4 ms·
continuing the nuclear power will have almost no impact on the war or dependence to Russia. The biggest issue by far is gas
by kitkat_new 5y ago
continuing the nuclear power will have almost no impact on the war or dependence to Russia.
The biggest issue by far is gas
- hedora 5y agoThe article covers this. The electricity that would be produced by the plants is enough to offset 100% of Russian natural gas imports. Gas and electricity are not entirely fungible, but Germany uses enough natural gas to produce electricity to cover the reduced imports.
- blub 5y agoGas and electricity are not at all fungible for Germany or the EU. You’ve repeatedly made this claim in the thread and other commenters posted detailed reports showing the use of gas in the German economy. It’s suicidal for the EU to give up gas short or mid term.
- someguydave 5y agoGas used for electric production and nuclear electricity are absolutely fungible. I suspect that at least some nuclear power could be brought back online within months if there was a will to do so.
- Xylakant 5y agoTo make the point a little clearer - natural gas is an important resource for the chemical industry, for example input to the Haber-Bosch synthesis of Ammonia. The Hydrogen used is mostly gained from methane, that is natural gas. Ammonia is fundamental in producing fertilizer - cutting of natural gas could severely reduce fertilizer production, at a time when two of the largest grain exporters are at war and unlikely to produce much in terms of exports. It’s possible to produce the required hydrogen using electricity and electrolysis, but not at a moments notice. You can’t just easily replace gas in electricity production by using nuclear- gas power plants are used for peak load, nuclear power plants for base load.
- someguydave 5y agoSure but the article says 30% of Russian gas is used for electricity which is fungible with other electric production - nobody denies that Germany needs gas for other things. Although if greens in Germany were actually committed to reducing energy use they would have subsidized converting buildings from gas heat to using heat pumps instead of subsidizing solar production in Germany.
- Xylakant 5y agoGas in electricity production is mostly not used for base load - it’s peaker plants that need to spin up and adjust load within minutes. Nuclear replaces coal, not gas in most use cases. Heat pumps are subsidized in germany. And if you want to blame the greens - they’ve been the most vocal party asking for energy independence, subsidizing energy efficient technologies and were very vocal against nord-stream 2. It’s just that they weren’t in power at all in the last decade.
- someguydave 5y agoNevertheless, more base load means less peak plant use.
- Xylakant 5y agoThat’s not how base load/peak load works. You can’t just increase the base power output - that would lead to too much more electricity in the network, you need to balance the energy provided with the energy used. That’s exactly why you need peak load plants that can follow the load curve quickly. Gas turbines and water turbines can do that, thermal power plants cannot. They’re too sluggish.
- someguydave 5y agoI find it quite likely that running higher base load will result in electricity exportable to other European nations who are also trying to quite gas. The general thrust of your argument seems to be “nuclear power will not help shed Russian gas even a little bit” which seems ludicrous.
- imtringued 5y agoGas was chosen because it is a cost effective transitional power source. You can turn it off the moment you have enough renewables. You're not going to turn off your nuclear powerplants, they are too expensive.