3 ms·

It's much better than coal. Most places don't have enough hydro, biogas or geothermal, and nuclear ran out of favour. There is currently nothing else that can d

It's much better than coal. Most places don't have enough hydro, biogas or geothermal, and nuclear ran out of favour. There is currently nothing else that can deliver a base load.

actionfromafar 4y ago
For sure. I understand perfectly well what led up to this. Nuclear also ran out of rivers to cool them in France. Now we will see a fast transition instead of slow and steady transition away from gas. It will be "interesting".
- tjansen 4y ago
  Transition to what? The only available technologies providing base load are fossils and nuclear.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    We will find out. Maybe intelligent load shedding, residential co-generation with thermal stores (underground water reservoirs) to easily switch between heat and electricity generation on demand, large scale battery banks. The EU will basically have to create a war economy energy wise. Germany is in for a world of hurt, because a lot of their industry is built on gas. Germany must switch over to processes based on electricity, in a situation where electricity is at a premium. I believe a two-pronged approach is necessary - decrease the size of the base load and increase production. Not enough is made of decreasing base load. Nothing inherent in the design of the grid says it must act as an infinite battery of infinate power - that's an artifact of history. We need to build more flexible processes around an ability to quickly switch on and off loads depending on current price. (Nuclear is nice but the lead times mean we won't have any new capacity until 10 years from now.)
    - tjansen 4y ago
      You're saying that nuclear is too slow, because it takes 10 years, so we should use unproven technology at unprecedented scale instead and hope that it works?
      - actionfromafar 4y ago
        I'm saying we should go nuclear. In the meantime, we will be forced to find solutions.
msh 4y ago
A dependency on russian gas should never have been established.

It's much better than coal. Most places don't have enough hydro, biogas or geothermal, and nuclear ran out of favour. There is currently nothing else that can deliver a base load.

actionfromafar 4y ago

For sure. I understand perfectly well what led up to this. Nuclear also ran out of rivers to cool them in France. Now we will see a fast transition instead of slow and steady transition away from gas. It will be "interesting".

tjansen 4y ago
Transition to what? The only available technologies providing base load are fossils and nuclear.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  We will find out. Maybe intelligent load shedding, residential co-generation with thermal stores (underground water reservoirs) to easily switch between heat and electricity generation on demand, large scale battery banks. The EU will basically have to create a war economy energy wise. Germany is in for a world of hurt, because a lot of their industry is built on gas. Germany must switch over to processes based on electricity, in a situation where electricity is at a premium. I believe a two-pronged approach is necessary - decrease the size of the base load and increase production. Not enough is made of decreasing base load. Nothing inherent in the design of the grid says it must act as an infinite battery of infinate power - that's an artifact of history. We need to build more flexible processes around an ability to quickly switch on and off loads depending on current price. (Nuclear is nice but the lead times mean we won't have any new capacity until 10 years from now.)
  - tjansen 4y ago
    You're saying that nuclear is too slow, because it takes 10 years, so we should use unproven technology at unprecedented scale instead and hope that it works?
    - actionfromafar 4y ago
      I'm saying we should go nuclear. In the meantime, we will be forced to find solutions.

msh 4y ago

A dependency on russian gas should never have been established.