4 ms·

> Citation? Because the EU intends to phase out Russian gas entirely by 2027. Yes, by replacing it with natgas from Azerbaijan, Qatar, and other wonderful coun

> Citation? Because the EU intends to phase out Russian gas entirely by 2027. Yes, by replacing it with natgas from Azerbaijan, Qatar, and other wonderful countries. I'm kinda jaded about this whole topic because it exposes the utter hypocrisy of Germany's Greens. But long story short, Germany can get Dunkelflaute. Long periods of time in winter when renewable generation falls to about 10% of the _normal_ generation for that time period. A once-in-100-years event is a full month of sustained Dunkelflaute. And this is not a hand-wavy theory. For example, in 2019 there was a 10-day sustained Dunkelflaute: https://energy-charts.info/charts/price_spot_market/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&year=2019&interval=month&month=01&legendItems=0x1c0 https://energy-charts.info/charts/price_spot_market/chart.ht... - look at the period from 17 to 26 Jan. And as you see, they also coincide with heightened energy consumption, which will become even _worse_ as Germany switches to heat pumps for heating. The current plan for these is to build more natgas powerplants (German government had to _subsidize_ them directly). With noises about magic "hydrogen".

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
What do you suggest? Spending 10x as much on nuclear power subsidies and hopefully getting some plants finished in the 2040s?
- cyberax 1y ago
  > Spending 10x as much on nuclear power subsidies and hopefully getting some plants finished in the 2040s? Here's the thing. If Germany had spent on nuclear the same amount of money it has spent (so far) on renewables, then it could have had 100% carbon-free electricity and heating. With lower energy prices than now. So yes. Nuclear all the way. Instead, we now face the reality where Germany will have to rely on imported natural gas as far as the eye can see. And certainly past 2040. While having one of the highest electricity rates in Europe, so high that they're now depressing the industry. And the plan to fix it is to keep repeating the word "hydrogen" until something happens. Meanwhile: > The coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU alliance and the SPD mentions the construction of up to 20 GW of gas-fired power plant capacity by 2030. In June, Reiche announced a first step with a tender volume of between five and ten gigawatts.
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    It is sad to see someone fall to logical inconsistencies because you know you are wrong, but can't bring yourself to admit it. Do we live in 2005 or 2025? We live in 2025 and can not influence past actions. Solar power was expensive a decade ago. Today it is not. We build it based on 2025 costs and not 2005. I would suggest you stop crying over spilled milk and instead start looking forward. Today renewables are the cheapest source of energy in human history, why don't you celebrate that we over the coming decades finally are able to let go off fossil fuels for all but emergency and niche use cases? How much money has been spent on extra subsidies on top of what a fossil based system would cost for Energiewende? Say €200B? Please do not link the Norwegian professor double counting costs as a source, that would just prove how desperate you are. As per modern western nuclear construction costs that would result in about 10-15 GW of nuclear power. But somehow that would be enough to power a grid which over the year averages 56 GW. Does not sound very logical does it? Or do you suggest the now phased out fleet could be running today without spending enormous sums on LTO upgrades? And then you round it all off with crying about perfect. Missing the forest for the trees. Who cares if the emergency reserves are a tiny bit of fossil fuels when we have an entire economy to decarbonize? The costs to switch the reserves to biofuels, synfuels or pure hydrogen are negligible and trivial to do when they become the most pressing matter to decarbonize. Take the US and ethanol mix in for gasoline. That is enough energy to run the entire US grid without any other source for 16 days. What happens as we switch the car fleet to BEVs? The ethanol becomes available for emergency reserve duties.
    - cyberax 1y ago
      > Do we live in 2005 or 2025? We live in 2025 and can not influence past actions. Yeah. "Oh, we made a mistake, but it's water under the bridge now. It's too late to build nuclear. Here, get this lump of coal and burn it to warm up. It's fine, we'll phase it out in 20 years. Just don't think about it now, and don't forget to vote for more green energy" > Today renewables are the cheapest source of energy in human history, why don't you celebrate that we over the coming decades finally are able to let go off fossil fuels for all but emergency and niche use cases? OK. Why is Germany directly paying for new natural gas generation? Wouldn't it be cheaper to replace coal with cheap renewables and storage? Should be a no-brainer, yeah? Oh, it's the "cheapest energy" only when you don't care about the grid stability (see: Spain) or winter (see: Germany). > As per modern western nuclear construction costs that would result in about 10-15 GW of nuclear power. Germany has spent more than $500B on Energiewende so far. It'll need to spend about that amount _again_ to decarbonize, even with some generous assumptions about future technologies. If we use Oikiluoto Unit 3 as a guide, it cost 11B euros for 1.6GWe of capacity. Getting to 60GWe would have required 400B euros. Without considering any economy of scale or savings from streamlining the construction. > And then you round it all off with crying about perfect. Missing the forest for the trees. Perhaps you should look in the mirror? Maybe YOU are missing the forest for the trees? In this case, "trees" are vapid editorials about how Germany generated 100% of energy from renewables. Small print: in summer, when demand is low.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago

What do you suggest? Spending 10x as much on nuclear power subsidies and hopefully getting some plants finished in the 2040s?

cyberax 1y ago
> Spending 10x as much on nuclear power subsidies and hopefully getting some plants finished in the 2040s? Here's the thing. If Germany had spent on nuclear the same amount of money it has spent (so far) on renewables, then it could have had 100% carbon-free electricity and heating. With lower energy prices than now. So yes. Nuclear all the way. Instead, we now face the reality where Germany will have to rely on imported natural gas as far as the eye can see. And certainly past 2040. While having one of the highest electricity rates in Europe, so high that they're now depressing the industry. And the plan to fix it is to keep repeating the word "hydrogen" until something happens. Meanwhile: > The coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU alliance and the SPD mentions the construction of up to 20 GW of gas-fired power plant capacity by 2030. In June, Reiche announced a first step with a tender volume of between five and ten gigawatts.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  It is sad to see someone fall to logical inconsistencies because you know you are wrong, but can't bring yourself to admit it. Do we live in 2005 or 2025? We live in 2025 and can not influence past actions. Solar power was expensive a decade ago. Today it is not. We build it based on 2025 costs and not 2005. I would suggest you stop crying over spilled milk and instead start looking forward. Today renewables are the cheapest source of energy in human history, why don't you celebrate that we over the coming decades finally are able to let go off fossil fuels for all but emergency and niche use cases? How much money has been spent on extra subsidies on top of what a fossil based system would cost for Energiewende? Say €200B? Please do not link the Norwegian professor double counting costs as a source, that would just prove how desperate you are. As per modern western nuclear construction costs that would result in about 10-15 GW of nuclear power. But somehow that would be enough to power a grid which over the year averages 56 GW. Does not sound very logical does it? Or do you suggest the now phased out fleet could be running today without spending enormous sums on LTO upgrades? And then you round it all off with crying about perfect. Missing the forest for the trees. Who cares if the emergency reserves are a tiny bit of fossil fuels when we have an entire economy to decarbonize? The costs to switch the reserves to biofuels, synfuels or pure hydrogen are negligible and trivial to do when they become the most pressing matter to decarbonize. Take the US and ethanol mix in for gasoline. That is enough energy to run the entire US grid without any other source for 16 days. What happens as we switch the car fleet to BEVs? The ethanol becomes available for emergency reserve duties.
  - cyberax 1y ago
    > Do we live in 2005 or 2025? We live in 2025 and can not influence past actions. Yeah. "Oh, we made a mistake, but it's water under the bridge now. It's too late to build nuclear. Here, get this lump of coal and burn it to warm up. It's fine, we'll phase it out in 20 years. Just don't think about it now, and don't forget to vote for more green energy" > Today renewables are the cheapest source of energy in human history, why don't you celebrate that we over the coming decades finally are able to let go off fossil fuels for all but emergency and niche use cases? OK. Why is Germany directly paying for new natural gas generation? Wouldn't it be cheaper to replace coal with cheap renewables and storage? Should be a no-brainer, yeah? Oh, it's the "cheapest energy" only when you don't care about the grid stability (see: Spain) or winter (see: Germany). > As per modern western nuclear construction costs that would result in about 10-15 GW of nuclear power. Germany has spent more than $500B on Energiewende so far. It'll need to spend about that amount _again_ to decarbonize, even with some generous assumptions about future technologies. If we use Oikiluoto Unit 3 as a guide, it cost 11B euros for 1.6GWe of capacity. Getting to 60GWe would have required 400B euros. Without considering any economy of scale or savings from streamlining the construction. > And then you round it all off with crying about perfect. Missing the forest for the trees. Perhaps you should look in the mirror? Maybe YOU are missing the forest for the trees? In this case, "trees" are vapid editorials about how Germany generated 100% of energy from renewables. Small print: in summer, when demand is low.