5 ms·

I'm tired of these probably nuclear industry backed articles that are wrong and miss the point. 1. Nuclear energy is no solution. See here for an example how t

I'm tired of these probably nuclear industry backed articles that are wrong and miss the point. 1. Nuclear energy is no solution. See here for an example how things turn out in real life (in German): https://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Deutsche-Solaranlagen-haengen-Frankreichs-AKW-ab-article23450534.html https://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Deutsche-Solaranlagen-haengen... 2. Germany doesn't really lack electricity. You cannot replace gas in industrial processes that need heat just like that with electricity. If you could, you could also use renewable energy. Things change very slowly on this side.

mvgcf 4y ago
This.
ThePhysicist 4y ago
There's a difference between peak energy production at noon in summer and let's say 10 pm on christmas eve. And yes, the energy grid probably won't collapse in winter, removing 12-16 GW of baseload power will have a strong effect on prices though. Phasing out nuclear could have been fine, it's just that we didn't have any plan to replace it (again, mind the difference between base load and intermittent power production), e.g. no large-scale storage solutions planned whatsoever, which makes us reliant on gas, coal and the EU grid to match supply and demand.
DocTomoe 4y ago
> Germany doesn't really lack electricity. ... yet. There is an interesting report on the ARD Mediathek [1] right now in which - among other nuclear-involved people - the guy responsible the flow of electricity talks about power production and consumption. He points out that while it is true that at some points in time, renewables provided 95% of our consumption, there are still other times where they make up less than 1%. He then proceeds to explain that we do not have the energy storage to survive that, and that such an energy storage - with our current technology - will not be technically feasible, and that our neighbouring countries will not be able to support us if bad comes to worse. His prognosis is that if we proceed with the nuclear shutdown, we will perpetuate coal burning for the foreseeable future. Oh, right, some genius also decided to stop that. We like to think of ourselves to be enlightened trailblazers. But maybe we should take a step back and consider if we might be wrong. [1] https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/dokus-im-ersten/dokumentarfilm-im-ersten-atomkraft-forever/das-erste/Y3JpZDovL2Rhc2Vyc3RlLmRlL3JlcG9ydGFnZSBfIGRva3VtZW50YXRpb24gaW0gZXJzdGVuL2MxZmQyNTQ3LWU0MWQtNDEwNy1iNGNlLTA2NmZhYjYyOWZmNA https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/dokus-im-ersten/dokumentar... - the part I'm talking about starts at about 35:35, German only (unfortunately)
- epups 4y ago
  It's amazing how many well intentioned people cannot grasp this very simple point. There is no way to run a grid solely on solar and wind. Therefore the choice isn't between those and nuclear, it's between nuclear and coal/gas.
  - dividedbyzero 4y ago
    And now the fourth largest economy in the world with a huge and extremely capable engineering base is committed to finding a way. Given that storage and other supporting tech for renewables has so far received hardly any serious funding at all, I think it's quite realistic to expect a success story there. Just consider what the many billions invested into fracking tech did to the US accessible gas reserves, and that wasn't thought to be technologically and economically feasible by most knowledgeable people either. A fully renewable grid really is terra incognita, no one's done that before, of course there are a lot of open questions. But being a trailblazer might pay off handsomely if it does work out well, as others will want such a grid too.
    - epups 4y ago
      Sure, I support that. But one thing doesn't preclude the other. Invest in nuclear now to get rid of coal, and at the same time invest in research that may or may not pay off.
      - dividedbyzero 4y ago
        Olkiluoto is bound to be 13 years late at four times the budget, the other ones in France and the UK look like they're going the same way, and Germany demonstrably sucks at these large-scale projects (think BER airport), so any new reactors probably wouldn't be ready before the 2040s, but they would be ridiculously expensive. That kind of money buys a lot of storage research and solar capacity.
        epups 4y ago
Proven 4y ago
ucha 4y ago
1. Your article on nuclear energy just says that France has reactors that need maintenance. It also says they produce less electricity because they need cold water which is not currently available because of heat waves and droughts. Both are temporary problems that can be planned around or avoided by over-provisioning capacity. As the original article notes, you cannot over-provision capacity with renewable energies because they tend to produce 100x less power on windless or cloudy days. 2. It's more efficient to burn gas and collect the heat for industrial processes that go through an intermediary step of converting heat into electricity. I don't think it has anything to do with gas being irreplaceable as a source of heat. Gas can be necessary as a chemical precursor in some reactions - which can't be replaced by electricity - but that has nothing to do with heat.

mvgcf 4y ago

This.

ThePhysicist 4y ago

There's a difference between peak energy production at noon in summer and let's say 10 pm on christmas eve. And yes, the energy grid probably won't collapse in winter, removing 12-16 GW of baseload power will have a strong effect on prices though. Phasing out nuclear could have been fine, it's just that we didn't have any plan to replace it (again, mind the difference between base load and intermittent power production), e.g. no large-scale storage solutions planned whatsoever, which makes us reliant on gas, coal and the EU grid to match supply and demand.

DocTomoe 4y ago

> Germany doesn't really lack electricity. ... yet. There is an interesting report on the ARD Mediathek [1] right now in which - among other nuclear-involved people - the guy responsible the flow of electricity talks about power production and consumption. He points out that while it is true that at some points in time, renewables provided 95% of our consumption, there are still other times where they make up less than 1%. He then proceeds to explain that we do not have the energy storage to survive that, and that such an energy storage - with our current technology - will not be technically feasible, and that our neighbouring countries will not be able to support us if bad comes to worse. His prognosis is that if we proceed with the nuclear shutdown, we will perpetuate coal burning for the foreseeable future. Oh, right, some genius also decided to stop that. We like to think of ourselves to be enlightened trailblazers. But maybe we should take a step back and consider if we might be wrong. [1] https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/dokus-im-ersten/dokumentarfilm-im-ersten-atomkraft-forever/das-erste/Y3JpZDovL2Rhc2Vyc3RlLmRlL3JlcG9ydGFnZSBfIGRva3VtZW50YXRpb24gaW0gZXJzdGVuL2MxZmQyNTQ3LWU0MWQtNDEwNy1iNGNlLTA2NmZhYjYyOWZmNA https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/dokus-im-ersten/dokumentar... - the part I'm talking about starts at about 35:35, German only (unfortunately)

epups 4y ago
It's amazing how many well intentioned people cannot grasp this very simple point. There is no way to run a grid solely on solar and wind. Therefore the choice isn't between those and nuclear, it's between nuclear and coal/gas.
- dividedbyzero 4y ago
  And now the fourth largest economy in the world with a huge and extremely capable engineering base is committed to finding a way. Given that storage and other supporting tech for renewables has so far received hardly any serious funding at all, I think it's quite realistic to expect a success story there. Just consider what the many billions invested into fracking tech did to the US accessible gas reserves, and that wasn't thought to be technologically and economically feasible by most knowledgeable people either. A fully renewable grid really is terra incognita, no one's done that before, of course there are a lot of open questions. But being a trailblazer might pay off handsomely if it does work out well, as others will want such a grid too.
  - epups 4y ago
    Sure, I support that. But one thing doesn't preclude the other. Invest in nuclear now to get rid of coal, and at the same time invest in research that may or may not pay off.
    - dividedbyzero 4y ago
      Olkiluoto is bound to be 13 years late at four times the budget, the other ones in France and the UK look like they're going the same way, and Germany demonstrably sucks at these large-scale projects (think BER airport), so any new reactors probably wouldn't be ready before the 2040s, but they would be ridiculously expensive. That kind of money buys a lot of storage research and solar capacity.
      - epups 4y ago

Proven 4y ago

ucha 4y ago

1. Your article on nuclear energy just says that France has reactors that need maintenance. It also says they produce less electricity because they need cold water which is not currently available because of heat waves and droughts. Both are temporary problems that can be planned around or avoided by over-provisioning capacity. As the original article notes, you cannot over-provision capacity with renewable energies because they tend to produce 100x less power on windless or cloudy days. 2. It's more efficient to burn gas and collect the heat for industrial processes that go through an intermediary step of converting heat into electricity. I don't think it has anything to do with gas being irreplaceable as a source of heat. Gas can be necessary as a chemical precursor in some reactions - which can't be replaced by electricity - but that has nothing to do with heat.