8 ms·

“Clean” energy. Gas fired plants are clean: they only produce CO2 and H20. Nuclear is “dirty”: they produce no CO2, but relatively small amounts of highly toxic

“Clean” energy. Gas fired plants are clean: they only produce CO2 and H20. Nuclear is “dirty”: they produce no CO2, but relatively small amounts of highly toxic waste. Bonus for “clean” “biomass” plants that actually produce hazard gases from burning tires!

ars 3y ago
I know you are being ironic with "clear", but gas fired plants should also be "billed" for the dirt created by mining the natural gas in the first place.
- lowbloodsugar 3y ago
  Sure. Same for solar. Same for forever plastics in wind turbines. Same for ecological damage for hydro.
- krasin 3y ago
  > I know you are being ironic with "clear", but gas fired plants should also be "billed" for the dirt created by mining the natural gas in the first place. +1 to taxing externalities. I would also add a tax to the plants that ever used Russian gas with proceeds going to restoration of Ukraine. If not for the decision of German public to shut down their nuclear reactors, Putin would have never had that much money to start the war. (edit: as correctly pointed out below, significant part of the lost electricity capacity after turning down the nuclear plants was substituted by domestic coal, not Russian gas, so my comment was based on partially wrong info; sorry about that)
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    > If not for the decision of German public to shut down their nuclear reactors, Putin would have never had that much money to start the war. 55% of natural gas that circulated in Germany in 2021 came from russia. 48% of natural gas that circulated in Germany in 2021 was exported to other countries. ~13% of natural gas in Germany that year was used for electricity production. But go on and tell us how keeping nuclear power on in Germany would have cut those natural gas exports, heated the 14 million domestic gas boilers, or produced fertilizer.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      Germany didn’t replace its nukes with gas, but with coal.
      - pgeorgi 3y ago
        Germany replaced its nuclear power plants with all kinds of things, predominantly renewables. The first NPP going offline under the "Atomausstieg" went offline in 2003. https://www.energie.de/et/news-detailansicht/nsctrl/detail/News/stromerzeugung-rueckblick-auf-den-energiemix-seit-1990-zeigt-die-risiken-uebergrosser-dynamik https://www.energie.de/et/news-detailansicht/nsctrl/detail/N... has a chart showing the energy sources for electricity production in Germany (up to 2021). During the period in which nuclear (Kernenergie) went down from ~160bn kWh (2003) to ~60bn kWh (2021), lignite (Braunkohle) went down from a bit over 150bn kWh to ~110bn kWh. Hard coal (Steinkohle) went down from ~140bn kWh to ~50bn kWh. There has been an uptick in natural gas (Erdgas) from ~60bn kWh to ~90bn kWh, but most of it was covered by renewables (Erneuerbare), going from ~55bn kWh to ~240bn kWh. So no, nuclear power wasn't replaced with coal. There has been an increase in coal to replace natural gas in 2022 (not on this chart) when the gas market imploded following russia's full-scale invasion in Ukraine, but that was more of a temporary measure. With the LNG terminals going online, that will be sorted out soon enough, and measures to increase the build out of renewables to get rid of all fossils (_and_ nuclear) were planned even before 2022. Germany just had the problem that after a coalition government including the Greens until 2005, the conservative-led coalitions for the next 16 years didn't dare to reopen the snake pit that is nuclear power (it was a conservative government that ended new build out of nuclear power plants in 1989, too) but at the same time hampered the renewables build out - apparently they have some weird infatuation with burning fossils.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        Look at primary production of imported power. That’s where Germany’s coal is burnt.
        pgeorgi 3y ago
philsnow 3y ago
TIL a lot about natural gas. Gas-fired plants use "dry" natural gas which has had most impurities removed and consists of around 94% methane, with the rest mostly ethane, propane, and butane. I was about to say "ah-ha! what about ethane combustion?" but then I looked it up and the combustion reactions with ethane, propane, and butane all produce only water vapor and carbon dioxide. Now, how to dry "wet" natural gas (remove the impurities that don't burn to just H2O + CO2), and how to "sweeten" "sour" natural gas (remove the toxic/lethal sulfur compounds like H2S)? I don't know what all of those reactions look like and what the processes cost in terms of energy and waste byproducts, but those are the kinds of externalities that are sometimes dismissed because they're not as visible (like the wastewater heating for the Diablo nuclear plant).
cesarb 3y ago
> Gas fired plants are clean: they only produce CO2 and H20. AFAIK, that can only be the case if you combust the gas with pure oxygen; air also has a lot of nitrogen, so combusting with air will always lead to some oxides of nitrogen appearing in the output. > Nuclear is “dirty”: they produce no CO2, but relatively small amounts of highly toxic waste. It depends on your point of view. That highly toxic waste is completely contained in normal operation, so looking from the outside, it's "clean"; it's only when (or if) you open the box that it becomes "dirty".
- HPsquared 3y ago
  They probably have scrubbers for nitrogen oxides, like how coal plants have flue gas desulfurization.
- HankB99 3y ago
  > AFAIK, ... combusting with air will always lead to some oxides of nitrogen appearing in the output. I was curious so I did a search. I know this is a problem with internal combustion engines which operate under higher pressure (not sure about temperature.) There were a lot of hits for "do gas turbines produce nox", many of which were about dealing with the problem.

ars 3y ago

I know you are being ironic with "clear", but gas fired plants should also be "billed" for the dirt created by mining the natural gas in the first place.

lowbloodsugar 3y ago
Sure. Same for solar. Same for forever plastics in wind turbines. Same for ecological damage for hydro.
krasin 3y ago
> I know you are being ironic with "clear", but gas fired plants should also be "billed" for the dirt created by mining the natural gas in the first place. +1 to taxing externalities. I would also add a tax to the plants that ever used Russian gas with proceeds going to restoration of Ukraine. If not for the decision of German public to shut down their nuclear reactors, Putin would have never had that much money to start the war. (edit: as correctly pointed out below, significant part of the lost electricity capacity after turning down the nuclear plants was substituted by domestic coal, not Russian gas, so my comment was based on partially wrong info; sorry about that)
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  > If not for the decision of German public to shut down their nuclear reactors, Putin would have never had that much money to start the war. 55% of natural gas that circulated in Germany in 2021 came from russia. 48% of natural gas that circulated in Germany in 2021 was exported to other countries. ~13% of natural gas in Germany that year was used for electricity production. But go on and tell us how keeping nuclear power on in Germany would have cut those natural gas exports, heated the 14 million domestic gas boilers, or produced fertilizer.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Germany didn’t replace its nukes with gas, but with coal.
    - pgeorgi 3y ago
      Germany replaced its nuclear power plants with all kinds of things, predominantly renewables. The first NPP going offline under the "Atomausstieg" went offline in 2003. https://www.energie.de/et/news-detailansicht/nsctrl/detail/News/stromerzeugung-rueckblick-auf-den-energiemix-seit-1990-zeigt-die-risiken-uebergrosser-dynamik https://www.energie.de/et/news-detailansicht/nsctrl/detail/N... has a chart showing the energy sources for electricity production in Germany (up to 2021). During the period in which nuclear (Kernenergie) went down from ~160bn kWh (2003) to ~60bn kWh (2021), lignite (Braunkohle) went down from a bit over 150bn kWh to ~110bn kWh. Hard coal (Steinkohle) went down from ~140bn kWh to ~50bn kWh. There has been an uptick in natural gas (Erdgas) from ~60bn kWh to ~90bn kWh, but most of it was covered by renewables (Erneuerbare), going from ~55bn kWh to ~240bn kWh. So no, nuclear power wasn't replaced with coal. There has been an increase in coal to replace natural gas in 2022 (not on this chart) when the gas market imploded following russia's full-scale invasion in Ukraine, but that was more of a temporary measure. With the LNG terminals going online, that will be sorted out soon enough, and measures to increase the build out of renewables to get rid of all fossils (_and_ nuclear) were planned even before 2022. Germany just had the problem that after a coalition government including the Greens until 2005, the conservative-led coalitions for the next 16 years didn't dare to reopen the snake pit that is nuclear power (it was a conservative government that ended new build out of nuclear power plants in 1989, too) but at the same time hampered the renewables build out - apparently they have some weird infatuation with burning fossils.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        Look at primary production of imported power. That’s where Germany’s coal is burnt.
        pgeorgi 3y ago

philsnow 3y ago

TIL a lot about natural gas. Gas-fired plants use "dry" natural gas which has had most impurities removed and consists of around 94% methane, with the rest mostly ethane, propane, and butane. I was about to say "ah-ha! what about ethane combustion?" but then I looked it up and the combustion reactions with ethane, propane, and butane all produce only water vapor and carbon dioxide. Now, how to dry "wet" natural gas (remove the impurities that don't burn to just H2O + CO2), and how to "sweeten" "sour" natural gas (remove the toxic/lethal sulfur compounds like H2S)? I don't know what all of those reactions look like and what the processes cost in terms of energy and waste byproducts, but those are the kinds of externalities that are sometimes dismissed because they're not as visible (like the wastewater heating for the Diablo nuclear plant).

cesarb 3y ago

> Gas fired plants are clean: they only produce CO2 and H20. AFAIK, that can only be the case if you combust the gas with pure oxygen; air also has a lot of nitrogen, so combusting with air will always lead to some oxides of nitrogen appearing in the output. > Nuclear is “dirty”: they produce no CO2, but relatively small amounts of highly toxic waste. It depends on your point of view. That highly toxic waste is completely contained in normal operation, so looking from the outside, it's "clean"; it's only when (or if) you open the box that it becomes "dirty".

HPsquared 3y ago
They probably have scrubbers for nitrogen oxides, like how coal plants have flue gas desulfurization.
HankB99 3y ago
> AFAIK, ... combusting with air will always lead to some oxides of nitrogen appearing in the output. I was curious so I did a search. I know this is a problem with internal combustion engines which operate under higher pressure (not sure about temperature.) There were a lot of hits for "do gas turbines produce nox", many of which were about dealing with the problem.