| General > General Technical Chat |
| Germany shutting down last nuclear power plants on April 15th |
| << < (50/56) > >> |
| switchabl:
--- Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 05:08:36 pm ---Well what is the nuclear to be replaced with? --- End quote --- Between 2010 and 2020 nuclear energy production has gone down from 141 TWh to 64 TWh (and will presumably drop to 0 in 2024), at the same time renewable energies have increased from 106 TWh to 250 TWh. So I guess in a way it has been replaced already? I would personally have preferred to phase out coal first, I'm just not sure that was ever on the table. --- Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 05:30:52 pm ---I am confused. I was led to beleive that the people voted for this. --- End quote --- There was never a referendum if that is what you mean. In 2000, a social democrat/green coalition goverment first decided to phase out nuclear energy by around 2020 and change to PV and wind. A conservative government reversed that plan in 2010, then more or less reinstated it in 2011... Last year, the last 3 remaining plants were due to be decomissioned but after much debate it was decided to move the deadline by a few months because of the Russian invasion in Ukraine and the fear that there might be energy shortages during the winter. |
| Simon:
--- Quote from: switchabl on April 21, 2023, 06:08:34 pm ---Last year, the last 3 remaining plants were due to be decomissioned but after much debate it was decided to move the deadline by a few months because of the Russian invasion in Ukraine and the fear that there might be energy shortages during the winter. --- End quote --- because in a few months they will be able to make up the difference? Well like I said, politicians - no better than the average person. So Germany now has lots of storage then? or is there enough gas to act as the fast acting compensator in the system? Or are they going to over install so much wind and solar that they can never not have enough but most of the time have much more than needed. Let me guess, the shortfall will come from french nuclear :) |
| Siwastaja:
--- Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 05:08:36 pm ---Well what is the nuclear to be replaced with? --- End quote --- You fail to find a sensible answer, because the question itself is a loaded question ("have you stopped beating your wife" question), and loaded with wrong information. The correct question is, "what was the nuclear replaced with", and the answer is trivial to see from this graph alone (you need to extrapolate mentally a bit because the data does not show nuclear going to all zero, but it should not be hard to see since what replaced nuclear went up way before): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Germany_electricity_production.svg |
| Simon:
I do not say "was" as in the energy system what matters is now, in this half of the 50Hz cycle where is the power coming from. You either have it all or you have non of it. Nuclear is a certain source. If you remembered to turn it on, it will be making power. You can't entirely guarantee renewables. So as I said earlier if renewables are taking the place of nuclear then you need to have built much more capacity. So you are reliant on coal and for fast response gas, if pyou can get it. Shutting down nuclear is a really bad idea, you can't just flick it back on if it's starting to look bit sticky. |
| Kleinstein:
The extension for a few months was as this was winter and thus the highest demand over the year. From the start is was a stupid idea to set the deadline to the end of the year, when the demand is near (or just before) its peak. An end date in march or april is the natural choice. By april the demand is down and the PV production is quite a bit higher. The old fuel still in the plants could still deliver some power for the extension, though already not full power in some of the plants and reducing the power power already in october. The extension was more about adding capacity in the critical part of the year, not so much to produce much extra energy. A longer extension would definitely need new fuel rods. The other point is that the regulations (German and EU wide) require a rather high level revision / inspection. Already the 3 extra months were a somewhat dubious extension of the extension of the dead line. With new fuel and the overdue major revisions and upgrades other extension of the plant life does not come as cheap. To be somewhat economical this would need to be for quite some time, like 10 years. Already the fuel rods usually last some 4 years or so ideally mixing different ages. In my opinion it is just too late to change the mind on this. Personal for maintainace likely has new jobs or is retired with no new generation trained. Only 3 reactors is also not very much to sustain the extra infrastructure (certified experts to do repairs and inspections, spare part production,...) that comes with this type of reactor. The time to revise the decision was some 5 years ago. --- Quote from: switchabl on April 21, 2023, 06:08:34 pm ---Between 2010 and 2020 nuclear energy production has gone down from 141 TWh to 64 TWh (and will presumably drop to 0 in 2024), at the same time renewable energies have increased from 106 TWh to 250 TWh. So I guess in a way it has been replaced already? I would personally have preferred to phase out coal first, I'm just not sure that was ever on the table. --- End quote --- There was the discussion wether to first phase out coal or first nuclear. There was kind of the hope to get both and to a certain degree it worked that way with a slight increased use of natural gas. The use of coal is down from the 2010 or 2015 level quite a bit, even though the build up of wind and PV slowed down a bit by about 2017. Phasing out coal, especially the dirty German brown coal was not that popular because it is linked to local jobs. --- Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 06:58:08 pm ---Nuclear is a certain source. If you remembered to turn it on, it will be making power. You can't entirely guarantee renewables. --- End quote --- Nuclear power is not that certain, especially not if from a few reactors of the same type. There have been cases of a common design flaw that would require a shutdown of all reactors of the same type. AFAIR Japan did the full shutdown in 2011, while the US failed and took the risk and keept quite some NPPs with known design flaws running. The other problem in the combination of nuclear with renewables is that nuclear is made to run nearly 24/7 while the current level of renewable is capable to supply 100% at times. The capacity is also relatively limited. To compensate for short time demand there where a few gas powerd power stations added. Another point are interchange connections to Norway and Austria, that allow for extra peak power from hydro. They also finally started to no longer run the bio-methane plants 24/7 but with some control - though still too little. So far Germany can still provide reseve power to France, though at the costs of more coal used. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |