4 ms·

> If nuclear was kept around, would its capacity allow for fossil fuels to be reduced more? No. Germany is not even using its full potential for electrical ene

> If nuclear was kept around, would its capacity allow for fossil fuels to be reduced more? No. Germany is not even using its full potential for electrical energy at the moment. > Nuclear was previously providing 22 GW (2022) to 20 GW (2010) of power, down to 12.1 GW (2011), then 8 (2019): currently (2023) lignite is outputing 18.6 GW of power, and hard coal is providing 18.9 GW. Those numbers are irrelevant, they are not telling the usage. You can't freely replace one energy-source with some other. You need to look at the application and which energy-form it can use. And in Germany, the big historical problem is that the conversion to electrical applications was slow.

throw0101c 2y ago
> Those numbers are irrelevant, they are not telling the usage. Edit post to note capacity versus output: * nuclear was providing 150 TWh at its peak (~2004) * coal is currently providing 120 TWh So nuclear could have covered all the output of coal, and then some. * https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
- PurpleRamen 2y ago
  Again: "cannot replace"! Coal is providing a very different form of energy, used with very different applications. Directly comparing the numbers, is comparing apples and bananas. Your case has no foundation.
  - ptero 2y ago
    > Coal is providing a very different form of energy, used with very different applications. What are those? Nuclear and renewables uses are indeed very different. Nuclear and coal for base load -- not so much. At least this is what I heard for decades. I would be interested to read a refutation.
    - PurpleRamen 2y ago
      Base load is more of a fairy tail. For the applications I'm talking about, I explained them in a sibling comment.
      - throw0101c 2y ago
        > Base load is more of a fairy tail. So the >9 GW of power provided 24/7 by nuclear on the "Supply" tab is a figment of imagination? * https://ieso.ca/power-data https://ieso.ca/power-data
        PurpleRamen 2y ago
        The importance of the base load is a fairy tale, not the numbers. Nuclear plants idling are a burden for the grid. Without them, you can manage it far more flexible, it seems.
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > Coal is providing a very different form of energy, used with very different applications. As an EE, I do not understand "different form of energy". How are the electrons and EM fields different between nuclear and coal generation? As someone who lives in Ontario, Canada, we got rid of all of our coal in 2014 and have lots of nuclear: * https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal
    - PurpleRamen 2y ago
      Really? You've never learned about chemical processes, heat, conversions of energy? Isn't this something you would learn in school? Well, ok, then here is an ELI5: If you have a stove, running with coal, then you can't use electricity to fuel it. You need to buy a new stove, which is able to run with electricity. And if some of those stoves are very expensive stoves, running in an industrial complex or a chemical plant, then you need to invest a very high amount of money to replace the parts of the complex or plant. > As someone who lives in Ontario, Canada, we got rid of all of our coal in 2014 and have lots of nuclear: Is that the same Canada who sold their uranium-mining or nuclear rod-productions to Russia?
      - throw0101c 2y ago
        > Really? You've never learned about chemical processes, heat, conversions of energy? Isn't this something you would learn in school? [Edit: in another comment in this sub-thread.] > Is that the same Canada who sold their uranium-mining or nuclear rod-productions to Russia? No, this one: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McArthur_River_uranium_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McArthur_River_uranium_mine * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigar_Lake_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigar_Lake_mine * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_River,_Ontario#Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_River,_Ontario#Economy * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Canada
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      Grid energy sources vary in how dispatchable and dependable they are. Fossil fuel plants are generally quite dispatchable and dependable, in the sense that you can spin up or shut down the generator (there are different types of fossil fuel power plants actually, the some of the worst ones environmentally are called “peaker plants,” they only turn on when there is very high demand, so they tend not to be very efficient). Renewables obviously have some dependability problems (the sun might not be shining one day, the wind might not be blowing). These can be dealt with, but it isn’t free, it should be seen as an engineering opportunity. I did an EE degree, but was more interested in digital and electronics stuff. But they talked enough about the grid a bit in my intro classes before everyone specialized… I’m confused that somebody would respond “as an EE” and ignore the grid. Everyone knew we were hiding a lot behind the circle with the little sin wave on it.
literallycancer 2y ago
Are you using coal for the peaks? You can replace coal with nuclear for base load, can't you?
- PurpleRamen 2y ago
  Coal is used for chemical processes, heating (locally and remote) and also generating electrical energy (also locally and remote). From those, only remote electricity can easily be replaced, remote heating might be replaceable, but would take some investments and not sure if this wouldn't be more expensive and quite inefficient. Anything locally working can't be replaced easily, and forget chemical processes. And yes, coal is also used to compensate for fluctuations, but those are only very little numbers. AFAIK the harm from having nuclear plants idling around is far bigger.
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > Coal is used for chemical processes, heating (locally and remote) and also generating electrical energy (also locally and remote). What do you mean by "chemical processes"? What about burning coal is different than burning natural/methane gas for these "chemical processes"? How is the heat from coal different than the heat from gas or nuclear? Is not water boiled to generate steam in all cases? If coal seems to be special/different, and not replaceable by other generation forms, why is the plan to get rid of it? * https://www.euractiv.com/section/coal/news/coal-phase-out-germany-shuts-down-15-coal-fired-power-plants/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/coal/news/coal-phase-out-ge... * https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-shut-down-seven-more-coal-power-plant-units-country-exits-winter https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-shut-down-seven...
    - PurpleRamen 2y ago
      Gosh, is this the level of your understanding? Not everything in the energy-sector is about burning down something and getting electricity from the heat. Coal is using in chemical processes for smelting, producing steel and other metals, creating concrete and other chemical compounds. > If coal seems to be special/different, and not replaceable by other generation forms, why is the plan to get rid of it? Because the plans are about replacing whole processes, fabrics, plants, devices, products... It's not as simple as just switching a cable or making a new contract with a new provider. You basically have to build a new house, and that's time-consuming and expensive.

throw0101c 2y ago

> Those numbers are irrelevant, they are not telling the usage. Edit post to note capacity versus output: * nuclear was providing 150 TWh at its peak (~2004) * coal is currently providing 120 TWh So nuclear could have covered all the output of coal, and then some. * https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...

PurpleRamen 2y ago
Again: "cannot replace"! Coal is providing a very different form of energy, used with very different applications. Directly comparing the numbers, is comparing apples and bananas. Your case has no foundation.
- ptero 2y ago
  > Coal is providing a very different form of energy, used with very different applications. What are those? Nuclear and renewables uses are indeed very different. Nuclear and coal for base load -- not so much. At least this is what I heard for decades. I would be interested to read a refutation.
  - PurpleRamen 2y ago
    Base load is more of a fairy tail. For the applications I'm talking about, I explained them in a sibling comment.
    - throw0101c 2y ago
      > Base load is more of a fairy tail. So the >9 GW of power provided 24/7 by nuclear on the "Supply" tab is a figment of imagination? * https://ieso.ca/power-data https://ieso.ca/power-data
      - PurpleRamen 2y ago
        The importance of the base load is a fairy tale, not the numbers. Nuclear plants idling are a burden for the grid. Without them, you can manage it far more flexible, it seems.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > Coal is providing a very different form of energy, used with very different applications. As an EE, I do not understand "different form of energy". How are the electrons and EM fields different between nuclear and coal generation? As someone who lives in Ontario, Canada, we got rid of all of our coal in 2014 and have lots of nuclear: * https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal
  - PurpleRamen 2y ago
    Really? You've never learned about chemical processes, heat, conversions of energy? Isn't this something you would learn in school? Well, ok, then here is an ELI5: If you have a stove, running with coal, then you can't use electricity to fuel it. You need to buy a new stove, which is able to run with electricity. And if some of those stoves are very expensive stoves, running in an industrial complex or a chemical plant, then you need to invest a very high amount of money to replace the parts of the complex or plant. > As someone who lives in Ontario, Canada, we got rid of all of our coal in 2014 and have lots of nuclear: Is that the same Canada who sold their uranium-mining or nuclear rod-productions to Russia?
    - throw0101c 2y ago
      > Really? You've never learned about chemical processes, heat, conversions of energy? Isn't this something you would learn in school? [Edit: in another comment in this sub-thread.] > Is that the same Canada who sold their uranium-mining or nuclear rod-productions to Russia? No, this one: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McArthur_River_uranium_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McArthur_River_uranium_mine * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigar_Lake_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigar_Lake_mine * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_River,_Ontario#Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_River,_Ontario#Economy * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Canada
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    Grid energy sources vary in how dispatchable and dependable they are. Fossil fuel plants are generally quite dispatchable and dependable, in the sense that you can spin up or shut down the generator (there are different types of fossil fuel power plants actually, the some of the worst ones environmentally are called “peaker plants,” they only turn on when there is very high demand, so they tend not to be very efficient). Renewables obviously have some dependability problems (the sun might not be shining one day, the wind might not be blowing). These can be dealt with, but it isn’t free, it should be seen as an engineering opportunity. I did an EE degree, but was more interested in digital and electronics stuff. But they talked enough about the grid a bit in my intro classes before everyone specialized… I’m confused that somebody would respond “as an EE” and ignore the grid. Everyone knew we were hiding a lot behind the circle with the little sin wave on it.

literallycancer 2y ago

Are you using coal for the peaks? You can replace coal with nuclear for base load, can't you?

PurpleRamen 2y ago
Coal is used for chemical processes, heating (locally and remote) and also generating electrical energy (also locally and remote). From those, only remote electricity can easily be replaced, remote heating might be replaceable, but would take some investments and not sure if this wouldn't be more expensive and quite inefficient. Anything locally working can't be replaced easily, and forget chemical processes. And yes, coal is also used to compensate for fluctuations, but those are only very little numbers. AFAIK the harm from having nuclear plants idling around is far bigger.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > Coal is used for chemical processes, heating (locally and remote) and also generating electrical energy (also locally and remote). What do you mean by "chemical processes"? What about burning coal is different than burning natural/methane gas for these "chemical processes"? How is the heat from coal different than the heat from gas or nuclear? Is not water boiled to generate steam in all cases? If coal seems to be special/different, and not replaceable by other generation forms, why is the plan to get rid of it? * https://www.euractiv.com/section/coal/news/coal-phase-out-germany-shuts-down-15-coal-fired-power-plants/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/coal/news/coal-phase-out-ge... * https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-shut-down-seven-more-coal-power-plant-units-country-exits-winter https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-shut-down-seven...
  - PurpleRamen 2y ago
    Gosh, is this the level of your understanding? Not everything in the energy-sector is about burning down something and getting electricity from the heat. Coal is using in chemical processes for smelting, producing steel and other metals, creating concrete and other chemical compounds. > If coal seems to be special/different, and not replaceable by other generation forms, why is the plan to get rid of it? Because the plans are about replacing whole processes, fabrics, plants, devices, products... It's not as simple as just switching a cable or making a new contract with a new provider. You basically have to build a new house, and that's time-consuming and expensive.