4 ms·

Of current gas demand. The thing is that Germany was planning on significantly increasing their gas demand by building many gas reactors [1] to work in tandem w

by IMTDb 4y ago

Of current gas demand. The thing is that Germany was planning on significantly increasing their gas demand by building many gas reactors [1] to work in tandem with renewables. Since building new gas plants isn't really an option anymore, and renewable can't produce reliable electricity by themselves regardless of cost, we are back to nuclear. [1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-needs-20-30-gw-new-gas-plants-ensure-supply-security-rwe-ceo https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-needs-20-30-gw-...

hannob 4y ago
> The thing is that Germany was planning on significantly increasing their gas demand by building many gas reactors [1] to work in tandem with renewables. I wanted to explain what's wrong with this statement, because that's simply not true. But I don't have to: You just need to read the text that you linked to: "As Germany ramps up renewables and exits coal and nuclear power, it may need more gas power capacity, which would mostly be put to use at times of high electricity needs and little wind or sunshine – and not necessarily lead to more overall gas consumption."
- marsven_422 4y ago
- oneoff786 4y ago
  That’s a really silly statement. You know what would reduce gas consumption even more? Reliable nuclear reactors with constant output.
  - tstrimple 4y ago
    And you still have no dispatchable solution.
  - croes 4y ago
    Nuclear energy is bad at providing flexible output and that's what is needed. And with rising temperatures the exiting power plants aren't reliable at all because the the need cool water supply
  - JeremyNT 4y ago
    Nuclear isn't directly an alternative to gas power. You've got the problem stated right in your comment: the constant output of nuclear is only part of generation needs. Gas is different from nuclear in that it's easy to regulate the power generated, which is necessary to deal with demand spikes and generation dips (the latter due to wind/solar which may not always be available). Presumably Germany would only ever want to rely on gas for this purpose. There are ways to adjust nuclear power output but they are quite expensive (on top of the fact that any nuclear power plant is already expensive). To get rid of fossil fuel power plants you need to match their exceptional ability to regulate power generation levels. You could do this by using nuclear for base generation and supplementing renewables with storage techniques (e.g. pumped hydro storage), but nuclear is unfortunately not a "drop in" replacement on its own.
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      The situation you’re describing arrives from a status quo of lots of renewables and no nuclear. The actual starting point was nuclear and no renewables. If they had both renewables and nuclear they could have done a number of other things with their energy design.
- scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago
  Sounds like something they would 'have' to use all the time. It's not like wind and sunshine was about to start powering the German industrial machine all on it's own any time soon. Probably biased but reminds me of a recent talk by a Polish nuclear scientist explaining how this gas infrastructure is much more expensive than most people imagine. And it has to be regularly updated. So, if we are to factor in that cost, then brand new nuclear infrastructure and nuclear conversion isn't that much more.
Varqu 4y ago
One could be wondering why there was a big pushback against nuclear energy in the first place. Especially that it hasn't happened in the neighboring France. Was it perhaps because of some hidden actors who pushed for the gas pipelines deals? I can imagine, that the Russian influences in Germany hasn't magically disappeared after the fall of Berlin wall.
- s_dev 4y ago
  >One could be wondering why there was a big pushback against nuclear energy in the first place. Fukushima incident had a big impact on German public opinion. Even at the time it was a obvious over reaction from the Germans.
  - freeflight 4y ago
    > Fukushima incident had a big impact on German public opinion. Merkel already went against public opinion when she put in place running time extensions in late 2010 to delay the phase-out, that was massively controversial decision. Then only a few months later Fukushima blew up, so her already unpopular and controversial position became ultimately untannable. Particularly as many faults with German reactors were found during the [atom-moratorium](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom-Moratorium https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom-Moratorium) that was declared after Fukushima. Prior to that safety inspections were not even mandatory for the operators.
- arrrg 4y ago
  Not everything is a conspiracy theory. (Opposition to) nuclear energy is an emotional topic in Germany, one that mobilizes people. In a democratic society that leads to effects like the phase out of nuclear. It’s mind-numbingly simple and I do not understand at all why conspiracies are mentioned left, right and center in this thread.
  - Varqu 4y ago
    Lobbyists are not a conspiracy theory. No matter if they act on behalf of businesses or state actors, one has to admit that they do exist and have influence over public policies. Also, the fact that in most countries there are multiple hidden agents acting on behalf of other countries hardly seems to be a conspiracy theory as well.

by IMTDb 4y ago

hannob 4y ago

> The thing is that Germany was planning on significantly increasing their gas demand by building many gas reactors [1] to work in tandem with renewables. I wanted to explain what's wrong with this statement, because that's simply not true. But I don't have to: You just need to read the text that you linked to: "As Germany ramps up renewables and exits coal and nuclear power, it may need more gas power capacity, which would mostly be put to use at times of high electricity needs and little wind or sunshine – and not necessarily lead to more overall gas consumption."

marsven_422 4y ago
oneoff786 4y ago
That’s a really silly statement. You know what would reduce gas consumption even more? Reliable nuclear reactors with constant output.
- tstrimple 4y ago
  And you still have no dispatchable solution.
- croes 4y ago
  Nuclear energy is bad at providing flexible output and that's what is needed. And with rising temperatures the exiting power plants aren't reliable at all because the the need cool water supply
- JeremyNT 4y ago
  Nuclear isn't directly an alternative to gas power. You've got the problem stated right in your comment: the constant output of nuclear is only part of generation needs. Gas is different from nuclear in that it's easy to regulate the power generated, which is necessary to deal with demand spikes and generation dips (the latter due to wind/solar which may not always be available). Presumably Germany would only ever want to rely on gas for this purpose. There are ways to adjust nuclear power output but they are quite expensive (on top of the fact that any nuclear power plant is already expensive). To get rid of fossil fuel power plants you need to match their exceptional ability to regulate power generation levels. You could do this by using nuclear for base generation and supplementing renewables with storage techniques (e.g. pumped hydro storage), but nuclear is unfortunately not a "drop in" replacement on its own.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    The situation you’re describing arrives from a status quo of lots of renewables and no nuclear. The actual starting point was nuclear and no renewables. If they had both renewables and nuclear they could have done a number of other things with their energy design.
scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago
Sounds like something they would 'have' to use all the time. It's not like wind and sunshine was about to start powering the German industrial machine all on it's own any time soon. Probably biased but reminds me of a recent talk by a Polish nuclear scientist explaining how this gas infrastructure is much more expensive than most people imagine. And it has to be regularly updated. So, if we are to factor in that cost, then brand new nuclear infrastructure and nuclear conversion isn't that much more.

Varqu 4y ago

One could be wondering why there was a big pushback against nuclear energy in the first place. Especially that it hasn't happened in the neighboring France. Was it perhaps because of some hidden actors who pushed for the gas pipelines deals? I can imagine, that the Russian influences in Germany hasn't magically disappeared after the fall of Berlin wall.

s_dev 4y ago
>One could be wondering why there was a big pushback against nuclear energy in the first place. Fukushima incident had a big impact on German public opinion. Even at the time it was a obvious over reaction from the Germans.
- freeflight 4y ago
  > Fukushima incident had a big impact on German public opinion. Merkel already went against public opinion when she put in place running time extensions in late 2010 to delay the phase-out, that was massively controversial decision. Then only a few months later Fukushima blew up, so her already unpopular and controversial position became ultimately untannable. Particularly as many faults with German reactors were found during the [atom-moratorium](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom-Moratorium https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom-Moratorium) that was declared after Fukushima. Prior to that safety inspections were not even mandatory for the operators.
arrrg 4y ago
Not everything is a conspiracy theory. (Opposition to) nuclear energy is an emotional topic in Germany, one that mobilizes people. In a democratic society that leads to effects like the phase out of nuclear. It’s mind-numbingly simple and I do not understand at all why conspiracies are mentioned left, right and center in this thread.
- Varqu 4y ago
  Lobbyists are not a conspiracy theory. No matter if they act on behalf of businesses or state actors, one has to admit that they do exist and have influence over public policies. Also, the fact that in most countries there are multiple hidden agents acting on behalf of other countries hardly seems to be a conspiracy theory as well.