Yeah… it’s funny cause it’s true or something along those lines
this time around we’re doing the same for Intel I guess?
-
The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.
Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022
- Thread starter jetsetter
- Start date
this time around we’re doing the same for Intel I guess?
Cellos88GT
Well-Known Member
It’s not uninsurable. The risks posed to nuclear and its waste is far smaller than those of coal mining and utilization. If people applied the same irrational logic to nuclear that they did to coal, coal would also be uninsurable.
narf
Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
German electricity prices for industrial consumption are _down_ this year, despite the last nukes being turned off now. The peak was 2nd half of last year, while the nukes were still nuking.
Cellos88GT
Well-Known Member
I guess no one here understands risk assessment and how Nuclear Power mathematically beats out all other forms of power generation.
GRtak
Forum Addict
also how it "mathematically beats out all other forms of power generation" - that is something I'd love to read lol
you do understand how fact vs opinion works right? because the first part that you dispute, is a fact: there is no insurer that agrees to insure nuclear. hence the label "uninsurable". now the rest of your statement is your opinion... which seems to differ from the assessment of the worlds insurers, because... well see above, I guess? I will agree that if the worlds coal-burners were held accountable for the actual risks and subsequent damages, that shit would probably also be uninsurable.
The problem I have with all of this is there seems to be no real solution to replace the electricity generated by these plants.
See above: with switching off those remaining plants, Germany doesn't suddenly have a big hole in its generation capacity it has to fill. Renewables have, for the most part, filled up the free capacity in the grid and prices have actually sunk - despite what certain fudsters would have you believe.
I will admit this is probably due to the fact that we only had a measly 3 reactors left providing a total 7.5% or so of max load, combined with a huge renewable share already - so the entire system was very well prepared to fill this small gap.
also: storage. a wild combination of storage solutions. batteries. pumped water. seasonal in the form of hydrogen and the like, all that kind of stuff. also: finally leverage the bloody storage better:
- my home battery is 14 kWh that i am only ever allowed to use privately - it is forbidden for me to feed back any energy from that battery to the grid. which is insane, if you think about it. I can still use it to help the grid, but much more limited than I would otherwise be, since I can only ever charge it in times of excess, but I have to empty it out myself.
- plus: I have a car with a ~74 kWh battery of which probably 50 I don't need in my daily life - i.e. I'd be more than happy to just blankly offer 20% of my car's battery to the grid. reimburse me for it, sure, but I'd be happy to help out. even if you just leave it up to me and ditch the financial risk on me: happy to do it! the fluctuations in energy price, even negative prices, are so insanely large from time to time, that I'm certain I could make a pretty penny just helping balance supply and demand with (both those) huge batteries. but I can't. the car can't physically do it unless I install a 10k€ DC wallbox, then I am not allowed to do it. oof.
Ok, I misunderstood the significance of nuclear in Germany. 
I think the main focus first is getting people’s meters upgraded so you can use the system installed. That then of course leaves us with customers that are less reliant on the grid. That’s good to spread out the electrical generation but bad for grid maintenance and revenue because, how do the companies maintaining the infrastructure get revenue to pay for repairs should we send power back?
I think the main focus first is getting people’s meters upgraded so you can use the system installed. That then of course leaves us with customers that are less reliant on the grid. That’s good to spread out the electrical generation but bad for grid maintenance and revenue because, how do the companies maintaining the infrastructure get revenue to pay for repairs should we send power back?
GRtak
Forum Addict
Ok, I misunderstood the significance of nuclear in Germany.
I think the main focus first is getting people’s meters upgraded so you can use the system installed. That then of course leaves us with customers that are less reliant on the grid. That’s good to spread out the electrical generation but bad for grid maintenance and revenue because, how do the companies maintaining the infrastructure get revenue to pay for repairs should we send power back?
First, you still pay a fee to be tied to the grid, even if you don't use any power. Second, the power company doesn't pay you the same rate that they are charging for using your power.
Yeah that's really the short of it and the truth for most residential photovoltaic systems here. there's usually a differente of 3:1 or even 4:1 between energy taken from the grid and energy fed into it (although that's not quite fair, because the former includes taxes and grid fees and suchlike).
there are a few systems that have run their 20 year fixed grid feed tariff and now have to run "in the market" and are thus generating fluctuating revenue for their owners. in most cases, the technical, organisational and bureaucratic hurdles to make that happen are, however, simply not worth it, which really is a shame.
however, @93Flareside has a bit of a point: people with large PV + battery system won't be getting as much energy from the grid, depriving the dso of their grid fees (that are, in addition to the flat connection fee, usually kWH-based). since the dso is regulated in such a way, that they basically (simplifying massively here) paid what they need to operate their grid (because critical infrastructure), this can lead to a shift in effective grid cost from more wealthy (i. e. PV+battery owning) people to the less wealthy (i.e. no PV) - more of a social problem...
Cellos88GT
Well-Known Member
Sure:
Nuclear and safety: the surprising truth - Energy For Humanity
Experts say nuclear power is one of our safest sources of energy and has saved millions of lives.
www.energyforhumanity.org
I’m sure some obtuse bad faith argument will be orchestrated to refute it so let’s look at something like fire risk. The fire risk of wind turbines is given by:
source
why should we care? Well…
Wildfire in Southern Washington caused by wind turbine that caught fire
The fire was reported to be 20 percent contained Saturday night.
www.oregonlive.com
By comparison, you will struggle to find a safety-critical system or component in an NPP that would have a failure rate within 5 or 6 orders of magnitude.
GRtak
Forum Addict
Sure:
Nuclear and safety: the surprising truth - Energy For Humanity
Experts say nuclear power is one of our safest sources of energy and has saved millions of lives.www.energyforhumanity.org
I’m sure some obtuse bad faith argument will be orchestrated to refute it so let’s look at something like fire risk. The fire risk of wind turbines is given by:
source
why should we care? Well…
Wildfire in Southern Washington caused by wind turbine that caught fire
The fire was reported to be 20 percent contained Saturday night.
By comparison, you will struggle to find a safety-critical system or component in an NPP that would have a failure rate within 5 or 6 orders of magnitude.
Fire can be contained and put out, and that area will recover in a few years. Contamination from radiation is much harder to deal with. See both Fukushima and Chernobyl. When will those areas be able to recover?
Chernobyl was a freak accident of very many idiotic decisions including an inferior design that even Russia stopped using as it was back then. Fukushima was due to building nuclear plant in an earthquake prone area. Germany and most of Europe is neither those things.
GRtak
Forum Addict
And both are examples of the worst case scenario, just as the fire in wind turbines.
DanRoM
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2009
- Messages
- 10,500
- Location
- Ruhr Area, Germany
- Car(s)
- MX-5 ND, Tracer 900 GT & two bikes
Technically, both were examples that the worst case scenario (that had been considered in the design) wasn't bad enough.
Cellos88GT
Well-Known Member
Sure but the damage from the smoke (CO2) from a large forest fire negates the
As for Fukushima, a lot of the area has already recovered. Probably not much longer to recover the rest. The Fukushima situation has largely been overblown given that only one person has died from the event and the death wasn't even a result of any radiation exposure.
You don't actually know that. In the case of Fukushima, the probability of a flood or a tsunami knocking out the backup power was deemed to be within the acceptable amount of risk tolerance. Given that the earthquake and tsunami killed exponentially more people than the failure of the plant itself, the risk calculation was not wrong.
That all said, newer generation plants resolve a majority of these issues to reduce the risk even further by additional orders of magnitude.
Unfortunately, since the average person is incapable of assessing risk, this point is lost on them, and instead decided to double down on stupid things like Lithium batteries which have some of the worst rates of failure and risk exposures.
Clearly, you are much smarter than everyone else
Thus, since I’m apparently too dumb to follow your reasoning, I will now start ignoring your posts 
Clearly, you are much smarter than everyone else
I have to admit that he made me think. Would it be better to have a miniature NPP in each of my mobile devices instead of those “stupid lithium batteries”?
GRtak
Forum Addict
Uh, could you finish your thoughts.