, and now I'm staunchly for it. The world needs to be rid of oil, there are few other things that have caused as much human and environment suffering as oil. Hell, I even back bio fuels, as bad as they are, as long we can conclusively show they have a major impact in oil use and aren't just a subsidy handout farmers.

antattack 5y ago
As invasion in Ukraine shows nuclear power plants can be taken hostage, then you're somewhat at the mercy of whomever is controlling it.
- deeviant 5y ago
  Yep. Still for it. The plants don't need to be in non-nato countries, they need to be in NATO countries and help eliminate the need for oil.
jka 5y ago
Glad to hear that you're keen to move away from fossil fuels. I'd add that renewable energy production methods are currently cheaper, faster to construct, easier to secure (both in terms of perimeter and supply chain), easier to train staff for and maintain, and safer long-term than nuclear energy production methods.
- macspoofing 5y ago
  >I'd add that renewable energy production methods are currently cheaper, faster to construct, easier to secure (both in terms of perimeter and supply chain), easier to train staff for and maintain, and safer long-term than nuclear energy production methods. ... and are not viable without baseload provided by fossil fuels. Unfortunately there is such a thing as cloudy days, night time, and days without wind.

cinntaile 5y ago

This is a bit of a blanket statement. It's more nuanced than this of course. If your energy generation is geographically spread out, there might not be a need for gas as a base load. Since Europe is getting more and more interconnected wrt electricity transport I suspect we'll get there sometime in the future but right now it's an issue. Different storage mechanisms will also help alleviate the issues, but that's also sometime in the future.

agapon 5y ago

Natural gas is not renewable though. Unless you live on a billion year timescale.