4 ms·

Germany's Energy Catastrophe

anovikov 4y ago
Clear, definite answer to this is that construction of any new nuclear plant will take longer (10-15 years) than it will take for renewable generation to completely take over the market. By today, it's no longer environmentalism, concern over spent fuel, or NIMBYsm that stops nuclear - it's simply there's no time left for it. Sure we may have a few tough years ahead, but by 2035 Germany and almost all of Europe will have 100% renewable grids, and no new nuclear could be commissioned by then if the project starts today. Nuclear ran out of time.
- stop50 4y ago
  Provided they stay in the planned time and have the correct parts.
  - anovikov 4y ago
    Yes at least renewable energy projects don't have a tendency of running over budget and over timeline.
    - stop50 4y ago
      And for environmental protection you just need to know which flying species lives there and if the area is in an protected space for planes for minimum and maximum height.
- epups 4y ago
  100% renewable grids mean that when the Sun doesn't shine and you have no wind, you also have no energy. There will always be a huge need for a stable source of energy that is not dependent on any external factors. Today, there is simply no other option but nuclear, and I doubt in the next 10-15 years there will be an alternative as well.
  - freemint 4y ago
    No it doesn't. Also the sun shines 24/7.
    - yessirwhatever 4y ago
      "No it doesn't" is not much of an argument, and to quote one of your previous comments "Citations needed.". Battery storage and hydrogen are not much solutions. From the article: > To control these swings and provide reliable power, renewables advocates argue that battery storage and hydrogen can store electricity and dispatch it when solar and wind aren’t producing. Germany’s largest battery storage program is its home storage systems, but years of battery storage installations have barely made an impact on the German grid. The country currently has an estimated 435,000 homes equipped with battery storage systems of various capabilities, and 145,000 home storage systems were installed in 2021. But there are 40 million households in Germany, and home battery storage systems usually last only a few hours, while the grid needs storage that can support variations lasting weeks.
    - llampx 4y ago
      Where on Earth does the sun shine 24/7? Aside from maybe the South Pole.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        10-15 years is about the minimum timescale to make a global power grid if there is a sudden increase in political will and global cooperation (yes yes I know), and that kind of grid would always have sunlight somewhere.
  - anovikov 4y ago
    Not really. Easy calculation using historical data on electricity production and consumption reveals that accepting 50% marginal loss factor (that is, level of renewables penetration on which 50% of power produced by the marginal - "last added" unit will be lost because there is no demand when it is produced), 80% of renewables can be provided with no storage and 90%, with quite minimal, easy to achieve storage, with no need for hydrogen. Which seems to be confirmed by recent Germany data when 50% of renewables has been achieved with effectively no storage and under 10% marginal loss rate. If you really want 100% renewables, not 90%, then yes, it becomes tricky, but here hydrogen provides a solution.
stop50 4y ago
1.we had to close the permanent storage for depleted full and other radioactive trash, because the contaiment leaked 2. Nuclear reactors require permanent external cooling, we already had to shut down reactors because of insufficient cooling, but that is not an permanent solution, because they still require cooling. 3. The fatalities in the text are only some of them, in bavaria wild boars still have to be tested for radiation and have to be disposed as radioactive trash. Plus the radioactive clouds were all over europe. 4.france has to shutdown most of its nuclear reactors already plus they found Fake certificates of integral parts of the new edf reactors and in old ones. btw: france is replacing the missing power with reneweable power from germany 5. The current energycrisis is caused by the cdu and csu, because they made deals that made germany more dependent from russia and after he served and made an deal with the state owned russian oil corporation he got an high position in said company.
- llampx 4y ago
  To #4: It is news to me that France is buying power from Germany. I thought it was the other way around. Is Germany producing enough renewable power to feed its own needs and to sell to France? Then why do they still need Russian gas and oil? To #5: Let's not forget SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schröder who has long been working with Russia and orchestrated part of the move to Russian gas. He ruled along with the Greens. "In his first term, Schröder's government decided to phase out nuclear power" "Since leaving public office, Schröder has worked for Russian state-owned energy companies, including Nord Stream AG, Rosneft, and Gazprom." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Domestic_policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Domestic...
  - stop50 4y ago
    Gas is used for heating in the industry and private home and also in industrial processes. my number 5 was about Schröder. I forgot to mention his name. i know there is an website where you can see who buys from whom power and what source did it came from. I only found the energy sources that countries use for electric power https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/live-eu-electricity-generation-map https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/live-eu-electrici...
hunglee2 4y ago
Germany was in between a rock (dependency on energy imports) and a hard place (popular opposition to nuclear energy) and sadly is now going to get crushed between them. The consequences will be felt by the Germans, by Europe and in the end, everyone on the planet. It takes min 10 years to get nuclear on grid (even if you had the industry to do it), so absent Russian gas it's either US LNG (of course much more expensive, and also foreign) or back to burning coal. It's going to have to be the latter, in order to keep the energy intensive manufacturing economy going. More carbon in the air, and it probably won't work anyway as German manufacturing goods will be more expensive, less competitive compared to East Asia than they are today. Multi-decade decline on the cards for Europe's biggest economy - which will in turn find expression in the politics of democratic systems
- Archelaos 4y ago
  The real problem was the extremly slow introduction of renewables due to the lobbying of Germany's coal and gas industry, which is more or less identical with its (former) nuclear industry. They feared the shift, because they were not prepared. Much of the world's nuclear sector is highly dependent on Russia and Russia-dependent states, both for uranium and technology. This was the reason why the USA at first shied away from sanctions against the Russian nuclear industry after the invasion of Ukraine. For more information see the article: "The Rosatom Exemption: How Russia's State-Run Nuclear Giant Has Escaped Sanctions" (Radio Free Europe) at: https://www.rferl.org/a/rosatom-russia-nuclear-giant-escapes-sanctions/31899192.html https://www.rferl.org/a/rosatom-russia-nuclear-giant-escapes...
  - hunglee2 4y ago
    very interesting. I knew about the global dependency on Russian uranium. Good share on the link, will check out
epups 4y ago
Russia has a ton of gas, and Germany needs a ton of gas. As unsavory as it is, the truth is that ultimately gas will be the solution to Germany's current energy problems.
parkingrift 4y ago
Green policies consistently treat good as the enemy of perfect. Needs to be a perfect outcome, or no outcome at all! And even now it’s the same ridiculous tired arguments. “It’s too late for nuclear!” Oh yeah? Well enjoy the coal power. You’ve earned it.
Arnt 4y ago
Blah. FWIW, nuclear and gas aren't even replacements for each other in Germany, and never were. There are some nine million furnaces that burn gas and can't burn anything else, lots of gas stoves in people's kitchens, and some important gas users who use gas molecules to make other molecules. Only a little gas is used to make electricity for sale. The article mistakenly confuses niche and common uses, and uses that mistake to support its conclusions. But when the support is mistaken all conclusions crumble.
- llampx 4y ago
  Gas for heating (Fernwärme) could be replaced with nuclear plants that skip the process of using the superheated steam to produce electricity, and use the steam heat directly to supply heat to homes using the existing pipe network. The problem with this approach of course being that nuclear plants would have to be built far outside population centers, where the heat is required. Another option is to use electricity for heating, either resistive heating or with heat pumps, which are already in use and have been subsidized until 2021. Either way, it would not be the end of the world to move away from gas especially if you just can't get any. Gas for chemical processes, I would have to defer to scientists for that.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    Fernwärme isn't gas for heating. Fernwärme in .de uses a variety of fuels, including gas. AFAIK none of the operators rely on a single furnace. Gas for heating is mostly furnaces in people's basements or bathrooms. Moving to electricity would require replacing a total of about thirteen million pieces of hardware. More if you count small and cheap things like gas stoves that can be replaced in hours of work rather than days. It's like a car in some ways: Once you've bought a diesel car, you don't have a choice of fuel any more. You've chosen.

Clear, definite answer to this is that construction of any new nuclear plant will take longer (10-15 years) than it will take for renewable generation to completely take over the market. By today, it's no longer environmentalism, concern over spent fuel, or NIMBYsm that stops nuclear - it's simply there's no time left for it. Sure we may have a few tough years ahead, but by 2035 Germany and almost all of Europe will have 100% renewable grids, and no new nuclear could be commissioned by then if the project starts today. Nuclear ran out of time.

stop50 4y ago
Provided they stay in the planned time and have the correct parts.
- anovikov 4y ago
  Yes at least renewable energy projects don't have a tendency of running over budget and over timeline.
  - stop50 4y ago
    And for environmental protection you just need to know which flying species lives there and if the area is in an protected space for planes for minimum and maximum height.
epups 4y ago
100% renewable grids mean that when the Sun doesn't shine and you have no wind, you also have no energy. There will always be a huge need for a stable source of energy that is not dependent on any external factors. Today, there is simply no other option but nuclear, and I doubt in the next 10-15 years there will be an alternative as well.
- freemint 4y ago
  No it doesn't. Also the sun shines 24/7.
  - yessirwhatever 4y ago
    "No it doesn't" is not much of an argument, and to quote one of your previous comments "Citations needed.". Battery storage and hydrogen are not much solutions. From the article: > To control these swings and provide reliable power, renewables advocates argue that battery storage and hydrogen can store electricity and dispatch it when solar and wind aren’t producing. Germany’s largest battery storage program is its home storage systems, but years of battery storage installations have barely made an impact on the German grid. The country currently has an estimated 435,000 homes equipped with battery storage systems of various capabilities, and 145,000 home storage systems were installed in 2021. But there are 40 million households in Germany, and home battery storage systems usually last only a few hours, while the grid needs storage that can support variations lasting weeks.
  - llampx 4y ago
    Where on Earth does the sun shine 24/7? Aside from maybe the South Pole.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      10-15 years is about the minimum timescale to make a global power grid if there is a sudden increase in political will and global cooperation (yes yes I know), and that kind of grid would always have sunlight somewhere.
- anovikov 4y ago
  Not really. Easy calculation using historical data on electricity production and consumption reveals that accepting 50% marginal loss factor (that is, level of renewables penetration on which 50% of power produced by the marginal - "last added" unit will be lost because there is no demand when it is produced), 80% of renewables can be provided with no storage and 90%, with quite minimal, easy to achieve storage, with no need for hydrogen. Which seems to be confirmed by recent Germany data when 50% of renewables has been achieved with effectively no storage and under 10% marginal loss rate. If you really want 100% renewables, not 90%, then yes, it becomes tricky, but here hydrogen provides a solution.

stop50 4y ago

1.we had to close the permanent storage for depleted full and other radioactive trash, because the contaiment leaked 2. Nuclear reactors require permanent external cooling, we already had to shut down reactors because of insufficient cooling, but that is not an permanent solution, because they still require cooling. 3. The fatalities in the text are only some of them, in bavaria wild boars still have to be tested for radiation and have to be disposed as radioactive trash. Plus the radioactive clouds were all over europe. 4.france has to shutdown most of its nuclear reactors already plus they found Fake certificates of integral parts of the new edf reactors and in old ones. btw: france is replacing the missing power with reneweable power from germany 5. The current energycrisis is caused by the cdu and csu, because they made deals that made germany more dependent from russia and after he served and made an deal with the state owned russian oil corporation he got an high position in said company.

llampx 4y ago
To #4: It is news to me that France is buying power from Germany. I thought it was the other way around. Is Germany producing enough renewable power to feed its own needs and to sell to France? Then why do they still need Russian gas and oil? To #5: Let's not forget SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schröder who has long been working with Russia and orchestrated part of the move to Russian gas. He ruled along with the Greens. "In his first term, Schröder's government decided to phase out nuclear power" "Since leaving public office, Schröder has worked for Russian state-owned energy companies, including Nord Stream AG, Rosneft, and Gazprom." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Domestic_policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Domestic...
- stop50 4y ago
  Gas is used for heating in the industry and private home and also in industrial processes. my number 5 was about Schröder. I forgot to mention his name. i know there is an website where you can see who buys from whom power and what source did it came from. I only found the energy sources that countries use for electric power https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/live-eu-electricity-generation-map https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/live-eu-electrici...

hunglee2 4y ago

Germany was in between a rock (dependency on energy imports) and a hard place (popular opposition to nuclear energy) and sadly is now going to get crushed between them. The consequences will be felt by the Germans, by Europe and in the end, everyone on the planet. It takes min 10 years to get nuclear on grid (even if you had the industry to do it), so absent Russian gas it's either US LNG (of course much more expensive, and also foreign) or back to burning coal. It's going to have to be the latter, in order to keep the energy intensive manufacturing economy going. More carbon in the air, and it probably won't work anyway as German manufacturing goods will be more expensive, less competitive compared to East Asia than they are today. Multi-decade decline on the cards for Europe's biggest economy - which will in turn find expression in the politics of democratic systems

Archelaos 4y ago
The real problem was the extremly slow introduction of renewables due to the lobbying of Germany's coal and gas industry, which is more or less identical with its (former) nuclear industry. They feared the shift, because they were not prepared. Much of the world's nuclear sector is highly dependent on Russia and Russia-dependent states, both for uranium and technology. This was the reason why the USA at first shied away from sanctions against the Russian nuclear industry after the invasion of Ukraine. For more information see the article: "The Rosatom Exemption: How Russia's State-Run Nuclear Giant Has Escaped Sanctions" (Radio Free Europe) at: https://www.rferl.org/a/rosatom-russia-nuclear-giant-escapes-sanctions/31899192.html https://www.rferl.org/a/rosatom-russia-nuclear-giant-escapes...
- hunglee2 4y ago
  very interesting. I knew about the global dependency on Russian uranium. Good share on the link, will check out

epups 4y ago

Russia has a ton of gas, and Germany needs a ton of gas. As unsavory as it is, the truth is that ultimately gas will be the solution to Germany's current energy problems.

parkingrift 4y ago

Green policies consistently treat good as the enemy of perfect. Needs to be a perfect outcome, or no outcome at all! And even now it’s the same ridiculous tired arguments. “It’s too late for nuclear!” Oh yeah? Well enjoy the coal power. You’ve earned it.

Arnt 4y ago

Blah. FWIW, nuclear and gas aren't even replacements for each other in Germany, and never were. There are some nine million furnaces that burn gas and can't burn anything else, lots of gas stoves in people's kitchens, and some important gas users who use gas molecules to make other molecules. Only a little gas is used to make electricity for sale. The article mistakenly confuses niche and common uses, and uses that mistake to support its conclusions. But when the support is mistaken all conclusions crumble.

llampx 4y ago
Gas for heating (Fernwärme) could be replaced with nuclear plants that skip the process of using the superheated steam to produce electricity, and use the steam heat directly to supply heat to homes using the existing pipe network. The problem with this approach of course being that nuclear plants would have to be built far outside population centers, where the heat is required. Another option is to use electricity for heating, either resistive heating or with heat pumps, which are already in use and have been subsidized until 2021. Either way, it would not be the end of the world to move away from gas especially if you just can't get any. Gas for chemical processes, I would have to defer to scientists for that.
- Arnt 4y ago
  Fernwärme isn't gas for heating. Fernwärme in .de uses a variety of fuels, including gas. AFAIK none of the operators rely on a single furnace. Gas for heating is mostly furnaces in people's basements or bathrooms. Moving to electricity would require replacing a total of about thirteen million pieces of hardware. More if you count small and cheap things like gas stoves that can be replaced in hours of work rather than days. It's like a car in some ways: Once you've bought a diesel car, you don't have a choice of fuel any more. You've chosen.