| General > General Technical Chat |
| Germany shutting down last nuclear power plants on April 15th |
| << < (51/56) > >> |
| switchabl:
--- Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 06:16:19 pm --- --- 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. --- End quote --- Yes, I think it was mostly political theatre. Modelling apparently showed that impact of those three plants (with mostly spent fuel rods) on grid stability would likely be marginal. I guess it was done to appease critics and to tick that box just in case, so if shit had really hit the fan (it didn't) they could have said "well, we did everything". Indeed, (average person) would probably have done the same. But looking at the bigger picture, a lot has actually changed in a few months. I mean, the worry was mainly about running out of fuel (not just for electricity but also for heating). And that is mostly solved. Russian natural gas has been replaced with increased supply from Norway and increased LNG capacity. Winter is over, storage levels are still reasonably high. Prices are still higher than before the war (but a long way from their peak), climate impact is worse than before. But availability is no longer an immediate concern. --- Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 06:16:19 pm ---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 :) --- End quote --- Germany has been a net exporter for a long time (France is actually the biggest buyer), even after turning off most nuclear plants, and that is unlikely to change this year. And for now (with renewables averaging just ~50%) there is enough fast acting gas (and slower acting coal >:( ). What's done is done. The debate is years late. |
| SiliconWizard:
--- Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 06:58:08 pm ---So as I said earlier if renewables are taking the place of nuclear then you need to have built much more capacity. --- End quote --- Yes, or you just need much higher prices - which naturally come with the lowered capacity (basic stuff, less energy available = energy is more expensive, who would have thought!) - so more people can't afford it and thus consume a lot less (whether this will impact their life negatively, who cares, right!). Then you don't need more capacity. :popcorn: As someone once said, "I don't want to make the wrong mistake." |
| Ed.Kloonk:
--- Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 05:30:52 pm ---I am confused. I was led to believe that the people voted for this. There is a difference theoretically between the people and the politicians. Politicians are supposed to follow a due process and listen to the expects. Theoretically we know that they at least did this before deciding. When it comes to the people we all know what doing their own research means for many.... people won't be obliged to listen to proper experts so I am still very wary of letting "people" decide. Sadly the average person is not that clever. --- End quote --- Well, the mob that got voted in had this type of energy policy going in. It was no secret. For a voter to say that they didn't know that is bullshit. They wanted and voted for the one that promised more free stuff, and that comes at the cost of infrastructure. |
| Siwastaja:
--- Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 06:58:08 pm ---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. --- End quote --- Oh, here is where your mistake happens. You are just wrong. Nuclear needs fossil backup (nearly) as much as renewables do. Always been this way. Really, the main metric to look at is the average use of fossil fuels. If you want to think in more complex patterns, then you really need to know what you are talking about. |
| Ed.Kloonk:
--- Quote from: Siwastaja on April 22, 2023, 05:45:13 am ---Nuclear needs fossil backup (nearly) as much as renewables do. Always been this way. --- End quote --- Why? What do you mean? Do they not provide continuous output? |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |