5 ms·

Germany typically uses X joules of energy to run its economy. Some percent of that X comes via nat gas (and oil) from Russia. If they replace some of those Ru

by timmg 4y ago

Germany typically uses X joules of energy to run its economy. Some percent of that X comes via nat gas (and oil) from Russia. If they replace some of those Russian joules with nuclear joules, then a smaller percentage comes from Russia. That lowers demand for fossil fuels. That reduces revenue for Russia. > It's not going to affect the 10m+ gas-fired furnaces, water heaters, ovens or stoves... Not at once. But it certainly makes it easier for people to replace nat gas appliances with electric ones. If you are heating your home with nat gas and the price explodes, it would be beneficial to lower your thermostat and crank up an electric space heater to make up (some) of the difference.

Arnt 4y ago
The thing is that maybe around 1% of the joules can be replaced with nuclear. Most can't because connecting electricity wires to a gas-fired furnace does nothing (good). I once started a bugfixing week with fixing a bug that caused around 1% of the crashes. My team lead didn't think that was either smart, obvious or very anythingatall, and said so loudly and clearly in the team meeting.
- timmg 4y ago
  > The thing is that maybe around 1% of the joules can be replaced with nuclear. Citation needed. These plants are running now. Are you saying the electricity they are generating is not being used? The question is what replaces those joules if they shut them down?
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    They are providing like 6% of the German electricity. So yes, replacing them will require more fossil fuel short time. On the other side, the idea is to replace them with renewal sources. Germany is already at 50 renewables in the electricity mix. Nuclear is not really a replacement for gas, rather than coal, due to its slow nature. Gas power plants are used in Germany mostly for quick peak power.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    Most of the gas isn't used for generating electricity. Rather, it's used at the point where the electricity would be used. If you build a house you can install a furnace that gets joules from the electricity network or from the gas network, see? And there are a little over ten million houses and apartments that get their warm water and heating from gas-heated boilers/furnaces. See https://www.haustec.de/heizung/waermeerzeugung/waermemarkt-waechst-gasheizungen-bleiben-die-beliebteste-heiztechnologie https://www.haustec.de/heizung/waermeerzeugung/waermemarkt-w... for example. There's also the chemical industry, which uses gas as chemicals, not as a source of joules.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    I think I misunderstood your question. The plants are running now, but that doesn't make them able to replace gas. Most of the gas can't be replaced by them for the reasons in my other response, but I think your question was about the rest? The rest is because of the different traits of nuclear and gas-fired power plants. Nuclear power plants aren't adjustable, they provide the same amount of power, day and night, plodding on, with only very slow adjustments. Gas is the opposite. Gas-fired power plants are easy to adjust on very short notice, to match the unexpected changes in demand. If you try to replace quick-changing power plants with slow-changing, the network's frequency (50Hz in Germany) suffers. When demand shrinks and the slow-changing power plant can't adapt, the frequency rises above 50Hz. When demand rises quickly, the opposite happens. Some adjustment is possible by involving other entities than just the two, so it's not quite 0%.
- drpyser22 4y ago
  Cheaper electricity pushes the market to favor electric heating over gas. The cost of switching from a gas furnace to an electric one will be worth it if gas becomes more expensive and electricity cheaper. If you fix a bug that currently causes few crashes but would later on turn out to cause big issues, and you see that outcome in advance, then it would in fact be smart wouldn't it?
natmaka 4y ago
A fair part of the uranium burnt in many nations comes from Russia and its vassals. The first provider of France (22.1%) is... Kazakhstan. US: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/russian-uranium-fueling-u-s-nukes-an-urgent-threat-doe-says https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/russian...

by timmg 4y ago

Arnt 4y ago

The thing is that maybe around 1% of the joules can be replaced with nuclear. Most can't because connecting electricity wires to a gas-fired furnace does nothing (good). I once started a bugfixing week with fixing a bug that caused around 1% of the crashes. My team lead didn't think that was either smart, obvious or very anythingatall, and said so loudly and clearly in the team meeting.

timmg 4y ago
> The thing is that maybe around 1% of the joules can be replaced with nuclear. Citation needed. These plants are running now. Are you saying the electricity they are generating is not being used? The question is what replaces those joules if they shut them down?
- _ph_ 4y ago
  They are providing like 6% of the German electricity. So yes, replacing them will require more fossil fuel short time. On the other side, the idea is to replace them with renewal sources. Germany is already at 50 renewables in the electricity mix. Nuclear is not really a replacement for gas, rather than coal, due to its slow nature. Gas power plants are used in Germany mostly for quick peak power.
- Arnt 4y ago
  Most of the gas isn't used for generating electricity. Rather, it's used at the point where the electricity would be used. If you build a house you can install a furnace that gets joules from the electricity network or from the gas network, see? And there are a little over ten million houses and apartments that get their warm water and heating from gas-heated boilers/furnaces. See https://www.haustec.de/heizung/waermeerzeugung/waermemarkt-waechst-gasheizungen-bleiben-die-beliebteste-heiztechnologie https://www.haustec.de/heizung/waermeerzeugung/waermemarkt-w... for example. There's also the chemical industry, which uses gas as chemicals, not as a source of joules.
- Arnt 4y ago
  I think I misunderstood your question. The plants are running now, but that doesn't make them able to replace gas. Most of the gas can't be replaced by them for the reasons in my other response, but I think your question was about the rest? The rest is because of the different traits of nuclear and gas-fired power plants. Nuclear power plants aren't adjustable, they provide the same amount of power, day and night, plodding on, with only very slow adjustments. Gas is the opposite. Gas-fired power plants are easy to adjust on very short notice, to match the unexpected changes in demand. If you try to replace quick-changing power plants with slow-changing, the network's frequency (50Hz in Germany) suffers. When demand shrinks and the slow-changing power plant can't adapt, the frequency rises above 50Hz. When demand rises quickly, the opposite happens. Some adjustment is possible by involving other entities than just the two, so it's not quite 0%.
drpyser22 4y ago
Cheaper electricity pushes the market to favor electric heating over gas. The cost of switching from a gas furnace to an electric one will be worth it if gas becomes more expensive and electricity cheaper. If you fix a bug that currently causes few crashes but would later on turn out to cause big issues, and you see that outcome in advance, then it would in fact be smart wouldn't it?

natmaka 4y ago

A fair part of the uranium burnt in many nations comes from Russia and its vassals. The first provider of France (22.1%) is... Kazakhstan. US: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/russian-uranium-fueling-u-s-nukes-an-urgent-threat-doe-says https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/russian...