4 ms·

What a waste of resources. The nuclear plants were up and running. Could be running for decated with good maintanance. The most of the costs were already paid.

by kvgr 2y ago

What a waste of resources. The nuclear plants were up and running. Could be running for decated with good maintanance. The most of the costs were already paid. And now: Germany won the European Union's informal approval to pay billions of euros to gas powered plants to be able to stabilise the grid when unsteady renewable energy supplies fall short, people familiar with the negotiations told Reuters on Friday. People in my country are upset when gas and coal barons get rich. But we are making them rich by our wrong decisions.

jorvi 2y ago
Gas turbines and nuclear do not fulfill the same role. Nuclear is base load, gas is peak load. You can’t stabilize a grid with base load because you want to run base load plants at maximum capacity. Whereas peaker plants are quickly spun up and down to match up supply with demand. To be clear, shutting down those nuclear plants is a bone-headed decision fueled by a false idea of greenness, but it has little to do with gas turbines. Nuclear replaces coal or hydro.
- red_trumpet 2y ago
  > Nuclear replaces coal or hydro. There's not much hydro where I'm wrong, so I might be mistaken with this. But I always thought hydro was also pretty flexible, so it could serve as peak load? Like, you can even pump water up a dam if you have a surplus of electricity.
  - kvgr 2y ago
    I am not sure about the speed, but the capacity is issue. It takes a lot of land to build a lot of hydro, damages ecosystems.
  - riffraff 2y ago
    > Like, you can even pump water up a dam if you have a surplus of electricity. only if you have two places where the water is stored, but pumped hydro is not the most common source of hydroelectric power in Europe.
- kvgr 2y ago
  I understand, but there is no need to stabilize when you have big nuclear base load. EU is just burning money left and right. The transition could be slower, more green and more cost effective and with less impact on industry if it just wasn`t driven by fake "green" ideology. And antinuclear fear mongering.
  - Sebb767 2y ago
    > but there is no need to stabilize when you have big nuclear base load Of course there is. What you're stabilizing is varying consumer demand, not the (quite long-term) shutdown of power stations.
    - JanSt 2y ago
      Varying consumer demand can easily be matched by nuclear power. They can run gradients as high as gas turbines, but it's not good to go really low quickly because frequent and rapid adjustments in a nuclear reactor's output can lead to increased wear and tear. France is doing a really good job of matching demand and supply with their fleet.
  - JanSt 2y ago
    That argument is popular among the 100% renewables crowd in Germany. I mean, achieving 90-100% renewables creates a problem you wouldn't have if you were just running on nuclear power, and now they portray it as a problem of nuclear power. If you're arguing from a dogmatic point of view where renewables are the absolute main energy source and you occasionally need to supplement it, gas makes sense. It's stupid though.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  You don't need to stabilize a grid that has sufficient CO₂ free base capacity. Making an inherently and unfixably unreliable source your primary and then trying to fit everything around that is...unwise.
  - hoerensagen 2y ago
    "You don't need to stabilize a grid that has sufficient CO₂ free base capacity." Yes you do. Even if all your generation is dispatch able, demand will still vary a lot.
    - mpweiher 2y ago
      No. I mean, yes, you do need some stabilization, but the amount is trivial. First, it is only the demand that varies, not both supply and demand. Second, variations in demand are very predictable, unlike variations in supply by renewables (those aren't completely unpredictable, but highly so). Third, the magnitude is just not nearly the same. For example, the cost for grid stability measures in Germany increased by more than an order of magnitude between 2011 and 2020.
- troupo 2y ago
  Nuclear is good for both base load and peak load: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40656218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40656218
pydry 2y ago
The nuclear plants were aging out anyway and nuclear power is not suitable for use as a peaker like gas or batteries or pumped storage are. (it's technically possible to use as a peaker by throwing away power, but costly enough that the idea is overwhelmingly stupid, so it is not suitable) The only reason any country builds it is to provide economic support for the military industrial complex. The cost even when not using it as a peaker is truly staggering compared to alternatives.
- kvgr 2y ago
  Yeas, Slovakia has big military industrial complex.
  - pydry 2y ago
    Its first nuclear power plants were built by Atomstroyexport. Russian. Recently, Westinghouse is being contracted to build one. American. They're also talking to France. Tell me, what do you think those three countries have in common?
    - kvgr 2y ago
      But not their industrial complex, what is you reasoning? France is forcing Slovakia to build nuclear to support military industrial complex? A little bit of conspiracy here. The first was a soviet "gift".
      - pydry 2y ago
        The military industrial complexes and supply chains of those three countries are the relevant ones, not Slovakia's. Russia, for example, built a lot of nuclear plants around the world as a way of exporting the supply chain and skills base they built up while building the world's largest stockpile of nukes.
- troupo 2y ago
  > and nuclear power is not suitable for use as a peaker like gas or batteries or pumped storage are. This is, of course, a lie. https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12/technical_and_economic_aspects_of_load_following_with_nuclear_power_plants.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12... --- start quote --- The minimum requirements for the manoeuvrability capabilities of modern reactors are defined by the utilities requirements that are based on the requirements of the grid operators. For example, according to the current version of the European Utilities Requirements (EUR) the NPP must at least be capable of daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100 % of its rated power Pr, with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% of Pr per minute. --- end quote --- As the chart on the same page (page 8) shows, a change from 800 MW to 1300 MW was routine operation for German reactors

by kvgr 2y ago

jorvi 2y ago

Gas turbines and nuclear do not fulfill the same role. Nuclear is base load, gas is peak load. You can’t stabilize a grid with base load because you want to run base load plants at maximum capacity. Whereas peaker plants are quickly spun up and down to match up supply with demand. To be clear, shutting down those nuclear plants is a bone-headed decision fueled by a false idea of greenness, but it has little to do with gas turbines. Nuclear replaces coal or hydro.

red_trumpet 2y ago
> Nuclear replaces coal or hydro. There's not much hydro where I'm wrong, so I might be mistaken with this. But I always thought hydro was also pretty flexible, so it could serve as peak load? Like, you can even pump water up a dam if you have a surplus of electricity.
- kvgr 2y ago
  I am not sure about the speed, but the capacity is issue. It takes a lot of land to build a lot of hydro, damages ecosystems.
- riffraff 2y ago
  > Like, you can even pump water up a dam if you have a surplus of electricity. only if you have two places where the water is stored, but pumped hydro is not the most common source of hydroelectric power in Europe.
kvgr 2y ago
I understand, but there is no need to stabilize when you have big nuclear base load. EU is just burning money left and right. The transition could be slower, more green and more cost effective and with less impact on industry if it just wasn`t driven by fake "green" ideology. And antinuclear fear mongering.
- Sebb767 2y ago
  > but there is no need to stabilize when you have big nuclear base load Of course there is. What you're stabilizing is varying consumer demand, not the (quite long-term) shutdown of power stations.
  - JanSt 2y ago
    Varying consumer demand can easily be matched by nuclear power. They can run gradients as high as gas turbines, but it's not good to go really low quickly because frequent and rapid adjustments in a nuclear reactor's output can lead to increased wear and tear. France is doing a really good job of matching demand and supply with their fleet.
- JanSt 2y ago
  That argument is popular among the 100% renewables crowd in Germany. I mean, achieving 90-100% renewables creates a problem you wouldn't have if you were just running on nuclear power, and now they portray it as a problem of nuclear power. If you're arguing from a dogmatic point of view where renewables are the absolute main energy source and you occasionally need to supplement it, gas makes sense. It's stupid though.
mpweiher 2y ago
You don't need to stabilize a grid that has sufficient CO₂ free base capacity. Making an inherently and unfixably unreliable source your primary and then trying to fit everything around that is...unwise.
- hoerensagen 2y ago
  "You don't need to stabilize a grid that has sufficient CO₂ free base capacity." Yes you do. Even if all your generation is dispatch able, demand will still vary a lot.
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    No. I mean, yes, you do need some stabilization, but the amount is trivial. First, it is only the demand that varies, not both supply and demand. Second, variations in demand are very predictable, unlike variations in supply by renewables (those aren't completely unpredictable, but highly so). Third, the magnitude is just not nearly the same. For example, the cost for grid stability measures in Germany increased by more than an order of magnitude between 2011 and 2020.
troupo 2y ago
Nuclear is good for both base load and peak load: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40656218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40656218

pydry 2y ago

The nuclear plants were aging out anyway and nuclear power is not suitable for use as a peaker like gas or batteries or pumped storage are. (it's technically possible to use as a peaker by throwing away power, but costly enough that the idea is overwhelmingly stupid, so it is not suitable) The only reason any country builds it is to provide economic support for the military industrial complex. The cost even when not using it as a peaker is truly staggering compared to alternatives.

kvgr 2y ago
Yeas, Slovakia has big military industrial complex.
- pydry 2y ago
  Its first nuclear power plants were built by Atomstroyexport. Russian. Recently, Westinghouse is being contracted to build one. American. They're also talking to France. Tell me, what do you think those three countries have in common?
  - kvgr 2y ago
    But not their industrial complex, what is you reasoning? France is forcing Slovakia to build nuclear to support military industrial complex? A little bit of conspiracy here. The first was a soviet "gift".
    - pydry 2y ago
      The military industrial complexes and supply chains of those three countries are the relevant ones, not Slovakia's. Russia, for example, built a lot of nuclear plants around the world as a way of exporting the supply chain and skills base they built up while building the world's largest stockpile of nukes.
troupo 2y ago
> and nuclear power is not suitable for use as a peaker like gas or batteries or pumped storage are. This is, of course, a lie. https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12/technical_and_economic_aspects_of_load_following_with_nuclear_power_plants.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12... --- start quote --- The minimum requirements for the manoeuvrability capabilities of modern reactors are defined by the utilities requirements that are based on the requirements of the grid operators. For example, according to the current version of the European Utilities Requirements (EUR) the NPP must at least be capable of daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100 % of its rated power Pr, with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% of Pr per minute. --- end quote --- As the chart on the same page (page 8) shows, a change from 800 MW to 1300 MW was routine operation for German reactors