6 ms·

The availability of cheap gas is also a necessary component. That is the silent partner when people talk about renewables, usually [1]. And of course, oil compa

by pyrale 4y ago

The availability of cheap gas is also a necessary component. That is the silent partner when people talk about renewables, usually [1]. And of course, oil companies aren't exactly small corporations, so there are also subsidies there [2][3]. [1]: https://www.powermag.com/more-than-32-gw-of-new-gas-fired-power-plants-in-u-s-pipeline/ https://www.powermag.com/more-than-32-gw-of-new-gas-fired-po... [2]: https://www.sei.org/publications/subsidies-shale-oil-and-gas/ https://www.sei.org/publications/subsidies-shale-oil-and-gas... [3]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/03/20/we-must-not-let-the-shale-industry-go-bankrupt/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/03/20/we-must-not-...

revertmean 4y ago
That makes sense. Could well be. Has significantly more gas been added than renewables over that past decade or so?
- pyrale 4y ago
  Not likely, but I don't have US stats. Usually, the numbers you get are installed capacity. They aren't really helpful, because renewables load factor is significantly lower than other energies. That being said, even factoring that out and relying on demand fulfilled instead, a renewables+gas system still usually sources most of its energy from renewables. If you see a system where most of the power comes from fossil fuel, that means renewables aren't dimensioned to service all the power needs.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    I don't know about hte US, but here is a graph from Germany: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig9-german-energy-sources-share-primary-energy-consumption-1990-2021.png?itok=9gMG_K24 https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... In 2022, the last nuclear plants were shut down. I expect that capacity was replaced by either import or fossil fuels + any new renewable capacity since last year. By inspecting the graph, it seems that their current consumption includes about 2000 PJ of renewables, which is maybe slightly more than the production from nuclear was 20 years ago. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig9-german-energy-sources-share-primary-energy-consumption-1990-2021.png?itok=9gMG_K24 https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... If you compare this to a graph of installed capacity you see how misleading it is to look at installed capacity, where you get the impression that more than half of Germany's power comes from renewables: https://www.google.com/search?q=german+energy+consumption+by+source&rlz=1C1ONGR_enNO954NO954&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOrKWvuIf4AhVIxIsKHV_mCYEQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1719&bih=1429&dpr=1.38#imgrc=I3b_X0VdjBcUYM https://www.google.com/search?q=german+energy+consumption+by... In reality, it looks like Germany gets about 15-20% of their energy from renewables. Over the last 20 years, energy prices in Germany have roughly doubled, while the amount of energy produced by carbon-neutral sources is about the same (nuclear was replaced by renewables). Total greenhouse gas emissions have gone down a bit, due to reduced overall consumption and the replacement of coal with gas.
    - uecker 4y ago
      The problem in Germany is that for heating, transportation, and industry the transition to renewables or more efficient methods is very slow. For the electricity sector (which is the most relevant when discussing nuclear) this is going very well, with about 40% renewables and substantial reduction in emissions. I consider this to be a huge success (in this sector).
      - trashtester 4y ago
        > with about 40% renewables I think that would be if you're only counting electricity production. And that's only because heating and automobile still uses primarily fossil fuels. If they are included, Germany is still at only about 15-20% renewable. > I consider this to be a huge success Compared to the most obvious reference, France, German greenhouse gas emissions are still almost twice as high. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-fo... Like most nations, it looks to me that the population in Germany is being targeted with propaganda from their government.
        pyrale 4y ago
        > I think that would be if you're only counting electricity production. And that's only because heating and automobile still uses primarily fossil fuels. If they are included, Germany is still at only about 15-20% renewable. That's also true in France, despite our different power production means. Home heating and transportation are mostly fossil-based.
        trashtester 4y ago
        Yes, but still nuclear is about 40% of total energy consumption in France. When adding about 10% for renewables (France has some more hydro than Germany), France has about 50% of their energy covered by non-carbon-based sources, and it has been this way since approx. 1990 (only 40% then). This means that France's performance in terms of greenhouse gas emissions is significantly better than Germany, Spain and Italy. Also, and maybe even more importantly, France has enjoyed significantly cleaner air, and thousands fewer deaths from air pollution every year, compared to what they would have with polution at the same levels as their neighbours. Over the last 30 years, Nuclear power may have saved 100000-300000 French lives.
natmaka 4y ago
Even nuclear needs flamme (fossil fuel) backup: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557498 The fraction of electricity produced with those heavy-emitting plants is the major question, and ways to use mostly renewables and therefore to reduce it are known: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557422
- sanderjd 4y ago
  Yeah, I think we need storage (edit: including hydrogen) to compete with natural gas turbines, regardless of whether or not the base load mix contains more nuclear.
- pyrale 4y ago
  Your message is incorrect. France never relied on gas as a complement for its nuclear fleet. First off, because we have always had enough reversible hydro if ever there was a need. Second, because nuclear in France can do load-following just fine. France's gas has three main sources: 1) industrial gas users that use the heat in a plant to generate some power, 2) gas companies building gas plants near their LNG terminals to have more options with their gas, 3) gas plants built in the 2000's by Poweo when the energy market opened, which are operated independently from EDF's nuclear plants.
  - natmaka 4y ago
    This official (gov) document proves that I'm right: https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-energie-2021/15-electricite https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi... In the very first graph, titled "PRODUCTION NETTE D'ÉLECTRICITÉ", the reddish-orangish surface reflects coal, oil (petrol), gas (methane) (also biomass and waste but it was and stays a small fraction) Second: no, nuclear load-follow has severe limitations. Please read https://www.sfen.org/rgn/expertise-nucleaire-francaise-suivi-charge-seduit-europe/ https://www.sfen.org/rgn/expertise-nucleaire-francaise-suivi... Pertinent information: « un réacteur peut varier de 100 % à 20 % de puissance en une demi-heure, et remonter aussi vite après un palier d’au moins deux heures, et ce deux fois par jour » it means: "a reactor power output can vary from 100% to 20% in 30 minutes, then after 2 hours can go back to 100% at the same speed, and can cycle this way 2 times per day". This is quite a good performance when it comes to load-following (French engineers are very good at this), however it is insufficient in the real world (save any ridiculously expensive over-provision of nuclear reactor, most idling) and very weak compared to gas turbines performances. Then I can't understand your "gas has three main sources". It lists (including cogeneration) indeed "sources" of load-following, however they all are fueled by fossil fuels, and therefore are consistent with my observations: France needs fossil fuel for power generation, its nuclear fleet isn't sufficient.

by pyrale 4y ago

revertmean 4y ago

That makes sense. Could well be. Has significantly more gas been added than renewables over that past decade or so?

pyrale 4y ago
Not likely, but I don't have US stats. Usually, the numbers you get are installed capacity. They aren't really helpful, because renewables load factor is significantly lower than other energies. That being said, even factoring that out and relying on demand fulfilled instead, a renewables+gas system still usually sources most of its energy from renewables. If you see a system where most of the power comes from fossil fuel, that means renewables aren't dimensioned to service all the power needs.
- trashtester 4y ago
  I don't know about hte US, but here is a graph from Germany: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig9-german-energy-sources-share-primary-energy-consumption-1990-2021.png?itok=9gMG_K24 https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... In 2022, the last nuclear plants were shut down. I expect that capacity was replaced by either import or fossil fuels + any new renewable capacity since last year. By inspecting the graph, it seems that their current consumption includes about 2000 PJ of renewables, which is maybe slightly more than the production from nuclear was 20 years ago. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig9-german-energy-sources-share-primary-energy-consumption-1990-2021.png?itok=9gMG_K24 https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... If you compare this to a graph of installed capacity you see how misleading it is to look at installed capacity, where you get the impression that more than half of Germany's power comes from renewables: https://www.google.com/search?q=german+energy+consumption+by+source&rlz=1C1ONGR_enNO954NO954&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOrKWvuIf4AhVIxIsKHV_mCYEQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1719&bih=1429&dpr=1.38#imgrc=I3b_X0VdjBcUYM https://www.google.com/search?q=german+energy+consumption+by... In reality, it looks like Germany gets about 15-20% of their energy from renewables. Over the last 20 years, energy prices in Germany have roughly doubled, while the amount of energy produced by carbon-neutral sources is about the same (nuclear was replaced by renewables). Total greenhouse gas emissions have gone down a bit, due to reduced overall consumption and the replacement of coal with gas.
  - uecker 4y ago
    The problem in Germany is that for heating, transportation, and industry the transition to renewables or more efficient methods is very slow. For the electricity sector (which is the most relevant when discussing nuclear) this is going very well, with about 40% renewables and substantial reduction in emissions. I consider this to be a huge success (in this sector).
    - trashtester 4y ago
      > with about 40% renewables I think that would be if you're only counting electricity production. And that's only because heating and automobile still uses primarily fossil fuels. If they are included, Germany is still at only about 15-20% renewable. > I consider this to be a huge success Compared to the most obvious reference, France, German greenhouse gas emissions are still almost twice as high. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-fo... Like most nations, it looks to me that the population in Germany is being targeted with propaganda from their government.
      - pyrale 4y ago
        > I think that would be if you're only counting electricity production. And that's only because heating and automobile still uses primarily fossil fuels. If they are included, Germany is still at only about 15-20% renewable. That's also true in France, despite our different power production means. Home heating and transportation are mostly fossil-based.
        trashtester 4y ago
        Yes, but still nuclear is about 40% of total energy consumption in France. When adding about 10% for renewables (France has some more hydro than Germany), France has about 50% of their energy covered by non-carbon-based sources, and it has been this way since approx. 1990 (only 40% then). This means that France's performance in terms of greenhouse gas emissions is significantly better than Germany, Spain and Italy. Also, and maybe even more importantly, France has enjoyed significantly cleaner air, and thousands fewer deaths from air pollution every year, compared to what they would have with polution at the same levels as their neighbours. Over the last 30 years, Nuclear power may have saved 100000-300000 French lives.

natmaka 4y ago

Even nuclear needs flamme (fossil fuel) backup: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557498 The fraction of electricity produced with those heavy-emitting plants is the major question, and ways to use mostly renewables and therefore to reduce it are known: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557422

sanderjd 4y ago
Yeah, I think we need storage (edit: including hydrogen) to compete with natural gas turbines, regardless of whether or not the base load mix contains more nuclear.
pyrale 4y ago
Your message is incorrect. France never relied on gas as a complement for its nuclear fleet. First off, because we have always had enough reversible hydro if ever there was a need. Second, because nuclear in France can do load-following just fine. France's gas has three main sources: 1) industrial gas users that use the heat in a plant to generate some power, 2) gas companies building gas plants near their LNG terminals to have more options with their gas, 3) gas plants built in the 2000's by Poweo when the energy market opened, which are operated independently from EDF's nuclear plants.
- natmaka 4y ago
  This official (gov) document proves that I'm right: https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-energie-2021/15-electricite https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi... In the very first graph, titled "PRODUCTION NETTE D'ÉLECTRICITÉ", the reddish-orangish surface reflects coal, oil (petrol), gas (methane) (also biomass and waste but it was and stays a small fraction) Second: no, nuclear load-follow has severe limitations. Please read https://www.sfen.org/rgn/expertise-nucleaire-francaise-suivi-charge-seduit-europe/ https://www.sfen.org/rgn/expertise-nucleaire-francaise-suivi... Pertinent information: « un réacteur peut varier de 100 % à 20 % de puissance en une demi-heure, et remonter aussi vite après un palier d’au moins deux heures, et ce deux fois par jour » it means: "a reactor power output can vary from 100% to 20% in 30 minutes, then after 2 hours can go back to 100% at the same speed, and can cycle this way 2 times per day". This is quite a good performance when it comes to load-following (French engineers are very good at this), however it is insufficient in the real world (save any ridiculously expensive over-provision of nuclear reactor, most idling) and very weak compared to gas turbines performances. Then I can't understand your "gas has three main sources". It lists (including cogeneration) indeed "sources" of load-following, however they all are fueled by fossil fuels, and therefore are consistent with my observations: France needs fossil fuel for power generation, its nuclear fleet isn't sufficient.