6 ms·

To think there were nuclear reactors already built and running perfectly fine in Germany. That were closed down presumably for ecological reasons. Burning coal

by mpreda 4y ago

To think there were nuclear reactors already built and running perfectly fine in Germany. That were closed down presumably for ecological reasons. Burning coal and natural gas instead.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
Not just any coal, but lignite, the nastiest, dirtiest kind of coal. Definitely greener than nuclear. /s
- this_user 4y ago
  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Energymix_Germany.svg/2560px-Energymix_Germany.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/En...
  - jenadine 4y ago
    Imagine if they had been growing the nuclear instead of reducing it, it would have allowed to almost get rid of lignite and coal. Instead it is still a portion. (And solar and wind being intermittent you can't just have that)
    - 0x073 4y ago
      Nulcear is only for base load, coal can be used for medium spikes. Nuclear can't replace coal for this.
      - Aeolun 4y ago
        I’m inclined to believe solar and wind have similar percentages of storage available.
      - yodelshady 4y ago
        That's just a lie.
  - amadeuspagel 4y ago
    Graph only goes until 2020.
  - yodelshady 4y ago
    Any chart that misses 2022 in Germany's consumption is just mendacious.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      What happened then and do you have a graph that includes it?
- skrause 4y ago
  And yet Germany has fewer CO2 emissions per kWh of electricity produced than the USA.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Yeah but you're breathing coal dust
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    Barely. It's not really much different. For the full year 2021, about 350gCO2/kWh in Germany vs 375gCO2/kWh. Germany spent an insane amount of money, punished the use of electricity effectively (therefore undermining their own competitiveness in EVs), caused a significantly negative impact on household finances and industrial competitiveness (to the advantage of coal-powered China) and still only gets roughly US level of cleanliness in electricity. Because they simultaneously decided to get rid of nuclear power plants. shrug
- IdiocyInAction 4y ago
  Also the only fossil fuel Germany has in abundance in its own territory.
pydry 4y ago
They werent that many to begin with they growing increasingly expensive to run, were coming to the end of their lifespan and Fukushima was a risk that was hard to ignore. It's interesting how Poland's electricity mix has been 80% coal for decades and this passes without comment, but what really enrages some people is a few nuclear power plants in Germany being mostly swapped out with solar and wind energy. Doesnt seem like environmentalism is really the core issue driving this.
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  Poland's coal use is also a huge problem. However, they don't receive as much comment because Germany is richer, so more able to afford cleaner energy sources, and Poland wasn't ignorant and short-sighted about using Russian natural gas.
  - cbmuser 4y ago
    Poland is actually going to build nuclear power plants soon. In ten years, Poland‘s electricity mix will be much cleaner than Germany‘s.
    - robocat 4y ago
      EXPORTS In 2021, Poland exported $926M in Electricity. The main destination of Electricity exports from Poland are: Lithuania ($430M), Slovakia ($388M), Czechia ($56.5M), Germany ($28.8M), and Sweden ($23M). IMPORTS In 2021, Poland imported $1.45B in Electricity. Poland imports Electricity primarily from: Germany ($911M), Sweden ($299M), Lithuania ($131M), Ukraine ($63.4M), and Czechia ($43.5M).
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        A lot of Russian gas went straight to the gas turbines of electricity generating plants, which considerably skews these figures.
- cbmuser 4y ago
tfourb 3y ago
tl;dr: A country like Germany could expand its current electricity production by about 50% while simultaneously phasing out nuclear and fossil fuels at a whole sale price for electricity below current market rates and with current technology. Converting the entire electricity production of an advanced industrial economy to renewable energy (without using nuclear) is quite straightforward. In case of Germany, a 2015 study compared various scenarios for how electricity demand will develop by 2050. The most expansive scenario assumes a yearly demand of 800 TWh, compared to roughly 500 TWh in 2021. [1] The additional demand comes from electrifying cars and heating, etc. Demand does of course vary by time of day, but is virtually stable from month to month. Variability of renewable production is quite high, so let's assume that you'd need long-term grid-scale electricity buffers for about 30% of yearly demand. The most basic approach to this would be the transformation of electricity and water into Hydrogen when an excess of electricity is available and the reverse when demand outstrips supply. The combined efficiency of that process (electricity->Hydrogen->electricity) is roughly 50%. I'm actually pretty sure that by 2050 we'll have much better solutions available, but this approach is doable with current tech and has the added bonus of being able to be combined with a hydrogen infrastructure similar to how natural gas is currently used, i.e. for industrial processes and heating. That would put total yearly demand at 1,040 TWh, which based on the efficiency of currently available PV and wind turbines [2] would require a total nominal installed capacity of about 1.040 GW (based on real world data from Germany, 1 GW in installed renewable capacity is roughly equal to a yearly production of 1 TWh. This will vary based on local circumstances, but Germany is not particularly bountiful in its renewable potential compared to other countries). Currently, Germany has a total installed capacity of solar, wind and water power generation of about 125GW but I will assume that all these installations will reach their end of life before 2050 and will need to be replaced as part of this project. At current prices for the installation of new PV (700,000 €/MW) and wind onshore/offshore (3,000,000 €/MW) and assuming a 50/50 split in installed capacity, the total investment for the required 1,040 MW would come to roughly 2 Trillion Euros over 30 years, or about 66 Billion Euros per year. Divided by 800 TWh of yearly demand, this comes out to 8.3 cents (Euro) per KWh. This is comfortably below the 2021 average whole sale price of roughly 10 cents/KWh and in Germany would come out to about 20 cents/KWh for private consumers, compared to the current market average of roughly 30 cents/KWh. Of course current energy production is quite heavily subsidized by the German government. If subsidies continue (or taxes on electricity are lowered), price per KWh could be reduced substantially. This is of course only a very rough and simplified calculation. But it is straightforward and based on real world data, a pessimistic energy consumption scenario and current technologies. It ignores the potential for geothermal energy, biomass, imported hydrogen, long-distance imports of solar energy from the Sahara, or hydro power from Northern Europe, as well as likely technological improvement for generating and storing renewable energy. Looking at this, I find it hard to believe that absent a complete revolution of reactor design and cost-effectiveness, nuclear power will have any serious role to play in this, given its regulatory challenges, capital expenditure requirements, construction times and unsolved waste management issues. [1] https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2015/Stromverbrauch_in_der_Energiewende/086_IWES_Szenarienvergl_dt_WEB.pdf https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2015/St... [2] https://www.smard.de/home/marktdaten https://www.smard.de/home/marktdaten

by mpreda 4y ago

To think there were nuclear reactors already built and running perfectly fine in Germany. That were closed down presumably for ecological reasons. Burning coal and natural gas instead.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

Not just any coal, but lignite, the nastiest, dirtiest kind of coal. Definitely greener than nuclear. /s

this_user 4y ago
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Energymix_Germany.svg/2560px-Energymix_Germany.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/En...
- jenadine 4y ago
  Imagine if they had been growing the nuclear instead of reducing it, it would have allowed to almost get rid of lignite and coal. Instead it is still a portion. (And solar and wind being intermittent you can't just have that)
  - 0x073 4y ago
    Nulcear is only for base load, coal can be used for medium spikes. Nuclear can't replace coal for this.
    - Aeolun 4y ago
      I’m inclined to believe solar and wind have similar percentages of storage available.
    - yodelshady 4y ago
      That's just a lie.
- amadeuspagel 4y ago
  Graph only goes until 2020.
- yodelshady 4y ago
  Any chart that misses 2022 in Germany's consumption is just mendacious.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    What happened then and do you have a graph that includes it?
skrause 4y ago
And yet Germany has fewer CO2 emissions per kWh of electricity produced than the USA.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  Yeah but you're breathing coal dust
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  Barely. It's not really much different. For the full year 2021, about 350gCO2/kWh in Germany vs 375gCO2/kWh. Germany spent an insane amount of money, punished the use of electricity effectively (therefore undermining their own competitiveness in EVs), caused a significantly negative impact on household finances and industrial competitiveness (to the advantage of coal-powered China) and still only gets roughly US level of cleanliness in electricity. Because they simultaneously decided to get rid of nuclear power plants. shrug
IdiocyInAction 4y ago
Also the only fossil fuel Germany has in abundance in its own territory.

pydry 4y ago

They werent that many to begin with they growing increasingly expensive to run, were coming to the end of their lifespan and Fukushima was a risk that was hard to ignore. It's interesting how Poland's electricity mix has been 80% coal for decades and this passes without comment, but what really enrages some people is a few nuclear power plants in Germany being mostly swapped out with solar and wind energy. Doesnt seem like environmentalism is really the core issue driving this.

reducesuffering 4y ago
Poland's coal use is also a huge problem. However, they don't receive as much comment because Germany is richer, so more able to afford cleaner energy sources, and Poland wasn't ignorant and short-sighted about using Russian natural gas.
- cbmuser 4y ago
  Poland is actually going to build nuclear power plants soon. In ten years, Poland‘s electricity mix will be much cleaner than Germany‘s.
  - robocat 4y ago
    EXPORTS In 2021, Poland exported $926M in Electricity. The main destination of Electricity exports from Poland are: Lithuania ($430M), Slovakia ($388M), Czechia ($56.5M), Germany ($28.8M), and Sweden ($23M). IMPORTS In 2021, Poland imported $1.45B in Electricity. Poland imports Electricity primarily from: Germany ($911M), Sweden ($299M), Lithuania ($131M), Ukraine ($63.4M), and Czechia ($43.5M).
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      A lot of Russian gas went straight to the gas turbines of electricity generating plants, which considerably skews these figures.
cbmuser 4y ago

tfourb 3y ago

tl;dr: A country like Germany could expand its current electricity production by about 50% while simultaneously phasing out nuclear and fossil fuels at a whole sale price for electricity below current market rates and with current technology. Converting the entire electricity production of an advanced industrial economy to renewable energy (without using nuclear) is quite straightforward. In case of Germany, a 2015 study compared various scenarios for how electricity demand will develop by 2050. The most expansive scenario assumes a yearly demand of 800 TWh, compared to roughly 500 TWh in 2021. [1] The additional demand comes from electrifying cars and heating, etc. Demand does of course vary by time of day, but is virtually stable from month to month. Variability of renewable production is quite high, so let's assume that you'd need long-term grid-scale electricity buffers for about 30% of yearly demand. The most basic approach to this would be the transformation of electricity and water into Hydrogen when an excess of electricity is available and the reverse when demand outstrips supply. The combined efficiency of that process (electricity->Hydrogen->electricity) is roughly 50%. I'm actually pretty sure that by 2050 we'll have much better solutions available, but this approach is doable with current tech and has the added bonus of being able to be combined with a hydrogen infrastructure similar to how natural gas is currently used, i.e. for industrial processes and heating. That would put total yearly demand at 1,040 TWh, which based on the efficiency of currently available PV and wind turbines [2] would require a total nominal installed capacity of about 1.040 GW (based on real world data from Germany, 1 GW in installed renewable capacity is roughly equal to a yearly production of 1 TWh. This will vary based on local circumstances, but Germany is not particularly bountiful in its renewable potential compared to other countries). Currently, Germany has a total installed capacity of solar, wind and water power generation of about 125GW but I will assume that all these installations will reach their end of life before 2050 and will need to be replaced as part of this project. At current prices for the installation of new PV (700,000 €/MW) and wind onshore/offshore (3,000,000 €/MW) and assuming a 50/50 split in installed capacity, the total investment for the required 1,040 MW would come to roughly 2 Trillion Euros over 30 years, or about 66 Billion Euros per year. Divided by 800 TWh of yearly demand, this comes out to 8.3 cents (Euro) per KWh. This is comfortably below the 2021 average whole sale price of roughly 10 cents/KWh and in Germany would come out to about 20 cents/KWh for private consumers, compared to the current market average of roughly 30 cents/KWh. Of course current energy production is quite heavily subsidized by the German government. If subsidies continue (or taxes on electricity are lowered), price per KWh could be reduced substantially. This is of course only a very rough and simplified calculation. But it is straightforward and based on real world data, a pessimistic energy consumption scenario and current technologies. It ignores the potential for geothermal energy, biomass, imported hydrogen, long-distance imports of solar energy from the Sahara, or hydro power from Northern Europe, as well as likely technological improvement for generating and storing renewable energy. Looking at this, I find it hard to believe that absent a complete revolution of reactor design and cost-effectiveness, nuclear power will have any serious role to play in this, given its regulatory challenges, capital expenditure requirements, construction times and unsolved waste management issues. [1] https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2015/Stromverbrauch_in_der_Energiewende/086_IWES_Szenarienvergl_dt_WEB.pdf https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2015/St... [2] https://www.smard.de/home/marktdaten https://www.smard.de/home/marktdaten