4 ms·

Germany plans to build dozens of new gas peaker plants. That's a big problem of renewables: you have to keep a huge backup infrastructure. So while your usage o

by JanSt 3y ago

Germany plans to build dozens of new gas peaker plants. That's a big problem of renewables: you have to keep a huge backup infrastructure. So while your usage of gas and coal goes down, you still have to spend huge sums on the infrastructure - grid, backup, etc. The generation is very cheap, but trying to go 100% renewables is very expensive. No one wanted to build the gas plants so now Germany decided to pay not for generated electricity but for available capacity. Sadly, the final nuclear reactors where shut down last year.

mjamesaustin 3y ago
Grid-scale energy storage is lower cost per kwh than many fossil fuel peaker plants. The solution to the intermittent energy problem doesn't have to be fossil fuels.
- XorNot 3y ago
  I'm going to need a source for this, because the mechanics of storage aren't the same as generation sources which can be switched on and off (power plants "running out of fuel" essentially doesn't happen - no one finding "cheap" grid scale storage though is showing weeks of banked energy).
bboygravity 3y ago
I'd like to mention the role of corruption in Germany in all this: Gerard Schroder who was essentially bought by the Russians the way I see it. He initiated the push to close German nuclear reactors and push for renewables + Russian gas for base load to replace clean nuclear. After which he got a nice job with Gazprom in exchange for his "good work". Russia won, Germany (and by extension all of the EU) lost IMO. EU essentially funded part of the war against Ukraine in the early days, because Germany had made itself (temporarily) dependent on Russian gas. The only country in Europe who was immune to all of this outside influence and even benefittted: nuclear country France (the biggest net exporter of electricity in the EU last time I checked).
audunw 3y ago
> but trying to go 100% renewables is very expensive. Any source for that claim? I mean, yes it’s not exactly cheap. But neither are the alternatives. Expensive compared to what? I’ve seen several studies that indicate that going 100% renewable will be cheaper than the energy infrastructure we have today. Either in a 2050-perspective with the technology/prices we have today (Marc Z Jacobsen). Or on a shorter timeline assuming continues technology and price improvements (Tony Seba). > Sadly, the final nuclear reactors were shut down last year. I think it remains to be seen which path was the right decision. France has recently had some very expensive and long outages. They had to import power from Germany for long stretches during the energy crisis. France has also had some downtime due to hot weather, something we’ll be seeing more of. Most of these nuclear power plants are old. And if they can’t be relied upon as actual base load, what’s the point? I think going 100% renewables could have some major benefits in focus (no need for government to spend resources on regulating nuclear power) and synergies (you get lots of excess cheap electricity that can be used to make hydrogen which can be used to decarbonise steel and fertiliser production, and you invest more in battery R&D which also benefits cars and off-grid applications). We’re also starting to see that advanced geothermal could become a viable alternative to nuclear. I believe that would be a huge Hail Mary to the energy transition because it’ll be easier to get people from the oil and gas section aboard. That will give a lot more political willpower for the transition.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  > I think it remains to be seen which path was the right decision. France has recently had some very expensive and long outages. They had to import power from Germany for long stretches during the energy crisis. France has also had some downtime due to hot weather, something we’ll be seeing more of. > Most of these nuclear power plants are old. And if they can’t be relied upon as actual base load, what’s the point? Yes and Belgium has had some actually dangerous situations due to the age of their plants.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  We already can see that France produces less than half the CO2 that Germany does, per year. So, it is absolutely unequivocal that France's strategy was and continues to be better. Even if it takes the French 20 more years than Germany to get to fully renewable, they will still be better for the environment. CO2 is additive, so every ton (or, at this scale, every hundred million tons) you don't emit today is a massive win. And don't expect Germany to actually hit any of its targets for renewables. Operating a fully renewable grid in a continental country so far up north is not an easy thing to do.
erispoe 3y ago
Offshore wind has availability (proportion of time that it can generate power) comparable to nuclear.
FrojoS 3y ago
Why is this post above downvoted? The opinion in the last sentence aside, the post is just stating facts. Whether one supports the German plan to rely on gas-peaker plants or not, it is undeniably expensive to build and maintain plants that are not fully utilized but rather only act as a backup for times when renewables produce too little. The German government just decided to subsidize the construction of these plants with the equivalent of 17 billion USD [1]. It is already clear that more subsidies will be required [2]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-agrees-subsidy-plans-hydrogen-ready-gas-power-plants-2024-02-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-agrees-subsi... [2] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/kraftwerksstrategie-das-sind-die-ersten-reaktionen-a-1d710736-91ae-4d37-923e-40e040546165 https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/kraftwerksstrategie-das-si...

by JanSt 3y ago

mjamesaustin 3y ago

Grid-scale energy storage is lower cost per kwh than many fossil fuel peaker plants. The solution to the intermittent energy problem doesn't have to be fossil fuels.

XorNot 3y ago
I'm going to need a source for this, because the mechanics of storage aren't the same as generation sources which can be switched on and off (power plants "running out of fuel" essentially doesn't happen - no one finding "cheap" grid scale storage though is showing weeks of banked energy).

bboygravity 3y ago

I'd like to mention the role of corruption in Germany in all this: Gerard Schroder who was essentially bought by the Russians the way I see it. He initiated the push to close German nuclear reactors and push for renewables + Russian gas for base load to replace clean nuclear. After which he got a nice job with Gazprom in exchange for his "good work". Russia won, Germany (and by extension all of the EU) lost IMO. EU essentially funded part of the war against Ukraine in the early days, because Germany had made itself (temporarily) dependent on Russian gas. The only country in Europe who was immune to all of this outside influence and even benefittted: nuclear country France (the biggest net exporter of electricity in the EU last time I checked).

audunw 3y ago

> but trying to go 100% renewables is very expensive. Any source for that claim? I mean, yes it’s not exactly cheap. But neither are the alternatives. Expensive compared to what? I’ve seen several studies that indicate that going 100% renewable will be cheaper than the energy infrastructure we have today. Either in a 2050-perspective with the technology/prices we have today (Marc Z Jacobsen). Or on a shorter timeline assuming continues technology and price improvements (Tony Seba). > Sadly, the final nuclear reactors were shut down last year. I think it remains to be seen which path was the right decision. France has recently had some very expensive and long outages. They had to import power from Germany for long stretches during the energy crisis. France has also had some downtime due to hot weather, something we’ll be seeing more of. Most of these nuclear power plants are old. And if they can’t be relied upon as actual base load, what’s the point? I think going 100% renewables could have some major benefits in focus (no need for government to spend resources on regulating nuclear power) and synergies (you get lots of excess cheap electricity that can be used to make hydrogen which can be used to decarbonise steel and fertiliser production, and you invest more in battery R&D which also benefits cars and off-grid applications). We’re also starting to see that advanced geothermal could become a viable alternative to nuclear. I believe that would be a huge Hail Mary to the energy transition because it’ll be easier to get people from the oil and gas section aboard. That will give a lot more political willpower for the transition.

wkat4242 3y ago
> I think it remains to be seen which path was the right decision. France has recently had some very expensive and long outages. They had to import power from Germany for long stretches during the energy crisis. France has also had some downtime due to hot weather, something we’ll be seeing more of. > Most of these nuclear power plants are old. And if they can’t be relied upon as actual base load, what’s the point? Yes and Belgium has had some actually dangerous situations due to the age of their plants.
tsimionescu 3y ago
We already can see that France produces less than half the CO2 that Germany does, per year. So, it is absolutely unequivocal that France's strategy was and continues to be better. Even if it takes the French 20 more years than Germany to get to fully renewable, they will still be better for the environment. CO2 is additive, so every ton (or, at this scale, every hundred million tons) you don't emit today is a massive win. And don't expect Germany to actually hit any of its targets for renewables. Operating a fully renewable grid in a continental country so far up north is not an easy thing to do.

erispoe 3y ago

Offshore wind has availability (proportion of time that it can generate power) comparable to nuclear.

FrojoS 3y ago

Why is this post above downvoted? The opinion in the last sentence aside, the post is just stating facts. Whether one supports the German plan to rely on gas-peaker plants or not, it is undeniably expensive to build and maintain plants that are not fully utilized but rather only act as a backup for times when renewables produce too little. The German government just decided to subsidize the construction of these plants with the equivalent of 17 billion USD [1]. It is already clear that more subsidies will be required [2]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-agrees-subsidy-plans-hydrogen-ready-gas-power-plants-2024-02-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-agrees-subsi... [2] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/kraftwerksstrategie-das-sind-die-ersten-reaktionen-a-1d710736-91ae-4d37-923e-40e040546165 https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/kraftwerksstrategie-das-si...