Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022

Clearly, you are much smarter than everyone else :rolleyes: Thus, since I’m apparently too dumb to follow your reasoning, I will now start ignoring your posts :dunno:

This happened less than 35km from where I lived: https://www.ksbw.com/article/moss-l...ety-after-pgandes-tesla-battery-fire/41323388

Can’t recall the NPP in San Onofre issuing any shelter in place orders when I grew up in southern California.

My guess is these kinds of fires will be part and parcel with battery storage facilities and we’ll be forced to put up with it.
 
…negates any emissions benefits over a natural gas plant.


I don't think you understand the amount of emissions that a gas plant produces.
 
I don't think you understand the amount of emissions that a gas plant produces.
I don’t think you understand the amount of emissions that a forest fire produces…
 
France Is Europe’s Top Power Exporter as Germany Turns Importer said:
France has overtaken Sweden to become Europe’s top net power exporter, while Germany has moved from exporter to importer during the first half of this year.

France’s total net exports amounted to 17.6 terawatt-hours, with most of the power flowing to Great Britain and Italy, according to a report from EnAppSys Ltd. that laid out imports and exports.

French nuclear output is a cornerstone for Europe’s electricity market, even though it’s hovering around 50% of capacity. Its nuclear stations continue to be crucial to the market despite outages and high output from renewable sources such as solar, which has been highly productive as heatwaves have ripped through many parts of southern Europe this summer.

The increased exports from the nation were due to “an increased availability of the country’s nuclear assets,” EnAppSys director Jean-Paul Harreman said in an emailed statement. “Although availability is still 10-15% lower than normal, the increase in capacity of between 5 and 10 GW versus last year helped to flip the French energy balance to export again.”

While Sweden slipped to second place, Spain overtook Germany to become Europe’s third-highest net exporter with total net outflows of 8.8 terawatt-hours, the report found. Spain, seared by extreme heat recently, has profited from increasing renewable generation as huge solar capacity has driven higher exports. Sweden’s exports stood at 14.6 terawatt-hours.

Germany’s closure of its nuclear power plants was the reason its “energy balance flipped to imports,” the report found.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-top-power-exporter-as-germany-turns-importer

Another reminder of Germany’s failed energy policy.
 
Does every country that flips back and forth between net export and net import (like Germany) have a “failed energy policy”?
 
^no. But my feeling of maintaining brown coal mines instead of nuclear wasn’t so bright.

IMG_4211.jpeg


That said, I’m happy to have seen this amazing machine in use:

IMG_4208.jpeg


BAGGER 288

BAGGER 288

BAGGER 288
 
Does every country that flips back and forth between net export and net import (like Germany) have a “failed energy policy”?
Unless Germany brokers some kind of backdoor deal regarding their CO2 output, I’m not sure what options they have long term other than importing clean energy from others.
 
I’m not sure what options they have long term other than importing clean energy from others.
where is the issue with this, exactly?
Germany (and every other EU country, really...) is importing from the European electricity market when it is cheaper than producing the electricity itself... the fact that this cross-border trade is happening is actually a positive, since it lowers prices - and not a negative, as you seem to imply. Funnily enough, CO2 emissions are part of the price... although I will agree that current prices / certificate quantities don't reflect the reality we're living in.

also, regarding nukes: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...rnment-removes-nuclear-power-promise-website/
In 2016, Sweden’s parties agreed that new reactors could be built at existing sites, but without subsidies, these have been seen as too expensive.
whaaaat? how can it be?
 
where is the issue with this, exactly?
Germany (and every other EU country, really...) is importing from the European electricity market when it is cheaper than producing the electricity itself... the fact that this cross-border trade is happening is actually a positive, since it lowers prices - and not a negative, as you seem to imply. Funnily enough, CO2 emissions are part of the price... although I will agree that current prices / certificate quantities don't reflect the reality we're living in.

also, regarding nukes: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...rnment-removes-nuclear-power-promise-website/

whaaaat? how can it be?
The issue is the lack of energy independence and the fact that importing energy from others is always more expensive for its consumers.

Regarding Sweden, it seems they have only redacted the climate minister’s statement because they have yet to officially agree on their plans for new reactors. So the news doesn’t really mean anything?
 
importing energy from others is always more expensive for its consumers.
Please elaborate on that.

I get the indepence argument (although that should be viewed in a EU/EEA context, not in a national one), but when someone says "importing is always more expensive", all my experience living in a world of economic globalization calls bullshit. @eizbaer already commented on that, the European grid is heavily interconnected.
 
when someone says "importing is always more expensive", all my experience living in a world of economic globalization calls bullshit. @eizbaer already commented on that, the European grid is heavily interconnected.
Exactly. It is literally the opposite. Importing is cheaper, that’s why it’s being done. Germany has far more generation capacity (without counting renewables) than it needs, importing is just cheaper than running it all (so even the independence thing is bullshit - being „independent“ of the interconnected market would just be more expensive).
 

After scrapping nuclear reactors, Germany to spend billions on new gas power plants


You can't make this stuff up.

I get the indepence argument (although that should be viewed in a EU/EEA context, not in a national one), but when someone says "importing is always more expensive", all my experience living in a world of economic globalization calls bullshit. @eizbaer already commented on that, the European grid is heavily interconnected.

When your energy is still largely tied to natural gas you're subjected to the volatile whims of the natural gas market. Putting that aside, importing energy is particularly expensive when your demand exceeds what has been forecasted and your allocation cannot meet said demand. Again, you will be subjected to spot pricing which in those particular scenarios is more than the day-ahead market.
 
Those are meant to replace existing coal-fired plants and the idea is to switch them to “green hydrogen” by 2035. I’m not convinced that the latter will be possible, but I would still rather have new power plants burning natural gas than keep burning coal.

As for nuclear, the likely next government (Merkel’s party yet again) may well want to pour another couple hundred billions into that bottomless pit, so don’t despair. They’ll find a way to waste my tax money on the Big Thing from the 1950s.
 
Those are meant to replace existing coal-fired plants and the idea is to switch them to “green hydrogen” by 2035
Not only that, they’re very explicitly tied to a market reform to make peaker plants that rarely run at all and then serve peaks in demand more viable (ie get paid for being ready to run) - something that gas plants are very good at and coal and nuclear are notoriously bad at (very quickly modulate output across a very wide power band). Because the current coal dominated portfolio is so bad at this, we’re having to throttle renewables even more than our lacking transmission grid already dictates…

They’ll find a way to waste my tax money on the Big Thing from the 1950s.
Also this. 💩
 
As for nuclear, the likely next government (Merkel’s party yet again) may well want to pour another couple hundred billions into that bottomless pit, so don’t despair. They’ll find a way to waste my tax money on the Big Thing from the 1950s.
Are you suggesting there is no intrinsic value to the amount of carbon emissions saved over the 60+ years those plants were in service? You're also aware of the bottomless pit of replacing pv panels, blades, and batteries, yes?
 
Are you suggesting there is no intrinsic value to the amount of carbon emissions saved over the 60+ years those plants were in service? You're also aware of the bottomless pit of replacing pv panels, blades, and batteries, yes?

It would have been much better to develop the renewables over the course of those sixty years than to push a technology that leaves us with the obligation to care for thousands of tons of radioactive waste.

All technical devices need to be replaced at some point. Even millstones wear out. The difference is in the problems caused by the waste. So we would have to weigh the intrinsic value of any CO2 emissions saved (minus the emissions caused by uranium mining, plant construction etc. pp.) against the costs of all past and future releases of radioactive material.

So no matter what the French made the EU declare: nuclear power is not “green”. Never has been, never will be.
 
Top