6 ms·

Shutting down the current reactors has been planned for a while, and that is simply not a decision that is trivial to reverse. You can disagree with that initia

Shutting down the current reactors has been planned for a while, and that is simply not a decision that is trivial to reverse. You can disagree with that initial decision, but this does have significant effects and if you are in the process of shutting down everything it does get much more complicated to suddenly reverse course. The article seems rather dismissive towards many real problems like availability of nuclear fuel and personnel. The report also clearly states that due to the lack of fuel the nuclear power plants would only be able to supply additional power in late 2023. And it does not mention at all one of the conclusions in the report, that if it comes to a situation where the gas supply from Russia is shut off Germany would compensate with coal power plants.

merb 5y ago
the article also doesnt mention france's gas consumption, which was mostly about electricity, while german uses the gas 50:50 (heat and electricity). basically nuclear won't replaces gas and gas won't replace nuclear. if we want to discuss about electricity generation, coal is the thing that germany could reduce with nuclear, but not gas. it's always the same thing about these articles, blame germany for a mistake (shutting down nuclear too early) but than just blame it on the bad gas, which is basically needed for nuclear operations anyway... and no german citizens won't replace their gas heating because of the war, that will simply not happen (of course some people do reduce gas heating but a lot of people just can't).
- fabian2k 5y ago
  The sentence about simply replacing gas with heat pumps is almost delusional. You can't just switch out the main heating system for an entire country. Heat pumps require quite a lot of conditions that simply are not met by many older buildings. And even if that weren't an issue, there is still the sheer scale of the problem.
  - diordiderot 5y ago
    > require quite a lot of conditions that simply are not met by many older buildings. Such as?
    - fabian2k 5y ago
      The temperature you achieve is lower than for older gas heating equipment, so your radiators are likely not dimensioned correctly if you switch. You really want floor heating for heat pumps, and very well insulated walls. The moment the heat pumps can't provide enough heating you have to heat with electricity, and that is incredibly expensive especially in Germany.
      - diordiderot 5y ago
        Modern heat pumps work well below freezing, in Chicago 2021 there were 4 days that gas heating would be more efficient. Maybe don't use a radiator? American heat pumps hear air directly.
        rad_gruchalski 5y ago
        > Maybe don't use a radiator? And how do you do this in a building never designed for this king of system?
        cycomanic 5y ago
        Heating the air is less efficient, by a significant margin (you need a high temperature for the same comfort level). Using US houses as an example is quite laughable, the energy consumptions of US households is much higher than German ones.
        hedora 5y ago
        I doubt heating air to a higher temperature with a heat pump is less efficient than natural gas heating. The heat pump will have a coefficient of performance over five for small temperature differentials. For huge differentials, the thermal loss of the building is linear in the differential, and dropping the thermostat a few degrees only drops a few percent of thermal loss. In those scenarios, the COP of the heat pump is still something like 1.5 or 2.
  - LordDragonfang 5y ago
    Heat pumps have gotten very good in the past couple of decades, especially in the east Asian markets, and even older homes have fairly drop-in options available, assuming the market demand is there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43XKfuptnik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43XKfuptnik Yes, it's a solution that requires a significant investment in (individual) infrastructure, but so does almost every other solution to anthropogenic climate change. If the solutions were totally easy, we'd have done them by now. Moving to heat pumps is on the easier end of the spectrum, though.
  - postingawayonhn 5y ago
    This is pre-war thinking though. Germany needs to think of itself as being at war and mobilise as such. Less efficient portable heaters can be used as stopgap measures, qualified heat pump technicians can be brought in from other countries, people with transferable skills can works as installation assistants, local production of electric heating systems can be increased (convert other factories if needed). It's Spring in Germany right now. They've got about 6 months until next winter rolls around and should use that time wisely.
    - Xylakant 5y ago
      One could also ask for the US to replace their car centric mobility with bikes and trains to save oil. It’s spring right now, they’ve got 6 month until winter rolls around, time to be used wisely. Our apartment complex uses a small central gas power plant to produce electricity and use the waste heat for heating/water, supplying about 20 buildings with roughly 500 - 1000 units. Replacing that system is not something that’s planned and executed within a handful of months. I’m not convinced that air heatpumps of the required size even exist - drilling for a ground heat pump in a city will require even more planning. How well would it work if all of those unit just pulled another extra 5kw continuously from the grid for heating, not to speak of warm water? I’m not even convinced that the grid itself could sustain that - it’s never been planned for that kind of usage.
- _ph_ 5y ago
  So much this. While recently the energy production used a bit more gas (shifting from coal) due to less CO2 output, the main reason for gas in electricity generation is the ability to quickly switch power output to match quickly changing electricity consumption. You cannot replace that with nuclear or coal as both are rather slow switching.

merb 5y ago

the article also doesnt mention france's gas consumption, which was mostly about electricity, while german uses the gas 50:50 (heat and electricity). basically nuclear won't replaces gas and gas won't replace nuclear. if we want to discuss about electricity generation, coal is the thing that germany could reduce with nuclear, but not gas. it's always the same thing about these articles, blame germany for a mistake (shutting down nuclear too early) but than just blame it on the bad gas, which is basically needed for nuclear operations anyway... and no german citizens won't replace their gas heating because of the war, that will simply not happen (of course some people do reduce gas heating but a lot of people just can't).

fabian2k 5y ago
The sentence about simply replacing gas with heat pumps is almost delusional. You can't just switch out the main heating system for an entire country. Heat pumps require quite a lot of conditions that simply are not met by many older buildings. And even if that weren't an issue, there is still the sheer scale of the problem.
- diordiderot 5y ago
  > require quite a lot of conditions that simply are not met by many older buildings. Such as?
  - fabian2k 5y ago
    The temperature you achieve is lower than for older gas heating equipment, so your radiators are likely not dimensioned correctly if you switch. You really want floor heating for heat pumps, and very well insulated walls. The moment the heat pumps can't provide enough heating you have to heat with electricity, and that is incredibly expensive especially in Germany.
    - diordiderot 5y ago
      Modern heat pumps work well below freezing, in Chicago 2021 there were 4 days that gas heating would be more efficient. Maybe don't use a radiator? American heat pumps hear air directly.
      - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
        > Maybe don't use a radiator? And how do you do this in a building never designed for this king of system?
      - cycomanic 5y ago
        Heating the air is less efficient, by a significant margin (you need a high temperature for the same comfort level). Using US houses as an example is quite laughable, the energy consumptions of US households is much higher than German ones.
        hedora 5y ago
        I doubt heating air to a higher temperature with a heat pump is less efficient than natural gas heating. The heat pump will have a coefficient of performance over five for small temperature differentials. For huge differentials, the thermal loss of the building is linear in the differential, and dropping the thermostat a few degrees only drops a few percent of thermal loss. In those scenarios, the COP of the heat pump is still something like 1.5 or 2.
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  Heat pumps have gotten very good in the past couple of decades, especially in the east Asian markets, and even older homes have fairly drop-in options available, assuming the market demand is there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43XKfuptnik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43XKfuptnik Yes, it's a solution that requires a significant investment in (individual) infrastructure, but so does almost every other solution to anthropogenic climate change. If the solutions were totally easy, we'd have done them by now. Moving to heat pumps is on the easier end of the spectrum, though.
- postingawayonhn 5y ago
  This is pre-war thinking though. Germany needs to think of itself as being at war and mobilise as such. Less efficient portable heaters can be used as stopgap measures, qualified heat pump technicians can be brought in from other countries, people with transferable skills can works as installation assistants, local production of electric heating systems can be increased (convert other factories if needed). It's Spring in Germany right now. They've got about 6 months until next winter rolls around and should use that time wisely.
  - Xylakant 5y ago
    One could also ask for the US to replace their car centric mobility with bikes and trains to save oil. It’s spring right now, they’ve got 6 month until winter rolls around, time to be used wisely. Our apartment complex uses a small central gas power plant to produce electricity and use the waste heat for heating/water, supplying about 20 buildings with roughly 500 - 1000 units. Replacing that system is not something that’s planned and executed within a handful of months. I’m not convinced that air heatpumps of the required size even exist - drilling for a ground heat pump in a city will require even more planning. How well would it work if all of those unit just pulled another extra 5kw continuously from the grid for heating, not to speak of warm water? I’m not even convinced that the grid itself could sustain that - it’s never been planned for that kind of usage.
_ph_ 5y ago
So much this. While recently the energy production used a bit more gas (shifting from coal) due to less CO2 output, the main reason for gas in electricity generation is the ability to quickly switch power output to match quickly changing electricity consumption. You cannot replace that with nuclear or coal as both are rather slow switching.