7 ms·

If only some kind of electric radiator existed so people could use the nuclear power to heat their homes...

by waste_monk 4y ago

ttepasse 4y ago
For ca. 30 million households? In a supply chain crisis?
- SamReidHughes 4y ago
  You can use basically any device that consumes electric power and doesn't emit light.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
    Not exactly. There are very special things called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heatball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heatball which do both.
    - SamReidHughes 4y ago
      I only mean not to waste energy by emitting light. Or sound, I suppose.
      - ttepasse 4y ago
        I plan on heating this winter by running Electron apps on my Macbook.
- Gud 4y ago
  Us nuclear proponents have been saying for decades not to dismantle functioning power plants and build new ones. It’s a bit disingenuous to now say it’s not possible due to “supply chain crisis”. If we had been running on home made nuclear and not imported Russian gas we would not be in this situation at all; it was completely avoidable.
  - ttepasse 4y ago
    Assume for a moment Germany would have build a whole new fleet of nuclear reactors in the 90s. Completely politically impossible then, but let’s assume. It wouldn’t change much about the current gas crisis. Miniscule changes, maximum. Because the gas crisis is not an electricity crisis [1]. 91% of the gas used in Germany is not used for electricity generation. It’s used for heating, for cooking, both at homes and for industrial applications, from industrial ovens and in the chemical industry think fertilizer, etc. And even if we had the electricity “too cheap to meter” since the 90s, my assumption is that it wouldn’t have made a dent in the existing infrastructure of gas usage. There is an enormous 50+ years path dependency there, in a way housing infrastructure is technical debt on a gigantic scale. Replacing all the existing infrastructure even with massive governmental support and the necessary subventions is a generational project, minimum 20 years in my estimation. First producing the necessary heat pumps and other electrical heaters, building out the net, isolating 100+ year old building, etc. Those are processes which need supply of electrical heater, a huge mass of people capable to install them and first and and foremost money to finance those massive expenditures. 20 years is my optimistic take. And for our thought experiment, would people have done it, when not in a crisis mode? To never change a running system or only change it when being forced is simply human. I’m neither arguing pro or contra nuclear electricity. I’m just annoyed because nuclear proponents never seem to think about what’s happens outside of their reactor, the distribution and the actual use. On paper “energy” is fungible. In reality it really is not. Or rather: only with the efforts a country-wide 100x Manhattan project. When being repeatedly told that nuclear electricity would have helped, “How, exactly?” is not only a perfectly reasonable question but also the far more interesting aspect of the problem. [1] Given how interconnected the European electricity net is, is there an electricity crisis possible? Cross-border trade not just exists but is for years an essential feature of the European net.
    - Gud 4y ago
      Nuclear power is not strictly for electricity generation, trials were made outside Stockholm with the ~50MW Ågesta power plant to use nuclear for district heating. It was supposed to be the first of many but for political reasons they stopped this project. A decision I obviously disagree with. I did not argue that nuclear power should be used only for electricity.

If only some kind of electric radiator existed so people could use the nuclear power to heat their homes...

ttepasse 4y ago

For ca. 30 million households? In a supply chain crisis?

SamReidHughes 4y ago
You can use basically any device that consumes electric power and doesn't emit light.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Not exactly. There are very special things called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heatball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heatball which do both.
  - SamReidHughes 4y ago
    I only mean not to waste energy by emitting light. Or sound, I suppose.
    - ttepasse 4y ago
      I plan on heating this winter by running Electron apps on my Macbook.
Gud 4y ago
Us nuclear proponents have been saying for decades not to dismantle functioning power plants and build new ones. It’s a bit disingenuous to now say it’s not possible due to “supply chain crisis”. If we had been running on home made nuclear and not imported Russian gas we would not be in this situation at all; it was completely avoidable.
- ttepasse 4y ago
  Assume for a moment Germany would have build a whole new fleet of nuclear reactors in the 90s. Completely politically impossible then, but let’s assume. It wouldn’t change much about the current gas crisis. Miniscule changes, maximum. Because the gas crisis is not an electricity crisis [1]. 91% of the gas used in Germany is not used for electricity generation. It’s used for heating, for cooking, both at homes and for industrial applications, from industrial ovens and in the chemical industry think fertilizer, etc. And even if we had the electricity “too cheap to meter” since the 90s, my assumption is that it wouldn’t have made a dent in the existing infrastructure of gas usage. There is an enormous 50+ years path dependency there, in a way housing infrastructure is technical debt on a gigantic scale. Replacing all the existing infrastructure even with massive governmental support and the necessary subventions is a generational project, minimum 20 years in my estimation. First producing the necessary heat pumps and other electrical heaters, building out the net, isolating 100+ year old building, etc. Those are processes which need supply of electrical heater, a huge mass of people capable to install them and first and and foremost money to finance those massive expenditures. 20 years is my optimistic take. And for our thought experiment, would people have done it, when not in a crisis mode? To never change a running system or only change it when being forced is simply human. I’m neither arguing pro or contra nuclear electricity. I’m just annoyed because nuclear proponents never seem to think about what’s happens outside of their reactor, the distribution and the actual use. On paper “energy” is fungible. In reality it really is not. Or rather: only with the efforts a country-wide 100x Manhattan project. When being repeatedly told that nuclear electricity would have helped, “How, exactly?” is not only a perfectly reasonable question but also the far more interesting aspect of the problem. [1] Given how interconnected the European electricity net is, is there an electricity crisis possible? Cross-border trade not just exists but is for years an essential feature of the European net.
  - Gud 4y ago
    Nuclear power is not strictly for electricity generation, trials were made outside Stockholm with the ~50MW Ågesta power plant to use nuclear for district heating. It was supposed to be the first of many but for political reasons they stopped this project. A decision I obviously disagree with. I did not argue that nuclear power should be used only for electricity.