8 ms·

You're confusing German gas consumption and German electricity consumption. It couldn't escape my attention that many people especially from the US make this fa

by jhgb 4y ago

You're confusing German gas consumption and German electricity consumption. It couldn't escape my attention that many people especially from the US make this fatal mistake (presumably because of the prevalence of natural gas electricity generation in the US - almost 40% in the US, compared to ~15% in Germany). In Germany, the vast majority of gas is being used for heating or for industrial purposes (chemistry etc.). This is not (yet) substitutable by other electricity sources. Even if the denuclearization hadn't taken place, they'd still be dependent on Russian gas for at least a significant part of their gas supply. They can always substitute basically any gas shortfalls in the electricity sector simply by increasing coal generation, since there's a lot of unused capacity now that renewables leaped massively, and even replacing all the gas currently being used for electricity generation (because there's so little of it!) with coal would not even reach the levels of coal generation that Germany had as recently as just five years ago, so the coal plants can simply somewhat increase their output for a while. What Germans currently don't have is any way to not freeze to death and keep the industry running without Russian gas.

cycomanic 4y ago
The other aspect of the Ukraine war used for advocating for nuclear, which the nuclear proponents like to omit is that 25% of European uranium comes from Russia, so Europe's dependence on Russia is even stronger for Uranium than for gas. It's simply dishonest to use the current situation as an argument for nuclear. If anything it shows that we should have invested into renewables much more strongly, but nuclear proponents were strongly arguing against it because it would have made nuclear even less financially viable.
- stingraycharles 4y ago
  > so Europe's dependence on Russia is even stronger for Uranium than for gas I’d argue that it’s not about % coming from Russia that reflects dependence, it’s how easy you could switch to another supplier. How difficult would it be to find a different provider for that Uranium?
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    However nobody talks about blocking Russian Uranium imports, while oil and gas is all over the news. Admittedly the values we are talking about are much lower, but if it's easy to switch suppliers it should be a nobrainer, no?
    - belorn 4y ago
      I am unsure what news you are reading but when the war started there was news about switching Uranium imports away from Russia here in Sweden. I would hope that has now occurred, through as mentioned in the article, nuclear refueling occurs once every 12-18 months so who knows if that has yet to become a practical matter. The company that seems to produce most of the fuel that Sweden use is called Westinghouse Electric Company, with headquarters in Pittsburgh, and about 20% of the raw uranium that they processed before the war came from Russian. The biggest exporter of Uranium to Europe is Niger. We also have Kazakstan, Canada, Australia, and then a bunch of smaller ones. Being close geographical isn't a major benefit for Uranium imports. Blocking Russian Uranium imports should already been done, and if its not, should be made into policy. Since it only is a small portion of the overall imports the effect should be very minor. I would expect that the American company, by the fact of being American, are already required to follow sanctions related to Russia.
    - jhgb 4y ago
      What makes you think nobody talks about that? I know that this has been a topic in my country (which operates six VVER reactors). We've definitely been talking about this. > but if it's easy to switch suppliers it should be a nobrainer, no? Unfortunately it's not that easy since Russians control over 40% of fuel production capacity, and additionally Western manufacturers need to learn to manufacture Russian fuel assemblies and test them and certify them for safe operation first, so even if Western production capacity were sufficient, there would probably still be some delay in the switch.
- gtirloni 4y ago
  Can't Uranium be easily sourced from somewhere else or is Russia the only viable supplier?
  - paganel 4y ago
    Probably Australia or some African country from the middle of nowhere, they’re the only ones left where you can now still open a new uranium project. Most probably the US and Canada still have the stuff in their soil but I don’t see them doing it, what with Idaho and parts of Colorado becoming more like California.
  - throwaway2037 4y ago
    All you need to do is Google for "wiki uranium deposits". It takes less time than your reply. Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining
    - jhgb 4y ago
      Uranium mining is not your weak link here -- enrichment and fuel assembly production is. As far as I'm aware, Russia has over 40% of global capacity for this.
- patall 4y ago
  To add to that, Rosatom was even set to build a new nuclear power plant in Finland [0]. Supposedly, because the french built one is taking too long to be build. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
  - trashtester 4y ago
    From what I've been reading lately, South Korea is currently the country with the best expertise in building cost-efficient nuclear plants. Maybe Finland should switch vendor. [1]. https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/historical-construction-costs-of-global-nuclear-power-reactors https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/historical-construction...
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      If the only method to be successful is to cheat and coverup issues then that's frightening. > In November 2012 it was discovered that over 5,000 small components used in five reactors at Yeonggwang Nuclear Power Plant had not been properly certified; eight suppliers had faked 60 warranties for the parts. Two reactors were shut down for component replacement, which was likely to cause power shortages in South Korea during the winter.[23] Reuters reported this as South Korea's worst nuclear crisis, highlighting a lack of transparency on nuclear safety and the dual roles of South Korea's nuclear regulators on supervision and promotion.[24] This incident followed the prosecution of five senior engineers for the coverup of a serious loss of power and cooling incident at Kori Nuclear Power Plant, which was subsequently graded at INES level 2.[23][25] > In 2013, there was a scandal involving the use of counterfeit parts in nuclear plants and faked quality assurance certificates. In June 2013 Kori 2 and Shin Wolsong 1 were shut down, and Kori 1 and Shin Wolsong 2 ordered to remain offline, until safety-related control cabling with forged safety certificates is replaced.[26] Control cabling in the first APR-1400s under construction had to be replaced delaying construction by up to a year.[27] In October 2013 about 100 people were indicted for falsifying safety documents, including a former chief executive of Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power and a vice-president of Korea Electric Power Corporation.[28] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea
- trashtester 4y ago
  I would say that comparing the purchase of gas to the purchase of uranium is uninformed, if not dishonest, for two reasons: - Fuel costs for nuclear is only 15-20% of the total cost, half of which is the uranium itself [1]. For natural gas, the majority of the cost is the fuel, even during "normal" times. In other words, natural gas imports generate a lot more $ per GWh of energy produced, even if imported from the same country (Russia). - The reserves of Uranium across the globa are still huge, much of which can be found in (relatively) politically stable places such as Australia and Canada. For natural gas, one is locked into imports from countries such as Russia, Saudi-Arabia (and similar Arab monarchies), Venezuela and Russia for the forseeable future. I'm not suggesting that investment in renewables should be slowed down, only that coal and gass should be removed BEFORE nuclear. If Germany is able to produce the energy they need from renewables only, and to provide a stable supply, all the power to them. But to bring up renewables in a discussion about nuclear vs natural gas, is just a diversion tactic (or at best a dilusion). Oh, btw, I'm Norwegian. My country is making a $100 billion profit from the current energy situation in Europe, just this year, meaning that my household of 4 indirectly profits about $80000 from this in 2022 alone. So I'm not arguing from personal interest.... [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
  - roenxi 4y ago
    3 reasons, I suspect - if someone wants an enormous stockpile of uranium fuel they can probably do that. The volumes check out - uranium is very dense and so will not take up much space. I'm not sure if it has a shelf life, but being a rock I expect something can be sorted out. I can't pretend to know how feasible it is in practice, but long term strategic uranium stockpiles should be doable. Long enough to weather any reasonable war. Much, much more doable than trying to store a decade of nat gas.
    - jhgb 4y ago
      I hope you noticed the news about Gazprom possibly intentionally keeping gas reserves in Germany low for months before the Russian invasion in preparation of said invasion. You can't make a strategic stockpile if your potential enemy is your supplier and preventively doesn't allow you make those stockpiles in the first place so that you didn't have this way out.

by jhgb 4y ago

cycomanic 4y ago

The other aspect of the Ukraine war used for advocating for nuclear, which the nuclear proponents like to omit is that 25% of European uranium comes from Russia, so Europe's dependence on Russia is even stronger for Uranium than for gas. It's simply dishonest to use the current situation as an argument for nuclear. If anything it shows that we should have invested into renewables much more strongly, but nuclear proponents were strongly arguing against it because it would have made nuclear even less financially viable.

stingraycharles 4y ago
> so Europe's dependence on Russia is even stronger for Uranium than for gas I’d argue that it’s not about % coming from Russia that reflects dependence, it’s how easy you could switch to another supplier. How difficult would it be to find a different provider for that Uranium?
- cycomanic 4y ago
  However nobody talks about blocking Russian Uranium imports, while oil and gas is all over the news. Admittedly the values we are talking about are much lower, but if it's easy to switch suppliers it should be a nobrainer, no?
  - belorn 4y ago
    I am unsure what news you are reading but when the war started there was news about switching Uranium imports away from Russia here in Sweden. I would hope that has now occurred, through as mentioned in the article, nuclear refueling occurs once every 12-18 months so who knows if that has yet to become a practical matter. The company that seems to produce most of the fuel that Sweden use is called Westinghouse Electric Company, with headquarters in Pittsburgh, and about 20% of the raw uranium that they processed before the war came from Russian. The biggest exporter of Uranium to Europe is Niger. We also have Kazakstan, Canada, Australia, and then a bunch of smaller ones. Being close geographical isn't a major benefit for Uranium imports. Blocking Russian Uranium imports should already been done, and if its not, should be made into policy. Since it only is a small portion of the overall imports the effect should be very minor. I would expect that the American company, by the fact of being American, are already required to follow sanctions related to Russia.
  - jhgb 4y ago
    What makes you think nobody talks about that? I know that this has been a topic in my country (which operates six VVER reactors). We've definitely been talking about this. > but if it's easy to switch suppliers it should be a nobrainer, no? Unfortunately it's not that easy since Russians control over 40% of fuel production capacity, and additionally Western manufacturers need to learn to manufacture Russian fuel assemblies and test them and certify them for safe operation first, so even if Western production capacity were sufficient, there would probably still be some delay in the switch.
gtirloni 4y ago
Can't Uranium be easily sourced from somewhere else or is Russia the only viable supplier?
- paganel 4y ago
  Probably Australia or some African country from the middle of nowhere, they’re the only ones left where you can now still open a new uranium project. Most probably the US and Canada still have the stuff in their soil but I don’t see them doing it, what with Idaho and parts of Colorado becoming more like California.
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  All you need to do is Google for "wiki uranium deposits". It takes less time than your reply. Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining
  - jhgb 4y ago
    Uranium mining is not your weak link here -- enrichment and fuel assembly production is. As far as I'm aware, Russia has over 40% of global capacity for this.
patall 4y ago
To add to that, Rosatom was even set to build a new nuclear power plant in Finland [0]. Supposedly, because the french built one is taking too long to be build. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
- trashtester 4y ago
  From what I've been reading lately, South Korea is currently the country with the best expertise in building cost-efficient nuclear plants. Maybe Finland should switch vendor. [1]. https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/historical-construction-costs-of-global-nuclear-power-reactors https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/historical-construction...
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    If the only method to be successful is to cheat and coverup issues then that's frightening. > In November 2012 it was discovered that over 5,000 small components used in five reactors at Yeonggwang Nuclear Power Plant had not been properly certified; eight suppliers had faked 60 warranties for the parts. Two reactors were shut down for component replacement, which was likely to cause power shortages in South Korea during the winter.[23] Reuters reported this as South Korea's worst nuclear crisis, highlighting a lack of transparency on nuclear safety and the dual roles of South Korea's nuclear regulators on supervision and promotion.[24] This incident followed the prosecution of five senior engineers for the coverup of a serious loss of power and cooling incident at Kori Nuclear Power Plant, which was subsequently graded at INES level 2.[23][25] > In 2013, there was a scandal involving the use of counterfeit parts in nuclear plants and faked quality assurance certificates. In June 2013 Kori 2 and Shin Wolsong 1 were shut down, and Kori 1 and Shin Wolsong 2 ordered to remain offline, until safety-related control cabling with forged safety certificates is replaced.[26] Control cabling in the first APR-1400s under construction had to be replaced delaying construction by up to a year.[27] In October 2013 about 100 people were indicted for falsifying safety documents, including a former chief executive of Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power and a vice-president of Korea Electric Power Corporation.[28] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea
trashtester 4y ago
I would say that comparing the purchase of gas to the purchase of uranium is uninformed, if not dishonest, for two reasons: - Fuel costs for nuclear is only 15-20% of the total cost, half of which is the uranium itself [1]. For natural gas, the majority of the cost is the fuel, even during "normal" times. In other words, natural gas imports generate a lot more $ per GWh of energy produced, even if imported from the same country (Russia). - The reserves of Uranium across the globa are still huge, much of which can be found in (relatively) politically stable places such as Australia and Canada. For natural gas, one is locked into imports from countries such as Russia, Saudi-Arabia (and similar Arab monarchies), Venezuela and Russia for the forseeable future. I'm not suggesting that investment in renewables should be slowed down, only that coal and gass should be removed BEFORE nuclear. If Germany is able to produce the energy they need from renewables only, and to provide a stable supply, all the power to them. But to bring up renewables in a discussion about nuclear vs natural gas, is just a diversion tactic (or at best a dilusion). Oh, btw, I'm Norwegian. My country is making a $100 billion profit from the current energy situation in Europe, just this year, meaning that my household of 4 indirectly profits about $80000 from this in 2022 alone. So I'm not arguing from personal interest.... [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
- roenxi 4y ago
  3 reasons, I suspect - if someone wants an enormous stockpile of uranium fuel they can probably do that. The volumes check out - uranium is very dense and so will not take up much space. I'm not sure if it has a shelf life, but being a rock I expect something can be sorted out. I can't pretend to know how feasible it is in practice, but long term strategic uranium stockpiles should be doable. Long enough to weather any reasonable war. Much, much more doable than trying to store a decade of nat gas.
  - jhgb 4y ago
    I hope you noticed the news about Gazprom possibly intentionally keeping gas reserves in Germany low for months before the Russian invasion in preparation of said invasion. You can't make a strategic stockpile if your potential enemy is your supplier and preventively doesn't allow you make those stockpiles in the first place so that you didn't have this way out.