Germany shutting down last nuclear power plants on April 15th - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 05:13:56 am
content: In its continuing efforts to shoot themselves and everyone around them in the foot or head, Germany will be shutting down their last remaining nuclear, which are fully functional and could operate for decades more. Around 4GW worth of power will be replaced by coal power plants (lignite), gas and random power generators (renewables), making their power generation somehow greener.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 05:36:29 am
content: One could have thought that the recent events would have opened Germany's eyes regarding the political stability and political safety of fossil fuels. One could have thought because Germany totally lost their credibility and face, they would now compensate by correcting their errors. While not a huge fan of nuclear (which is not as simple as nuclear fanboys make it sound like), I was genuinely expecting Germany to announce reopening of some NPPs due to the realities; or at very least cancellation of plans to shut down any operational unit within next 5-10 years.But it seems they are doing the exact opposite. What a joke. Everybody's laughing at Germany and what do they do - make their energy policy even more ridiculous. Which is sad, because Germany's energy policy "green shift" has been success as a whole, despite some problems. Why amplify the problems? Is this some kind of suicidal act?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 05:43:45 am
content: That's nice. You're saying that just because you don't want to save the planet.The solar panels on railways will do the trick and we'll just come back here with our tail between our legs.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 05:54:55 am
content: Let me explain:It is to ensure German continued reliance on imported Russian gas. It's was the only sensible thing to do...(The clinically stupid are obviously in charge in Germany too.)

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 06:10:11 am
content: Quote from: Xena E on April 09, 2023, 05:54:55 amYep, its much better to rely on the "freedom & democracy molecules"gas from US, that cost 6 times more expensive than those evil Russian's gas.The German's de-industrialization in going fast and scary, almost like an avalanche, and one of my close friend who works with BASF (one of the giant chemical industry in the world) is now preparing to move to China as their company is moving majority of their factories to China, nice eh ?

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 06:11:41 am
content: Quote from: daqq on April 09, 2023, 05:13:56 amWell, the people who have been making such decisions are not into details, and are even less interested in validating and verifying their beliefs and claims. It will be interesting to see how things turn out, but this is not an experiment I would run on an entire country and its people.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 06:20:16 am
content: Quote from: jfiresto on April 09, 2023, 06:11:41 amWhat country ? Its more like it will affect and drag down the whole EU countries, as its not so secret that its the German industrial might and the depth of the German's pocket, who support and bear "the whole" EUleeches... errr .. EU countries.Once the main cash cow is dried ...

author: mendip_discovery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 06:50:44 am
content: The UK turned off one of its Nuclear plants recently. They are building a new one but that wont be working for a few years. They said that the site had got to the end of its expected lifespan and if they were to continue even just for a extra year or two they would be into having to weigh up the risks of something going wrong. This may partly be down to issues around getting the go ahead to build the new one as it had been left in limbo for a good 5 years. If they had decided to go ahead earlier then it would have been working by now.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 08:23:19 am
content: Quote from: jfiresto on April 09, 2023, 06:11:41 amPerhaps they fixed the North Stream pipeline already??

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 05:03:14 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 09, 2023, 05:36:29 amafaiu it is not so simple to cancel shutdowns or reopening plants

author: I wanted a rude username
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 05:11:02 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 09, 2023, 05:36:29 amAnd on top of that, they had a credibleexcuseto keep this sustainable energy generation running in the face of uninformed demands to replace it with a basket of intermittent sources. The initial plan to phase out nuclear generation had been folly, but to do so now isa razor's edge awayfrom outright malice.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 05:39:22 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on April 09, 2023, 05:54:55 amNo, it is to keep German people working by digging up coal from the soil. Germany has huge coal reserves. Fortunately winds are mostly coming from the North so all the SO2 blows to France and Italy.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 06:19:29 pm
content: Free sulpher dioxide to inhale, how very considerate of them...

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 07:13:23 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on April 09, 2023, 06:19:29 pmmodern powerplants have scrubbers and filter, but that doesn't do anything about CO2

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 07:23:56 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on April 09, 2023, 07:13:23 pmPeople keeping saying / writing this but the (f)actual truth is that the concentrations of SO2 produced by coal power plants are still hazardous for people. As in people die prematurely from emissions from coal power plants. Worldwide you are talking about close to a million people per year, every year (according to the WHO).The filters don't work for 100%, not even close. Maybe 50% or so. The problem is that you can't run a coal fired power plant cost effectively if you filter SO2 to a safe level. Just look up the SO2 emissions due to electricity generation and do the math.Bottom line: it is sheer madness to still run coal fired power plants. Especially when you have nuclear power plants on hand that are ready to go. Coal fired power plants have killed more people in the Netherlands than the worst (but realistic) casualty estimations for the Chernobyl nuclear dissaster.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 07:53:08 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 09, 2023, 07:23:56 pmthe local power plant here is ~20mg SO2 per kWhQuote from: nctnico on April 09, 2023, 07:23:56 pmit is like people scared of flying

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 08:02:12 pm
content: Quote from: jfiresto on April 09, 2023, 06:11:41 amDude, you're from Germany. Can you explain, how to say it, what the actual f*uck? What's up with the anti-nuclear hysteria in your country? Is it prevalent amongst the population or just those in power?

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 08:12:55 pm
content: Coal power plants emit more radioactive waste than nuclear ones!https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/https://ena-norm.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/I.IV_.2.pdf(Germany specific study)

author: mendip_discovery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 08:41:06 pm
content: If you can find it in your country tryGuy Martin's Great British Power Trip -https://www.channel4.com/programmes/guy-martins-great-british-power-tripIt is a recent program about power generation. The chap is a motorcycle racer but at heart a mechanic and he loves to work stuff out. He still has ridden faster on a bicycle than most people have gone in a car 112.94 mph (181.76 km/h).

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 08:50:47 pm
content: I have always believed that ALL politicians, regardless of filiation or which country they belong, that their acts and legislation are always driven by a political agenda, rather than a legitimate care for their people.Political agenda is a synonym for personal gain.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 09:08:13 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on April 09, 2023, 08:02:12 pmFWIW, I’ve worked with many Germans over the years and while it’s not a universal sentiment among them, it’s a very common position.The ones with education in hard sciences and medicine seem to be much less anti-nuclear in my experience.(Right now I’m working in the physics department of a university, and while there are many Germans, including my boss (who is in charge of nuclear safety, all the radiation sources, etc) they tend to fall more on the pro-nuclear side of things so it’s a bit of a reprieve from the hysteria at the moment! :p)

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 09:15:29 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 09, 2023, 05:36:29 amEurope in general is committing suicide. Discussing the reasons probably doesn't quite fit in a EE forum.

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 09:27:55 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on April 09, 2023, 08:02:12 pmBasically, people get indoctrinated against nuclear power from a young age, and don't dare to question that belief as that's very socially frowned upon. Also read:https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20221101-the-cloud-the-nuclear-novel-that-shaped-germany

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 10:43:42 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on April 09, 2023, 07:53:08 pmThis:Putting into perspective the SO² ... just picking a random European power plant. Scholven power station produces approximately 90 tonnes of SO² per hour at maximum generation and just under half that is removed by electrostatic scrubbers giving ≈45 tonnes/hour... that works backwards nicely fitting the 20mg/kWh...Other facts to consider:The same plant also produces more than 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.The three worst offenders in and around Europe are first Germany; second Poland; and third the UK... the UK and Germany have between them two thirds of the 30 worst poluting power plants in Europe which is an absolute farce as both countries have the most vocal aspirations about improvement in their green credentials.The UK is at least intent on increasing its baseline of nuke generation.All the above is just seemingly arbitrary statistics, so how about this:Every year in Europe there are:28 million cases of lower respiratory tract infections,4million lost days of work, and, 18,500, premature deaths,Attributed to atmospheric polution.The policy in Germany, is I'm afraid just further proof that goverments are prepared to bend to unfounded opinions rather than logic to remain in power.Said it before, just proof the world is run by idiocracy.People is stupid.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2023, 10:49:54 pm
content: There has been way too much focus on CO2 -which doesn't kill people at all and certainly not short term- and the toxic pollution has been forgotten. At least the the NL the government has stopped subsidising burning bio-mass in power plants (which also causes massive air pollution).

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 02:07:49 am
content: And then there is California's last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, which provides 15% of California's energy needs scheduled to be shut own in 2024 and 2025.But wait! We've already had rolling blackouts (2020) and with electric cars coming along, demand is going to increase.So, the feds are willing to give PG&E a $1.1B infusion to keep the plant running for another 5 years and the State is willing to lend PG&E $1.4B to not do the work of shutting it down. Pretty cool! Don't spend money already allocated for closure and slurp up money for not doing the job.https://www.ksby.com/news/local-news/pg-e-to-receive-1-1-billion-in-federal-funds-for-nuclear-power-plant-operationshttps://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-08-12/california-could-lend-pg-e-1-4-billion-to-save-the-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plantWe came to our senses just in time. A lot of our energy comes from the Pacific Northwest and one day they won't have any to give. The other big source is Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona. The plant is partially owned by California utilities but the people of Arizona want it closed down regardless of the shortages in California.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Stationhttps://www.maricopa.gov/1002/PVGS

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 04:26:29 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on April 10, 2023, 02:07:49 amCalifornia reminds me of a train that is speeding toward an unfinished section of track, it's going to be a spectacular wreck.A friend of mine works for an unrelated branch of the government of CA and from what she has told me about day to day happenings no matter how bad you think it is, it's even more disjointed and dysfunctional than you'd think.Electric cars are cool but the electricity has to come from somewhere and the rolling blackouts suggest that piling massive new loads on the grid is not a wise idea.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 04:39:16 am
content: Which reminds me of this quote from Dijkstra :Quote

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 08:45:10 am
content: from 1950s & onward Europe's NATO then Bilderberg in the US.to keep Germany down, keep Russia out & keep the US in Europe.tell me if I am wrong.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 09:15:25 am
content: Germany will (it does already) buy cheap electricity from other EU countries, who are building up their nuclear power plants - ie. in central Europe - Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, and perhaps others. I think the major concern in Germany is the storing of used nuclear material/waste. Nobody there wants to have that storage in their backyard..

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 09:38:31 am
content: Quote from: jonovid on April 10, 2023, 08:45:10 amNot wrong, but few minor corrections ...... to keep Germany subdued, not totally down as US needs to milk them on weaponry for US MIC (moar F35s stealth sub-marine), and keep Russia out & keep the US reign over all those EU cannon fodders & slaves ... and be thankful for US on bombing German's owned gas pipe infrastructure and "instructed" to blame on Russia ...Yep, sad and pathetic.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 09:55:57 am
content: I don't think we are dealing with this energy transition the most efficient way possible.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 10:15:52 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on April 10, 2023, 09:55:57 amIts by design, all those chaos implemented for the sake of "fake" tree hugging religion.Do you think those green movements, anti cow farts stuff, Greta Thunberg thingy with fake religion and etc, are pure goodness for mankind ?Without a nasty and hidden political agenda behind it driven by strong dark political force, then I have a bridge to sell you.Since you're from Holland, just want to say its great to hear a good thing that is happening there in Holland, on the farmer's political movement, wish they do not get sabotaged or harmed by those evil, you know who.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 11:27:51 am
content: Local news, [not Sako] can't boost ammunition production, TikTok is using all electricity.Here nuclear plant area must have lower background radiation than background.One must wonder how much City Greens have been without energy.E,negation.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 12:22:49 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on April 10, 2023, 09:55:57 amIndeed. If only Greenpeace et all didn't preach doom over nuclear, we would not have this energy crisis and CO2 problem in Europe. The French have been very clever with all their nuclear power plants (except for scheduling maintenance for half of the power plants at the same time).Quote from: m k on April 10, 2023, 11:27:51 amJust to those that don't know yet: I prefer funny cat videos over bullets

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 05:38:16 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 10, 2023, 12:22:49 pmWe would have been able to replace a lot of older plants with modern much safer and more efficient nuclear plants that produce less waste and have less chance of an accident.

author: Norbert
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 06:26:48 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on April 10, 2023, 05:38:16 pmThose two terms really shouldn't be put in the same sentence.OTOH, I'm old, what do I care…

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 06:29:13 pm
content: Building new nuclear power plants makes relatively limited sense. Currently in many places the costs for wind-power or PV is considerably lower than for new nuclear. Even considering the need for some (e.g. 25%) storage new nuclear is hardly competative.When calling for newer, safer designs this would likely add some 10-30 years of additional testing and developement with a somewhat uncertain result. Even build just new units of the old designs takes quite some time (e.g. 5-10 years) and the capacities to build new ones are limited. The usual PWR build in Europe need very large steel forging parts. AFAIK only a single plant in Japan can make these and the capacitiy is quite limited. Unless they build a new forge they may be faster with nuclear fusion than with getting a significant build up of new fission reactors.Even if they would now want to extend the life-time for the few remaining German reactors, it would now take quite some time for a major revision and maininance and also to get new fuel. So they would be down for 1-2 years anyway. In hind-sight it may have been better to keep the reactors running for longer, but that decision point was some 5-10 years ago. All plans are made to shut them down. Already the last extension was only with reduced power, as the fuel was essentially used up.Germany had to bring back some old coal power-plants last year. But this was not so much because of shutting down the German reactors, but because quite a lot of the French reactors were down for lack of cooling water and delayed maintainance.I would consider calling for building new reactors now as a bad idea - it comes with a risk, too late and at high (hardly competative) costs.Nuclear on a large scale comes with 3 additional problems:1) When not running the reactors 24/7, but shut down in times of low demand, the already high costs additionally go up. A limited power (like 25%) to run near 24/7 is not such an issue, but this still leaves a large part to come from other source.2) Having many reactors of the same / similar type is a risky situation. The safety concepts usually call a prompt shut down if a problem with the design is found (e.g. like with the BWRs in Fukushima). Taking safety serious may than cause a black out. So one has to choose between safe or dependable. Given the hard choices and reaction after Fukushima (delaying safety upgrades to keep the reacrtor running) one can not really trust the promissed safety.3) For a world wide large scale expansion of nuclear power the uranium reserves get critical and the fuel would get more expensive. It would at least need reprocessing of used fuel and this did not work out economically.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 06:36:07 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on April 10, 2023, 05:38:16 pmmaybe I don't know English but I think that should be risk not chance...

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 07:51:07 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on April 10, 2023, 06:29:13 pmThis is such a classic example of German indocrination. Literally none of these points are true, yet majority of people there - who should know better one would think - for some reason believe it...

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 07:59:45 pm
content: Quote from: Norbert on April 10, 2023, 06:26:48 pmAbsolutely everything we do has a non-zero chance of something negative happening. Every aspect of life is a numbers game, you weight the risks, you take your chances. Any one of us could drop dead this afternoon, an extinction level asteroid collision could occur tomorrow, you never know.

author: nightfire
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 07:59:57 pm
content: To put things in a technical perspective:The german nuclear plants are also somewhat old, and as the last date of operations has been determined politically, the operating companies very probably had some closer look at the nuclear fuel they are using.Means: the way they operate, the nuclear power rods detoriate slowly, until at a certain point when they do only give a very reduced power and have to be regenerated, so the reactor core has to be refilled with fresh rods.So very probably the operators would have made good use of that remaining fuel inside the core so that one cannot simply let those plants run longer, they would have to be replenished with fresh fuel and according maintenance work.Regarding the political aspects in germany: Yes, there is a certain awareness what nuclear desasters can do. I myself remember when I was little the Chernobyl accident, where we all had to stay at home and not go outside due to possible contamination via air from Ukraine. Some poltical pressure from certain political parties also is built into their agenda, so this topic stays quite high on the list.Frankly, I agree with the stance that the actually existing nuclear power plants are pressurized water reactor or scrubber reactor, so they have inherent security risks in case of danger.This is partly due to the military in the cold war, that wanted reactor types that could provide them with material for bombs. Other types of reactor (Thorium types) are probably way less dangerous in case of an accident.Also: The current situation in Ukraine has brought to attention that a country is only really sovereign, when every part of vital infrastructure is available on own soil. Regarding nuclear power, this is questionable, as resources like manufacturing of the fuel rods and the rework of them is scattered throughout europe.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 08:02:20 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on April 10, 2023, 06:36:07 pmChance and risk are roughly interchangeable in that context. Lower risk == less chance of something bad happening.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 08:03:29 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on April 10, 2023, 06:29:13 pmSo, nuclear is so uncompetitive that it makes more sense for France to sell lots of nuclear power to countries, who pretend to be green while opening up new coal mines and hiss enthusiastically at nuclear powered countries.As to the deployment, see:https://radiyozh.substack.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-reactor-c2a0c6b29116. Yeah, we can't havenewones tomorrow, but we can have them in a reasonable time frame.Even assuming your assumptions that only Japan is capable of creating new reactors was true (which it is simply not), then the solution is not saying "Oh bother" and proclaiming it impossible, the solution is for the EU to actually commit to something. And I mean really commit. Can you honestly say that a quicker buildup would be inconceivable?As to waiting for for fusion, well, I'm all for researching it, but not at the expense of advancing nuclear. And certainly not waiting for it to become actually usable. When it's actually here and usable and the fuel issues are solved, sure, go for it. Until then we have something that works.Also, large scale fusion (assuming we crack the issues with, pretty much everything, fuel included) will suffer from a number of the same problems as conventional nuclear. Not all of them, but it wouldn't be a magic solution.Quote from: Kleinstein on April 10, 2023, 06:29:13 pmA randomly fluctuating power supply in a continent wide grid without some stable power generation can also lead to blackouts. As to trusting promised safety, I actually trust them.As to the fuel, you mentioned that it's pointless to wait for the new types of reactors - the reactors that could use more types of fuel or use the existing stuff far more efficiently. The theoretical concepts and practical proof-of-concepts actually exist, but yeah, lets wait for fusion, which has been just 20 years away for the last 60 years, because by George, we shall crack it this decade!edit:Sorry, need to add:Quote from: Kleinstein on April 10, 2023, 06:29:13 pm...you do know how plans work, right? They can be cancelled or amended based on changes to the situation. Just because someone makes a plan to commit suicide and buys the rope, doesn't mean they need to get up on the chair.What you are describing is a bureaucratic inconvenience rather than a physical problem. Yes, at this point it would be harder to continue to have them operating, but extremely far from impossible and it would be definitely easier than to dismantle the whole thing.But yeah, please, continue to virtue signal and do continue with your prolonged twitch reaction to Fukushima.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 08:19:06 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on April 10, 2023, 09:55:57 amNo kidding? But it's not the goal, as some have pointed out.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 08:33:00 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on April 10, 2023, 08:03:29 pmFast breeders are known for decades now, and in some let's just say more nuclear-advanced countries are already used commercially. They can operate on a nuclear waste as a fuel, killing two birds with one stone - using up piles of nuclear waste accumulated all over the world, and creating essentially free energy at the same time! Due to all that nuclear hysteria Germany has fallen far behind in the nuclear tech. But the future of humanity is in nuclear energy, whether some people like it or not, as no other power source can provide enough energy for our ever-expanding needs.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 08:35:20 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on April 10, 2023, 08:02:20 pmIn my mind when it is the probability of something bad happening it is a risk, not a chanceyou wouldn't say, those exposed wires are a safety chance

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 08:39:04 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 10, 2023, 08:33:00 pmand if coal,gas,oil, is cheaper there are plenty of poor countries that will burn it for us

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 08:42:50 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 10, 2023, 08:33:00 pmI know, forgot to mention them, an oversight on my part. You are quite right. The comment was meant to address the mentality of "most current reactors use X, I only have a century's worth* X in my cupboard, therefore it's madness to build new reactors in case X gets expensive" rather than the details.* - illustrative number.

author: rf-messkopf
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2023, 09:50:22 pm
content: Actually, I had decided not to discuss this topic anymore. Having worked in the nuclear sector in Germany, I know the industry and the German plants quite well. The amount of irrationality in this discussion is only making my stomach churn and I've had enough gray hairs from this. What you get to hear even from people with an engineering background is not always easy to take.What makes all this particularly deplorable is that the German DWR 1300 and Konvoi plants designed by KWU were far ahead of its time, especially in terms of engineered safety features and I&C (instrumentation and control), and only current designs like the EPR draw level in this aspect (you've got to know that 25 yeas is a short period in this industry). Operational experience is excellent. A whole bunch of disturbances and difficulties the industry constantly deals with with abroad has been avoided through good design and also a fortunate choice of materials (the other day I've heard that they run "leak management programs" in the US ...). The plants have excellent controllability for a large-scale (1450 MW gross) power plant, and can do power gradients up to 150 MW/min from zero to full load (although some restrictions may apply in some operational regimes), all at the push of a single button. They were always designed to do load-following operation, and also did that on a regular basis.But let them turn off this crap. It seems that this technology is too sophisticated for the country's soul. I'm done with this. Sorry for getting emotional over this.Quote from: nightfire on April 10, 2023, 07:59:57 pm"Scrubber Reactor"? But no. Pressurized water reactors as well as boiling water reactors are very ill-suited to breed weapons grade material, mainly because their fuel assemblies cannot be removed during operation. For that purpose, pressure tube reactors are much better, like RBMK or Candu, when we talk about commercial designs.Quote from: Kleinstein on April 10, 2023, 06:29:13 pmYep, an at this point an outage would be unavoidable for refueling and maintenance in all remaining plants. In the longer run, staffing is becoming more and more of a problem. Of course, there has not been much junior staff in recent years, and training someone to become a shift supervisor or reactor operator takes time.Quote from: Kleinstein on April 10, 2023, 06:29:13 pmThe provision of balancing power and other grid system services is paid well.Quote from: Kleinstein on April 10, 2023, 06:29:13 pmYou are mixing up design problems with incidents during operation, which may or may not require a reactor trip. Yes, the Fukushima plants had some very basic design deficiencies, with problems at several levels, including the national nuclear regulator, although I do not see that safety was sacrificed in order to avoid a blackout in Japan. Actually, the KWU plants are famous for its low number of reactor trips (some plants in the country had no unplanned trip in 20 years).Quote from: Kleinstein on April 10, 2023, 06:29:13 pmI'm not an economist but from what I know the percentage of the fuel cost is a low one digit figure of the total operational cost of a NPP. So this is not really a factor, and also the reason why reprocessing and breeder reactors were not economically interesting to this date.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 12:17:19 am
content: Quote from: rf-messkopf on April 10, 2023, 09:50:22 pmYes, mined uranium is a relatively small cost of the plant lifecycle but the processing, enrichment, and disposal of nuclear waste end up making fuelling a very significant cost (anywhere from an eight to a third of the LCOE depending on which "side" prepares the figures).

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 01:14:00 am
content: Something I have always wondered about but not looked into is since the spent fuel is still active enough that it has to be kept cool, clearly there is still potential energy there so why can't it be put to use?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 01:24:49 am
content: Quote from: james_s on April 11, 2023, 01:14:00 amNuclear reactors are finicky/metastable and only use a small percentage of the "available" energy in the fuel. It gets into the specifics of the particular fuel cycles, a starting point for you:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 07:17:57 am
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on April 10, 2023, 06:29:13 pmThis. It's worth noting the Finnish Olkiluoto 3, which now seems kinda-sorta operational (!!!), after being 12 years late, is now the most expensive building in the whole human history; a total political disaster.Extending the permits for old plants also comes with risks; you can't do it indefinitely.However, Germany has had to make the choice between fossils and nuclear during the transition time to more sustainable energy policy (with the final target of using neither). The correct answer is to use sensible mix of both, on case-by-case basis. What Germany has done is use the most politically unstable forms of fossil fuels (specifically Putin's fart, which also did not come for free but required actual investments in the pipeline, there is no free lunch), and accelerate the transition away from nuclear as fast as possible. This is not sensible; it's politics driven by something else than factual analysis of what would be best for the country (and EU as a whole, too) in the long run.The advantage of fossil fuel is, the downsides average out. Their CO2, SO2, particulates etc. average; the less you use them, the smaller the problem. Therefore supplementing uncertain renewable production with fossil fuels is not a huge problem. Political riskmore thanaverages out; halve the use of fossil fuels, and the risk is practically totally gone as you can choose where to buy from.But by closing the NPPs at higher-than-natural rate, Germany has had to keep the fossil fuel use relatively constant; advances in renewables have been directly removed from nuclear, not 50:50 from nuclear + fossils.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 07:41:50 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 11, 2023, 07:17:57 amThe key word beingpolitical- the incompetence of administrations is an argument against politicians, imbecilic project management and copious amounts of bureaucracy rather than nuclear as a concept. In Slovakia we too had some major delays, but again, that speaks of politics and state project management rather than nuclear.Basically what I'm seeing here is an attitude of giving up on big projects the sort of that were done in the past with enthusiasm and looking forward. Instead we are creating overpriced pathetic workarounds and small not-fixes that can have a label with whatever virtues that the current administration wish to signal slapped on to them. Meanwhile in the background solutions (whether it's infrastructure or heavy industry) from 30-50 years ago are working overtime to compensate for the lack of will to build something new and worthwhile.If we want to adopt an attitude where we just give up big, ambitious projects as a whole, let's just say it right here and now. And we may as well throw in the towel.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 08:13:05 am
content: ^^^^^^

author: rf-messkopf
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 10:09:59 am
content: To keep this at a technical level (after all, this is an engineering forum, not a political one):Quote from: Someone on April 11, 2023, 01:24:49 amHuh? Commercial reactors are designed to be undermoderated, i.e., an increase in fuel temperature or a reduction in moderator density leads to a power reduction. For this reason, in a PWR, slight variations in power demand up to a few percent do not require any input from power control elements. In fact, I can assure you from first hand experience that you can safely turn off all closed loop reactor power control (actually three control loops in series in a German PWR in normal at-power operation), and it will just sit there without moving (stable equilibrium). BWRs have a bit more complicated unit capacity control systems, because reactor pressure and steam voiding have a pronounced effect on reactivity, so they use a control concept in which the set generator power in part acts directly on the power control elements (recirculation pumps and control rods in a BWR). But still, they are undermoderated by design.Quote from: james_s on April 11, 2023, 01:14:00 amAfter a four or five years when the spent fuel assemblies are transferred to dry storage, this is just a couple of kilowatts, i.e., not worthwhile. For example,this storage caskis rated for a maximum of 39 kW total heat load.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 11:09:27 am
content: Quote from: rf-messkopf on April 11, 2023, 10:09:59 amSounds like an example of short term stability, not a truly stable system hence the careful choice of metastability as a description. Leaving an inherently safe/stable reactor to its own devices usually means a rapid and steady drop in reactivity (for legitimate and well thought out safety reasons) rather than continued stable operation. They are intentionally not stable, and partly because of the fuel becoming unable to sustain fission (despite having not yet used much of the available energy).Requiring graded/designed loadings of differing fuel elements across the core to be functional is the sort of thing that makes the system finicky. It is not just a case of pouring more fuel in as it gets used up, almost everything about the nuclear fuel cycle needs really carefully designed processes to maintain operation.You've gone off and talked around the original question like a true politician/industry spokesperson:Quote from: rf-messkopf on April 11, 2023, 10:09:59 amSomeone asks about energy, so subtly direct the discussion to power....Quote from: Someone on April 11, 2023, 01:24:49 amThe answer is complex and multifaceted, but it is true that very very little of the available nuclear energy is used in current fuel cycles.

author: rf-messkopf
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 12:00:03 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on April 11, 2023, 11:09:27 amTrue, you have to compensate fuel burn-up by adding reactivity over the course of a fueling cycle to maintain power, which is normally about one year. Unfortunately, a NPP is not a perpetuum mobile. The fact that burn-up does tend to decrease reactor power is not a safety feature though, it is much too slow for that purpose. Burn-up runs on quite a different time scale than short term variations in power demand, which the reactor is designed to compensate without control input (at least to some extent, i.e., a couple of percent, as mentioned above). Yes, this is by design. There are reactor concepts which do not have this property.If you want to make up your own terminology and call this situation metastable or finicky, I'm not going to argue about that. I've never heard this term in this context though.Quote from: Someone on April 11, 2023, 11:09:27 amIf I understood him correctly, user james_s was asking whether it is feasible to use the heat generated by spent fuel. The answer is no, because of the low heat output (i.e., power).Quote from: Someone on April 11, 2023, 11:09:27 amTrue, and I don't think I've disputed that.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 01:51:41 pm
content: Quote from: rf-messkopf on April 10, 2023, 09:50:22 pmThanks for the rare insights!What do you think, would it be possible to run these plants with the existing (loaded in) fuel rods for a few more months or years even with reduced capacity?What would it require?Because as I see it, even from a green anti atom perspective, fuelling up coal plants is a desaster, and I am not sure whether the generally anti nuclear population (with the very good arguments from Kleinstein) is so much for an imminent shutdown. And no I don' belive of those 1000 people asked polls which are literally running Germany these days.

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 02:02:49 pm
content: Quote from: rf-messkopf on April 10, 2023, 09:50:22 pmNice summary !Germany is turning the nuclear power plants off and France is building new nuclear plants and gets EU funding for them because of clean energy.We have reached idiocracy levels here.

author: shapirus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 02:10:22 pm
content: Quote from: HighVoltage on April 11, 2023, 02:02:49 pmNext logical step: dismiss Bundeswehr, because it's too expensive and weapons are bad anyway, and let, well, someone else's army take care of the country's defense.

author: rf-messkopf
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 02:45:40 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 11, 2023, 01:51:41 pmThe three plants currently remaining in at-power operation (Emsland, Neckarwestheim 2 and Isar 2) were originally scheduled to shut down by the end of 2022. So the natural cycle end, where under normal circumstances a refueling outage would be done, was planned to be close to that date. Now it is possible to do what is called stretch-out operation, i.e., to continue generating beyond the natural cycle end, which is what the plants are currently doing. Before entering stretch-out operation, in (I think) two plants the reactor pressure vessel was opened in a short outage and the core was reshuffled and some fuel assemblies were replaced with partially burned fuel assemblies that were stored on-site. Also, some necessary maintenance was done. This was needed keep the plants running at sufficient power during the winter until mid April, which is the new shutdown date agreed by politics. No fresh fuel has been used, though.Under normal circumstances, stretch-out operation can last for perhaps 80 days, at least from memory I think that's how far the curves in the operations manual for stretch-out operation go. The details depend on the actual core and must be calculated by the plant's physics department on an individual basis. In any case, under stretch-out operation, the full rated power cannot be maintained, and also the load following capability is restricted. What is actually done is that the coolant temperature is decreased, which frees additional reactivity, allowing to increase fuel burn-up.That means currently there is not much room for continued operation with the present reactor cores and without any refueling, except for perhaps a few days beyond mid April. There may be other operational restrictions, e.g. deferred maintenance, or staff availability, etc., I don't know.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 03:52:10 pm
content: And how much outage would mean the refuelling? If the aim is to make it work for another 1-2 years? Would the costs, risk or time to do it enormus?And what if that decision had been made immediately after the government got the results of the studies regarding the possible enlenghtening of the usage of the plants?If there would be a political will, could it be made economically feasible in a timeframe and for costs that would beat power to gas initiatives (or maybe renewables)during the same time period?

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 04:06:15 pm
content: These plants are designed to operate safely for much more than half a century. It's not that extending the operational life by "a few years" is any problem. It's extension after extension after extension after extension which gradually becomes a problem. AFAIK, this practice is being critiqued in the USA.

author: Perkele
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 04:15:48 pm
content: "Yes, Minister" was a documentary, it seems.Toxic cloud above Poland from coal burning will double its size.And it's not like the winds are respecting state borders.Oh, well, whatever keeps the voters happy...

author: rf-messkopf
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 04:21:50 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 11, 2023, 03:52:10 pmA normal scheduled refueling outage with annual plant revision takes roughly between 10 and 20 days, maybe somewhat longer when particular work is to be done. The thing is that no such outage is planned for. And new fuel is not purchased via online order with same-day delivery. So no idea how long that would take given the current circumstances. But that is surely not a matter of a couple of weeks, even if the political will was there.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 04:36:23 pm
content: But I mean with the needed maintenance for the few years extra running time. Because for me it is not clear wheter this is a pure political decision, and you only had to change the fuel, or it is such an enormous cost or time issue which makes it uncompetitive with other solutions.Besides I really can't understand, why this few GW needs to be subsituted so immediately with coal, it is about 5% of Germany's need so not so systemrelevant.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 05:06:14 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 11, 2023, 04:36:23 pmPower systems are like that. If you have more consumption than production, the whole grid collapses, so you can't just cut 5%, or even 0.5% of production, you need to replace it with something else; or make customers somehow cut down their consumption. Germany has a lot of heavy industry which can't be turned off. 5% sounds like a small number but it's the difference between life and death (for the industries).

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 05:40:18 pm
content: But Germany is not an island, there are much bigger fluctuations with the neighbours because of the renewables. Compared to that, it is almost peanuts. And coal, especially with older power plants will not help either with that.So I would think a short period with higher duty cycle on gas power plants until having more import from France, and than building power to gas would be a way more enviromentfriendly solution.But of course if really not much extra cost or time involved reloading the nuclear plants would be the best but I am still not sure about the technical feasibility, see my questions above.

author: rf-messkopf
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 05:45:32 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 11, 2023, 04:36:23 pmThat's really a question for the utilities whether they would be happy to run the plants for another year, and if they could market the energy such that they would see a chance of a return on necessary investments. I don't know, I'm not their bean counter.And the permission to generate electricity ends for the three remaining plants on April 15 as per the German Atomic Energy Act. This was decided by parliament, which is pretty much the definition of a political decision.Quote from: Neutrion on April 11, 2023, 04:36:23 pmAgain, a political decision to weigh the continuation of NPP operation against the potential risk of a shortage in energy supply, and not something I can say much about. The margins weren't too generous during winter, hopefully next year will be better. Besides that, this statement is certainly true:Quote from: Siwastaja on April 11, 2023, 05:06:14 pm

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 06:21:41 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 11, 2023, 04:06:15 pmbut if checks, maintenance, etc. have been planned to the deadline and personnel already moved on I suspect it is not a quick or small task to do

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 07:18:47 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 11, 2023, 03:52:10 pmRefueling for 1-2 years would not make much sense. Usually the fuel is in the reactor for some 3-4 years with exchanging something like 1/3 every 12-18 months or so. So if they would order new fuel it would be more like for 3-4 years at least - ideally longer to have a mix of old and new rods as the reactors are planed to work with. They may keep a little of the old fuel, but likely not much as the really run it to the end with not much juice left. The unusual fuel mix may need extra certification.The other point is that the reactors are over-due for a major revision / inspection. They are currently running on extensions/exceptions from the normal rules. So not just the normal short outage to change the fuel, but more like 6 months or langer to check and replace parts that wear-out and upgrade to current standards where needed. A point here is that the replacement parts are no longer planed for and possibly even the machines / molds to make them may no longer be availabe, as they did not plan to ever do this revision anymore. Chances are the mechanics origianlly trained for this job also have a new job. With short notice the revision would likely take longer than normal. So the time (1-2 years) to order an manufacture new fuel may not even be the limiting factor. With the extra effort if would likely not make much sense to restart for only 1 fuel load.The unlikely scenario to extend the plant life would be some 1-3 years to get them ready for a restart and than maybe 6-10 years, or what ever is left of the planed 40 years of design life. A much shorter time may not be worth the effort.I don't see a political will for such a longer term commitment and all the regulatory effort for only 3 reactors.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 09:16:18 pm
content: Quote from: rf-messkopf on April 11, 2023, 10:09:59 amThat's over 130k BTU/h in heat, enough to heat several average homes. It's a shame that heat can't be harvested for heating things.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2023, 09:22:18 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on April 11, 2023, 09:16:18 pmIt probably could, but in the grand scheme of things it's very small and moving a really huge and weighty cylinder that requires special handling somewhere to the middle of a city where such heat might best be used would probably cost more than the heating bill for a whole village. And your local scrap "collectors" would be just too tempted and since they can't read anyway...Funnily enough there are RTGs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator) - generators that harness decay heat and convert it into useful power. Mind you, they are in really special applications. And it's not decay heat of random spent fuel rods but of specific isotopes specially chosen.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2023, 01:19:40 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on April 11, 2023, 07:18:47 pmSo to sum it up:It is technically not feasible to run them for an extra 1-2 year, but would be possible to run them for a longer term.You mention the posibble issue regarding the aviability of some tools etc., but I suppose the studies which were made during last summer were there exactly to ansver that question. Possibly also the costs. Are they publicly aviable?So in this case because the coal phase-out is planned to 2030, there could be still a useful 3-4 years until subtitution by renewables. (Or the French. (Or to fulfill AP new-speak guidelines "people experiencing frenchness"))In that case we still don't know whether the population really supports coal instead of nuclear for a few extra years, so this decision can not be blamed on democracy as this scenario was not included in any parties program before the war, and the greens are in clear minority by the number of voters.Are the coal plants be there to run only in emergency situations, or will they take over the whole base load 4 GW? continuously?

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2023, 02:29:11 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on April 11, 2023, 06:21:41 pmOf course it isn't. You would pay for the political mistake of early shutdown of all nuclear, and no, you would not extend by just 1-2 years, realistically the problem isn't also going away in just 1-2 years. You would commit to 5-10 years of extension, and hope we have solved the issues with renewables by then. And don't get me wrong, the track record with renewables is not that bad. It's getting there. Struggling was and is to be expected.Now if politicians could commit to say 10 years, then re-recruiting the staff, getting new fuel etc. makes a lot more sense than for 1-2 years. The cost is still higher than what it would have been if the replacement planning was done more carefully to begin with, but that's the price you need to pay.A large bill has been paid anyway. Finnish taxpayers subsidized Russian's natural gas by over 10 billion € through German gas customers. But because Finland is now basically bankrupt, Germans need to start paying their own energy bills (like we have always done).

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2023, 11:42:55 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 12, 2023, 02:29:11 pmNuclear power plants operate as baseload plants and as load-following power plants. Renewable sources are intermittent and weather- and time-of-day dependent. They are not a replacement for nuclear power.Shutting down NPPs would either lead to more power generation from coal and natural gas, or result in blackouts.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2023, 11:58:33 pm
content: And in any case, even 10 years is not reasonable. Who really thinks we can have "renewables" at a level that can make us get rid of nuclear (+ all the horribly polluting like coal) within 10 years?Seriously?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 03:09:52 am
content: Idealistic people that have no real grasp of just how much energy is required to run modern society.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 03:16:52 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on April 12, 2023, 11:58:33 pmAccording to the Great Goddess Greta Thunberg.Quote from: SiliconWizard on April 12, 2023, 11:58:33 pmWhy not ? Spoke at the podium of United Nation conferences, UN summits, many mores and even Nobel prize nominated, what could go wrong ?

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 03:20:41 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on April 12, 2023, 11:58:33 pmIt's a complete and utter pipe dream.Even down here where the sun shines brightly and about 1 in 3 homes on average have solar panels, "only" about 30% of our power comes from renewables. It's no where near the capacity to support reliable, sustained baseload.Maybe AU can buy the reactors from Germany for cheap?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 03:24:22 am
content: Solar panels bring their own problems too. I'm not suggesting they're not worth it, but there is a significant environmental cost to mining and transporting the materials, manufacturing the panels, packing, transporting, delivering and installing the panels, and then all the equipment that goes into a complete system. Ultimately they will probably offset this and then some over the life of the panels but it is still something to consider.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 04:05:09 am
content: Quote from: vad on April 12, 2023, 11:42:55 pmAh that old baseload furphy, which from a different perspective is "those ridiculous oil tanker scale dinosaur plants couldn't operate flexibly and they had to convince the market to use energy when no-one wanted it". Which applies exactly the same to solar, girds now routinely having an excess of energy in the middle of the working day except the pricing mechanisms haven't caught up yet."unreliable" renewable energy can replace 90% or more of an electricity grid... cheaper than any other source:https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/energy-data-modelling/CSIRO GenCost has been finding the same results year on year, variable renewables + storage is the economic winner if you have a rational and open market (which we do not). That other 10% or less can come from hydro (world average is 7% with room to grow and co-locate/integrate storage) or your choice of other generators.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 05:20:21 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on April 13, 2023, 03:16:52 amWell, I know this very tight "schedule" is all part of the UN's 2030 crap. So we HAVE to absolutely hit this 2030 date, or else...As to solar panels, they are "good" for small-scale use, but not a solution for larger plants IMO. There are much better ways to use solar energy than solar panels if you have enough area.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 09:31:20 am
content: It is funny how nuclear isnowrebranded as reliable and good baseline production.In reality, nuclear is nearly as muchspecial snowflakestuff as renewables. Just the exact pattern is a bit different.Case in point: In Finland in 1970's when the fourth NPP was under political consideration (to be finally finished in20092023), serious plans were being made for using lakes for pumped hydro storage, because it was realized that theproductionandconsumptiondo not meet. Distributed energy storage in hot water (night time heating at households) was pushed in 1980's and is still in use.This was seen as a drawback of nuclear, which is true: too much nuclear is simply too much. All nations relying on nuclear power use significant amounts of fossil fuels in the mix, always more than half.It was and still is known that nuclear powerneeds to be supplemented with fossil fuels! It's the exact same case with renewables.You can detect who's a brain-turned-off nuclear fanboy by simply observing this rebranding where nuclear has somehow become the reliable all-around base production with imaginary potential ofreducingfossil fuel use without drawbacks or limitations; which would be all great unless there were those nasty renewables which supposedlyincreasefossil fuel use.In reality, wind power specifically is the market bully, while nuclear is that special snowflake victim who gets seriously hurt at every possible opportunity and who has to ask for a safe space to be artificially arranged because they can't compete in the free market.Bothrenewablesandnuclear rely on supplement by fossils, and for both, the amount of fossils can be reduced by arranging energy storage or flexible load management. Therefore the whole "boohoo renewables bad because need fossils or storage" is just blame shifting, nothing else.We really need the storage and load management solutions anyway.Quote from: Halcyon on April 13, 2023, 03:20:41 amExcept you are totally wrong, it's far from a "complete and utter piper dream". All you need to do is to take look at the current status:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Germany_electricity_production.svgOpen your eyes and extrapolate even in a conservative way, and you will see what I mean; if you are ready to accept being wrong.The amount of actual, successful renewable energy production in Germany surprises everybody, every time. The excuse is always, "it can't keep doing that because energy can't be stored, it will stay marginal". Yet the share continues rising and hasn't been marginal for years, and there are no signs of it slowing down.No, it won't be magically 100% in 10 years, but I do believe (based on actual data) it is enough to actually turn off the nuclear plants by then, in Germany.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 10:15:57 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 13, 2023, 09:31:20 amOn one hand you call me wrong. On the other you claim this.I never claimed that renewables couldn't replace the nuclear power output (in Germany). But if you think it'll replace coal, gas and other forms of non-renewable energy anytime soon, perhaps it's you who needs to "open your eyes" (as you say).

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 10:25:20 am
content: Well, the claim was:* Get rid of nuclear + coal* Within 10 yearsAnd your claim it's a "complete and utter pipe dream". In reality, it is something which is possibly nearly reachable. Getting rid of all fossils was not in the original claim, just the most polluting coal.Probably not quite there to get the coal to zero, but it's not "complete and utter pipe dream", but a remotely realistic scenario supported by current data as ambitious but not utterly impossible target.You are just being emotional and failing to look at the data.And in the end, it is ridiculous to make it a nothing-or-all question. The negative effects (to people and environment) of fossil fuels scale linearly with the amount of their use. The idea of having to go to zero is a complete strawman.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 10:29:46 am
content: Quote from: vad on April 12, 2023, 11:42:55 pmIf only there was some kind of mechanism to store energy. Ah well, I guess that will never ever be invented, and we'll always need base load.

author: Vovk_Z
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 10:52:10 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 10, 2023, 12:22:49 pmIt's all funny, but only until you need bullets.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 01:06:32 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 13, 2023, 09:31:20 amThis! So true.In the UK, in 2013, the installed wind capacity was around 10GW. Now, in 2023, it is approaching 30GW.On a particularly gusty day we are already looking at all night time load being wind provided, and within another decade it is possible there will be weeks when renewable energy is providing power exclusively.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 01:10:36 pm
content: Here you can check how it works out for Germany with renewables:https://www.agora-energiewende.de/service/agorameter/chart/power_generation/10.04.2023/13.04.2023/today/Quiet well, and yes 10 years ago we were hearing the same arguments as: But solar is expensive, wind needs government subsidies. Well here we are they are more competitive than the others, just needed some kick in.The only problem was I think, that the power to gas initiatives were running too slow, and that it was not made sure that the nuclear plants were not going to be substituted by coal what sadly happened.If hydrogen production will be ramped up as fas as it hapened with wind and solar, than in ten years not much fossil fuels will be needed if anything at all.BTW in Sweden the first experimantal steel plant running on hydrogen is already built, so hopefully not even the heavy industry will need any fossil fuels, and hopefully non green material imports into the EU will be taxed according to their enviromental footprint.The plan was I suppose to substitute the coal with gas during these years, but the war kicked in the door unfortunately. I hope that at least as much extra investment will flow into the hydrogen production as into the arms race. Or rather much more.Base load can be minimized both with heat pumps, enviroment-dependent tariffs, and the rest can be handled by power to gas plants.In Germany as you can see the base load is around 50GW now and even during bad nights already 20 procent of it is renewable, on better nights almost 50%.Nuclear plants as Kleinstein described are not worth to build to run on 50% duty cycle.Any similar graphs fo the UK anyone?

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 01:45:46 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on April 13, 2023, 05:20:21 amGreta uber alles in der welt!Greta Thunberg Says Germany Should Keep Its Nuclear Plants Open.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-11/greta-thunberg-says-germany-should-keep-its-nuclear-plants-open?leadSource=uverifywall

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 02:38:01 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on April 13, 2023, 10:29:46 amIn the NL the plan is to use hydrogen to store energy. Including to serve as a base load for 2 new NPPs

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 02:56:10 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 13, 2023, 10:25:20 amYes it is, just give it a couple of more years until all industry moves out of Europe into US and China, and you can live in your green utopiaThis is what happens when you make decisions based on ideology instead of common sense.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 03:14:27 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 02:56:10 pmThis is an engineering forum. You can go somewhere else if you want to label people into identity politic bins instead of talking about the reality, engineering and numbers.What you call "common sense" is especially dangerous. Energy production and consumption is far beyond something that can be engineered using "common sense". (How do you even explain nuclear power with "common sense"?) It requires rigorous engineering and scientific approach. Which you clearly seem to hate, and it's your loss.It is exactly you, and only you here, who makes decisions based on ideology, because that is what your "common sense" really is. I make decisions based on engineering, research, and facts.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 03:38:39 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 13, 2023, 03:14:27 pmIt's funny how ideologs like to projectNo, what I'm saying is hard facts, not ideology. But then again, we're talking about the very same country which believed they are the Arians - the superior race - not too long ago on historical scale. So I'm not surprised how easily they got indocrinated into believing into all this green energy nonsense.Note that it wasn't me who went into ad-hominem attacksThis is what happens when ideologs run out of rational arguments.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 04:03:55 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 03:38:39 pmSo far you did not provide any technical counterarguments, just the runt against the germans in general.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 05:11:43 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 13, 2023, 04:03:55 pmI did provide a fact - industry is leaving because of energy costs. So a rational government would do something to make those costs go down in order to prevent this outflow, but they are shutting down the cheapest and clean source of power - AND turning on the dirtiest one instead. How can one justify that decision, if not by ideology? It seems quite clear to me that it's against the common sense.

author: shapirus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 05:19:47 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 05:11:43 pmDon't forget the cost of labor and the overall business climate.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 05:23:19 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 05:11:43 pmYou are mixing up different things.1.The current nuclear shutdown is stupid, agreed, especially because not even the current german government knows whether the people support this decision.2.You hwever were arguing that generally running an energy system on renewable not possible, in the near future. That is what we are arguing with, and that is what you can not support with tech. arguments.If your argument is the prize only and the sort term buisness gains, than Germany should actually start to invest into coal more, because it would be blody cheap.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 05:31:38 pm
content: Quote from: shapirus on April 13, 2023, 05:19:47 pmBut then again - industry is also a big polluter, so if you are into green nonsense, wanting to get rid of it kind of makes sense. Also a fair amount of people will likely follow the industry, so less people - less pollution too.The question is - is that really in the best interest of the people? I understand when unelected bureaucrats like that infamous van der Moron do this crap - since people didn't elect her, she does not have to act in their interests, but when elected officials act like that - AND get away with it - this is truly mind-boggling to meAre people really that stupid, or that indocrinated?

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 05:32:41 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 13, 2023, 02:38:01 pmDo you have numbers to this? I mean MW, price, the the power to gas capacity?Because if we are taking the H2 plant as given, it would be much cheaper to build renewable for it with an actual much bigger built in max capacity. And if we are talking about some extreme Dunkelflaute situation, than you could have a gas plant in reserve for those very few days in the year.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 05:37:27 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 05:31:38 pmIf you don't belive in climate change, than your argumentation is valid, but science doesn't support your case

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 05:42:19 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 05:11:43 pmSo let's stop right there. Nuclear was never the cheapest source of energy, and modern facilities now produce some of the most expensive electrical energy, way more expensive than fossil fuels or wind.You can make your case only in this marginal case of extending the already existing plants and their permits; which is also what I suggested before you decided to label me as some greenist utopia believer. This works out because the big investments in building the NPPs, recruiting staff etc. are behind, the total cost of ownership won't increase. All you need are some modest maintenance operations. But you can't do this indefinitely. At some point, you have to make the decision of building completely new nuclear. Finland did, and it was an economic disaster. You can then speculate thatoh, you did it the wrong way, but for example the goals for safety design have shifted compared to the golden age of "cheap" nuclear in the 1960's to 1980's. That art is somewhat lost, and nuclear is more expensive to build today.It's not either-or. Germany's energy policy is a combination of right and wrong decisions, successes and failures, irrational political choices and sensible engineering. Germany can be usedbothas examples how to do thegreen shift, and hownotto do it.You would grasp all of this in a second if you just looked at Germany's production curves from the last 20 years with your mind open and draw your own conclusions from the data.It takes a lot of irrational ideology to believe nuclear energy is the cheapest, cleanest, safest and an overall excellent solution to the energy problems, because it's simply not true. Just like it takes a lot of ideology to decide that under any conditions, running the plants for another decade is that big of a no-no.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 05:48:00 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 13, 2023, 05:23:19 pmWell apparently they do, because when even presumably intelligent and well-educated engineers support it, you can guess what common folk's position is.Quote from: Neutrion on April 13, 2023, 05:23:19 pmMy tech agrument is very simple - both solar and wind energy ultimately comes from the nuclear fusion, but it's super-inefficient process because of many transformations energy goes through until it's consumed, so converting fusion energy into electric is much more efficient. So this is a long term goal, because at some point humanity will require more energy than reaches the Earth, and so that's the only possible source known at this point.In the short to mid-term leaving NPPs running not only means having this power available, but also maintaining a cadre of people with nuclear competency. Once NPPs are shut down, these people will either move elsewhere, or will have to change their profession, in both cases competency is lost, and once it's lost, it's going to be very long and expensive to regain.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 06:01:09 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 13, 2023, 05:37:27 pmScience on the climate change is not conclusive, with a lot of fakes and preposterous extrapolations on both sides, which is why I don't have a position either way. But it doesn't really matter, because moving industry from one place to another doesn't change the grand total of pollution, so it has a zero net effect on a climate. As for what I do believe - I believe in science, but real science, not fake one.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 06:06:01 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 05:48:00 pmFirst, I did not hear many german engineers supporting the current shutdown, not even Greta supports it. Habeck, and the smart Ms Baerbock are not engineers. Edit:(Although I have to recognize Ms Baerbock still managed to make the russians do a 360 grade turn.)If I understand your way of thinking, you mean until we get the fusion energy, we should keep the current NPP's running. Well, that will not go for indefinite time, and certainly not with most of the NPP being over 40 years old. As for building new ones see Siwastaja's comment!Keeping the competence: The competences for those mostly old plants will not be needed for even the new ones, and you can't have those people living forever either.Or do you have something like scools in Canada where you teach every citizen how to mine coal by hand?

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 06:12:41 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 06:01:09 pmWell than this shoul be another debate whether climate change is caused by humans or not so off topic here, but you can open a topic for it. In the last 20 years an enormous amount of research went into this, and there is only a very few percent chance that it is not caused by humans.The few percent chance will be there forever, as we don't have many Earths to run the simulations over and over again, to have 100% results.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 06:33:18 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 13, 2023, 06:06:01 pmI don't hear nor see many people speaking against it. And I don't mean in MSM - they are the propaganda machine, so obviously they will push the "right" narrative, but anecdotally from people I know directly or indirectly, but trust enough to reflect their actual opinion. Those few who are against it, just packing up and leaving, but in my circle all of those people were immigrants and not native Germans. So honestly I don't know what else to thinkQuote from: Neutrion on April 13, 2023, 06:06:01 pmA lot in nuclear fission competence will be applicable to fusion power plants when we will get there, also as I mentioned before fast breeders not only provide power, but also allow getting rid of old nuclear waste, so in my opinion their somewhat higher price is justified because of that aspect.Another aspect to it is that it's not just operational competense, but also scientific one, which tends to follow NPPs, especially if those plants are actually designed in the country, and not just purchased elsewhere as a turnkey solution. Do you know where the most of somewhat recent super-heavy elements were first synthesized? Do you think it's an accident that the country has been quite active in the NPPs construction?

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 06:36:27 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 13, 2023, 06:12:41 pmMy point is that climate argument is irrelevant when we're talking about moving industry from one place to another, because it doesn't change the total amount of pollution. Unless you also happen to believe that those climate changes can somehow be restricted to country borders.

author: mendip_discovery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 06:48:27 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 06:36:27 pmWhenever I think of stuff like this I always go back to that brilliant interview with Dave's cousin.They are just moving the problem outside of the environment.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 07:33:38 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 06:36:27 pmkinda sums it up,https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo?t=156

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 07:54:47 pm
content: Dr. Patrick Moore-- Co-Founder and former President of Greenpeace, Director of the CO2 Coalition, Senior Fellow of The Heartland Institute, and author of "Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom"

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 08:03:52 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 13, 2023, 05:23:19 pmIt's obvious that it's an entirely political decision which has nothing to do with any kind of engineering.The goal is twofold:1. By creating a drastic energy deficit, *forcing* *at all costs* the switch to cleaner sources, with the idea that if we force it, it will happen. Sure.2. Complying with some ideology.Quote from: Neutrion on April 13, 2023, 05:23:19 pmI also think it's just not possible in any near future. Just fricking do the maths with any kind of existing tech and what is reasonably possible.You (and people making the same claims) are somehow reversing the burden of the proof by asking people to prove that it's not possible, when basic facts and evidence is all over the place, while claiming something that is backed only by speculation and fantasy at this point. Unless maybe you have a very elastic definition of "near future", of course.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 09:01:26 pm
content: Quote from: MT on April 13, 2023, 07:54:47 pmIs this the bit where he takes a graph, takes 1% of it out and shows that instead of the whole thing to prove the temperature is going down instead of up? Clever bloke. If I remember rightly he is also the guy that said a weedkiller is so safe he'd drink it, when the interviewer produced a bottle of it he promptly swore and abandoned the interview and I think his weedkiller making client that was paying him a lot?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 09:09:40 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on April 13, 2023, 09:01:26 pmMmm yep..."You can drink a whole glass of it" ... "I'd be happy to drink a whole glass of it""I'm not doing that, I'm not an idiot"Yeah, the guy is pretty discredited.My guess is he realised he could make more money going to the "dark side" than following along with Greenpeace. It is odd, though!

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 09:14:35 pm
content: I don't think that it is only your argument that is simple. You seem to dominate this discussion to the point that I have several reports complaining about you. From the little I have time to read of your output you are just talking nonesense. Maybe back some of it up with facts?Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 05:48:00 pmYour point being? the nature of how the sun produces the energy and it's efficiency is rather irrelevant. We don't have to put fuel into the sun last time I checked. Perhaps you can enlighten us?Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 05:48:00 pmWill we? again where do you get this knowledge from? You know how much energy we will need in the future? do you know how much energy we receive from the sun?Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 05:48:00 pmYou seem to be talking about fusion as though it is already here. In case you missed it, we currently use fission, fusion will be here in 30 years, or so they have been telling us for over 30 years I beleive.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 10:05:51 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on April 13, 2023, 09:14:35 pmThat is not unexpected and is very reminicent of a certain group of people who's only means to win an argument is to silence the opposition. Because they know they can't ever win a rational debate due to lack of rational arguments.Quote from: Simon on April 13, 2023, 09:14:35 pmThat is a rather bold claim bordering on insult. Care to back it up with something such that it won't look like abuse of power?Quote from: Simon on April 13, 2023, 09:14:35 pmAgain - I did, read below. And yes it is relevant.Quote from: Simon on April 13, 2023, 09:14:35 pmALL energy we receive ultimately came from the Sun in one way or another. But energy consumption will only grow, because that is the metric of civilizational development, so at some point it will overtake anything that Sun can provide us no matter how large that amount is. If you want a proof that energy consumption will only ever grow, look at entire history of humankind. All technological advances hinged on using more and more energy. There is no historical precedent when that wasn't the case.Quote from: Simon on April 13, 2023, 09:14:35 pmIf you lose the nuclear competence, you will NEVER get to fusion. It's that simple. But others will, because they are more forward-looking and strategic. You can guess what happens next by looking at the last say 500 years of the history.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 10:24:13 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on April 13, 2023, 08:03:52 pmIt has been possible for decades, but at an unpalatable cost. Right now with proven and existing technology thecheapestelectricity is from renewables, even up to 100% in all but extreme corner cases (still possible but no longer the cheapest option).So we're past the point of wondering if it can be done at all, to wondering why it isn't happening faster... given that renewable energy is now the lowest cost option.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_sourcePretty much only America is still holding onto the dream of cheaply available gas.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2023, 10:46:53 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 06:01:09 pmI think it's pretty clear that humans have contributed to climate change. I think it's also pretty clear that it's totally unrealistic to do much of anything about it unless somebody invents a time machine. The damage has been already done, and even if we completely stop burning fossil fuels, the developing world will just pick up the slack. The most optimistic studies I've read make it sound pretty hopeless.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 05:36:42 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on April 13, 2023, 08:03:52 pmThis is all meaningless BS if you don't clearly define what is being claimed and discussed. Your commentary would be valid and agreeable if the target is to completely stop using any fossil fuels at all. But is anyone else except yourself (and your like-minded) discussing this? Sounds like a classic strawman argument to me.You are basically saying "this is impossible, prove otherwise", without defining whatthisrefers to. Childish way to discuss IMHO.Zero fossil target plays especially badly when you couple it to the "nuclear good" mindset, because as I explained, nuclear needs significant amount of supporting fossil fuels, just like the renewables of today.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 08:35:23 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on April 13, 2023, 01:06:32 pmCapacity is not the same as power. Installing 100GW of renewables capacity is not the same as being able to shut down 100GW worth of other sources.edit: As to storage, see:https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/can-the-uk-get-100-of-its-electricity-from-wind-farms/See attachments (yes, possibly cherrypicked data, but quite realistic scenarios):

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 08:54:28 am
content: Quote from: daqq on April 14, 2023, 08:35:23 amYes of course, you cannot use renewables only. This is why you combine renewables with storage (hydrogen looks like a possible contender, but other options are available). You use the stored energy during periods with less wind/solar/etc. And combine that with long HVDC links that can move power across the European continent or from north Africa, or repurpose suitable gas transmission systems to move hydrogen.Once you have an 'overbuilt' network you have huge incentives to use that energy instead of storing it because using it is cheaper than storing and using it later. So there come certain incentives to use energy when it's most available, you can imagine aluminium smelters for instance following wind or solar patterns with their shifts, or electric vehicles which spend most of their time parked up charging on excess energy at low cost.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 09:03:28 am
content: QuoteI'm sure the serious big industries will the thrilled to have random power generators and special "Green-But-Expensive Day Off" impromptu holidays.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 09:08:04 am
content: Quote from: daqq on April 14, 2023, 09:03:28 amI don't care if they're thrilled or not. You adapt to the changing circumstances and I am sure that in the free market economy we live in that the best companies that can manage with intermittently cheap power will do very well indeed. If they can buy electricity in at £1/MWh instead of £100/MWh then the fact that they can only run only 20% of the time may not matter. Let's not forget that aluminium smelters already have contracts with National Grid (UK grid operator) to switch off in times of grid constraint. This is not really any different.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 09:37:45 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on April 14, 2023, 09:08:04 amBe careful what you wish for. The free market can indeed find a solution, the problem will be that the solution won't involve Europe at all.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 10:25:22 am
content: Quote from: daqq on April 14, 2023, 09:37:45 amWell, aluminium can be made anywhere. But EU should apply a carbon tax on any aluminium that is not made with renewable energy. Such policies are already in discussion at committee level - imported carbon tax etc.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 11:34:28 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on April 14, 2023, 10:25:22 amYes. So can everything else. That's kind of my point.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 12:04:42 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 06:33:18 pmThe science won't be lost, and it is quiet much different in NPP compared to fusion especially in the 30-40 years time if than at all fusion will be an option.Please note, that even wind power, a comparatively simple tech took 30-40 years to mature to the current level, so expect the same timeframe from the point when the first practically working fusion power plant prototype will be built in the future. So to the current level of renewable cost we will get in around 40-50 years. If at all. During that time renewables will be even cheaper.Quote from: SiliconWizard on April 13, 2023, 08:03:52 pmWell we already mentioned the tech:1. Renewables.2.Power to gas storage (Check it, a Swedish company already provides the tech in household scale,so the physical demonstration is there if someone would not belive it is possible to produce hydrogen with current, and water. Scaling it up is all what is needed.3.Connecting the power networks properly.4.Demand management. In the UK the first flexible tariffs are introduced now.It just cost money, but it cost less than ruining the planet. And compared to the amount what people spend on some nonsense throwaway stuff, including regularly buying a new smartphone just to have even more camera on the back and similar nonsense, the cost is actually peanuts.Quote from: daqq on April 14, 2023, 11:34:28 amIt is a valid point, and it happened in the last 30 years with many industrial stuff. The reason why China is the biggest polluter is actually because we outsourced our pollution there, and even now their pollution pro person is much lower than peolple in the EU or US.And that is why the green import taxes are going to be needed, and they are in planning as far as I know. So companies can move, but than soon they can only sell their products to elswhere.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 12:48:56 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on April 14, 2023, 08:35:23 amYeah, which is understandable because "capacity" is not a physical entity at all, just a made up marketing word which can be arbitrarily defined.Just like we engineers are fine with derating tantalum capacitor nominal voltage by 40% instead of wasting our time in discussing whether the stupid tantalum capacitor rating culture is Klaus Schwab's lizard conspiracy, we engineers can also look at the actualenergyproduction graphs of wind power, which are widely available (or more complex metrics, if interested). Of course, projecting into future is always a tad difficult.For example, directly replacing 100GWe(rated nominal) of nuclear by 100GW (rated nominal) of wind and claiming nothing else changes is obviously not going to work. Another strawman argument, because no one in their right mind would suggest doing that. Right? If they do, please show where such mistake is happening.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 01:16:13 pm
content: It is hard to replace all the fossile fuel by renewables, but it is not impossible. In some areas (especially air transport) it will be quite a bit more expensive than the current situation, but so is life.Flying on nuclear power was a bad idea to start with.Nuclear power is only helping to rather limited degree - building a lot more NPPs takes too much time and to really make a difference there is just not enough uranium (at least not for the existing designs).The other point with nuclear is, that it is expensive. AFAIR the UK is guaranteeing a price of some 17 cents for the new build NPPs. For wind power they calculate with some 5 cents in favorable places and PV often gets less then 10 cents. So in many areas there is little economic sense in building new expensive nuclear power.Some high energy industries (e.g. aluminium some chemistry like fertilizers and maybe steel) may have to move to regions with cheaper renewable power. It makes little sense to have them in areas where the supply is difficult.For Germany it may have been the better decision to run the NPPs a little longer. Given the relatively good safety level / record (execpt for the high temperature thorium one) it would have made more sense to shut down the NPPs in Belgium and keep the better ones in Germany running. Still the difference to coal is not that big and ideally, without the war in the Ukrain it would have been gas and not coal to provide a little more power. Neither nuclear nor coal are desireable, they are best avoided both.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 01:21:54 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on April 14, 2023, 08:35:23 amSo what's the problem you are seeing?The near-zero dips (deep enough that doubling or even quadrupling the capacity would still not help, because multiplying near-zero by even a large number is still very little) constitute just maybe 5-10% of the time. You can just burn fossil fuels during that time, just likewe used to do, with the exception that currently (well, not anymore everywhere) we pretty much burn fossil fuels all the time, not just 5-10%.The whole idea of adding renewable ("uncertain") energy sources is to replace fossil fuels joule by joule, and it works out well exactly because fossil fuels can be easily stored and burning them is relatively cheap. Storage question: already solved.Once the opponents of wind power totally ran out of credibility with their "the power is insignificant" arguments, they went full 180 degrees andexcessrenewable production has been made a big deal, but it doesn't have to be. If we have nothing to put the extra energy in, then... so what? All that happens is it worsens the economics of the wind turbines as they will see partial duty cycle, but it also brings down the prices of competing forms of energy, and with on-shore wind being now one of the cheapest forms of energy, even if it gets somewhat more expensive again it's still not a problem. Of course, again we will see the same discussion shift: wind power was supposed to bring prices up, and when it brings the prices down, then suddenly low prices will bethe next bad thing. I have heard this a few times already: wind bad because wind makes electricity cheap! Market bully!In other words, storage of energy is not at all mandatory to enable renewables and significant reduction in fossil fuel use; not at all! It is just that improving the storage options would make a lot of sense. It always did! Nuclear required it nearly as much as renewables. But we had cheap fossil fuels, and we needed wars to gain access to said resources. One such war is currently on-going in Europe, to gain access to more gas, to be sold to Germans, paid by the Finnish taxpayers.Even ignoring CO2, the nastiness of the politics that goes with fossil fuels is reason enough to reduce their use. While CO2 scales down linearly, political uncertainty scales down even better. Once you buy less, you as customer can choose the terms, including price.We engineers see problems and solve them, and sometimes it's a bit weird as laymen come and interpret this normal process of progress as some kind of "crisis". "Oh look, they are trying to store energy, LOL, they are desperate" or something like that. Pretty weird IMHO.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 01:57:15 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 14, 2023, 12:04:42 pmThat is yet another ideological delusion. Reality is Europe needs China's products much more than China needs Europe as a market, because China has alternatives, while Europe does not.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 02:12:05 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on April 14, 2023, 01:16:13 pmIndeed; the story for both nuclear and fossil fuels is ending, and good riddance. Investing in those in the long run in 2000's has bad endings.Case study Finland:In 2002-2003, when the rest of the world is moving away from building new nuclear since the golden age in 1960-1980, we decide it would be anexcellentidea to build another (edit:partially) state-owned plant; and that it has to be a novel construction which has been never built before. The thing that was supposed to finish in 2009, finished in 2023, after being postponed by 22 times, and 165% overbudget. At 8.5 billion EUR, it became the most expensive construction project known to human kind.In 2017,during the freaking war in Ukraine (reminder: which did not start in 2022 but 8 years earlier), Finnish government decided, againstall expert adviceincluding the board of Uniper itself, that it would be anexcellentidea to invest our taxpayer money in Russia's gas pipe to German customers. Think about the business opportunities! So our state-owned energy company Fortum bought the completely zero-worth German gas company, Uniper, for 8 billion EUR. As it was obviously falling apart, we kept pumping more money in just to finally hear in 2022 that Germany is going to nationalize this zero-worth business. I lost the count of exact sum of money we finally subsidized German gas bills with as it become pretty complicated, but I guess it's in the range of 20 billion EUR. Which is a lot for a country with capita of 5 million.I don't blame the politicians who decided on the nuclear in 2002. Wrong choice in hindsight, but renewables did not have any track record back then. It is easy to say now that this 8.5 billion would have been better spent by not doing anything until 2012 and then building a shitload of wind power with even half of that money. But this is in hindsight. However, investing massively in fossil fuels; and specifically on Putin's fossil fuels, during wartime, cannot be explained away.With all of this tragedy of extremely poor political choices, all that was left was getting more in debt, enjoy cocaine, implement better media control, party like no tomorrow, and get massively more in debt. Finally this year, many would agree with the media that our healthcare system has basically collapsed.Most of the attention has been in extremely poor financial policy by said cocaine party government and the massive amount of debt they signed into; but their consequences will be seen in the future; one can't blame them alone; they walked into a broken system which they just were unable to fix. What was almost dismissed was the cost of poor energy choices, namely trusting nuclear and fossil fuel sources. It is sad to see some people seem to think the problem is in renewable energy, when it's really fossil fuels that let us down again. And nuclear's not much better.Everything except renewable energy is failing. Those who said it already 20 years ago were right, no matter how hard it is to admit this.

author: shapirus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 03:22:06 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 14, 2023, 02:12:05 pm=Quote from: Siwastaja on April 14, 2023, 02:12:05 pm

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 03:24:37 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 14, 2023, 01:57:15 pmWhy would it be ideological delusion to require a level playing field? Anyone could buy chinese or american stuff in the future as well, just have to pay the enviromental cost difference.Even now there are pretty high import taxes on some goods which dont't fit into some regulation, this is not new.The Hungarian nuclear story is almost as succesful as that our finnish brothers in the north:In 2013 just at the dawn of emerging renewables we signed a contract with the russians for a new nuclear plant planned to be ready in 2023 because of course renewables are just a green joke and we are much smarter than that.Russian, because only Russia provided a good credit for it because of course private companies not wanted to touch such an investment but in their nightmares. And the state did not have the money.Western or japanese stuff would also be even more expensive.Obviously we got into an EU court case with our austrian neighbours who don't reall want more NPPs in the EU, and other legal EU battles about state sponsorship.When we got through it, than came the realization that the russian plans were not in accordance with EU standards so a redesign has to be done.That was even before the war, without the sanctions.Now at least the costs were fixed and to be beared by the russians, but how that would be possible with all the sanctions etc. is a big question. Maybe they can use some cheaper materials, chinese fake chips or spare costs here and there...Inbetween we also realized that the cooling water in the Danube will not be enough during the summer drought periods, so we might even provide Romania with substantial amount of fish soup in the future.(There is an older NPP there working at the moment too.)Fortunately we only digged out the holes for the fundaments, so not too much money is spent.Inbetween we seamlessly got more solar capacity in 5 years than the NPP would have, and struggling to integrate it. Yes I know it is not a substitution, but still it shows the trends. But also this amount of solar would squeze out the nuclear energy from the net during the daytime, so they are not even compatible with eachother.During this period the germans went to more than 50% renewable on average.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 03:56:53 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 14, 2023, 03:24:37 pmExactly, and Chinese are happy to sell. They know how to be cost-competitive and how to do business.The "boohoo EU bad, China good, we need China, China gets mad and stops supplying us" story is just fear-mongering, nothing else. All China wants is business relationships with basically everybody, and EU is a huge market anyway because people here still have a lot of money at their disposal, compared to developing world (China is more interested about their natural resources).

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 04:08:46 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 14, 2023, 03:56:53 pmThat's right, China doesn't want this conflict. It's the eurobureaucrats keep towing neocon's line of provoking China to please their masters from across the pond. But you can only push the Dragon so far until it starts hitting back.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 04:23:18 pm
content: Quote from: shapirus on April 14, 2023, 03:22:06 pmNo.This time state and overbudget are different.It's a seller who pays, fixed price.Delays are because of failed inspections.Starting from the quality of concrete.Last was feed pump cracks, unused pumps that is.

author: shapirus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 04:41:32 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 14, 2023, 03:56:53 pmCould be agreed with until recently, when it became clear that China is now ruled by an absolute dictator who's been in power for too many years to remain mentally sane by now.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 04:53:13 pm
content: Quote from: shapirus on April 14, 2023, 04:41:32 pmMaybe, but he would still sell his own mother. Chinese have always been businessmen, and will do business even with "enemies".

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 05:29:01 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on April 13, 2023, 09:09:40 pmYes, his proposal for "golden rice" is quite creepy , still he's quite correct that the "man made climate change" is a fraud.Here is another one where he claims noone died from nuclear accidents.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 05:38:46 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 14, 2023, 12:04:42 pmScrew that. we need to be able to be as independent as we can. This means that we must be able to manufacture as much as we can and bring productions inside the EU instead of outsource everything but the highest margin products. People need to eat, stay warm and have a roof on their head. We are still paying the price for relying on cheap russian gas (and cheap north africa gas as well). I'd rather rely on canada's and australia's uranium

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 05:52:08 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on April 13, 2023, 09:01:26 pmYou need to do your home work about "global climate change" made by the sun etc and not all the time buy into "Schwab/WEF man made crap". Begin with the Younger Dryas, Holocene etc ice core graph.

author: shapirus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 06:26:50 pm
content: Quote from: JPortici on April 14, 2023, 05:38:46 pmMeaning, first of all, weapons and ammunition of every type.And, of course, hundreds of thousands of UAVs of various sizes and purposes. Can the EU countries produce at least one without depending on Chinese components? ICs? Sensors? PCBs? Batteries? Motors?Quote from: JPortici on April 14, 2023, 05:38:46 pmThis is important, but not worth anything before you are able to quickly produce large quantities of weapons and ammunition wherewith to defend everything else.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 07:24:00 pm
content: Quote from: MT on April 14, 2023, 05:52:08 pmI'm not sure about that source of data, but regardless, it isn't really the magnitude of the change in temperature, but the rate at which it changes. If after 1,000 years the earth is 1C warmer on average, it stands to reason that life and ecosystems may be able to adapt. When people talk about the MWP that's what they reference. But in our situation we're looking at <100 years for >3-4C warming. It's unpredecedented. Outside of the mass extinction event that was due to a meteor impact, we have never seen such a rate of change before.And I haven't heard anyone saying we won't be able to adapt - it's more like the cost of adapting will be extremely significant if we unlock things like feedback loops. Such costs could include widescale famine and deaths of upwards of a billion people. Change now is better than being forced to do things later, and has a significantly reduced human cost. And the best bit is, we can actually do it, it isn't impossible, as much as the fossil fuel industry and climate deniers like to state.This XKCD comic puts it into perspective nicely:https://xkcd.com/1732/

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 11:15:55 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on April 14, 2023, 10:25:22 amHow do they know?China can always say "oh yeah this alminum you're buying was made with 100% renewable energy" and since it's half the price of the "same" thing offered by anyone else, somebody buys it.I'm all for trying to keep the environment clean, but I do think a lot of our efforts to do so result in just moving the pollution somewhere else. Arguably better for us than having it in our own town but not really better for the planet as a whole.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 11:30:12 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on April 14, 2023, 08:54:28 amNope. The problem is that in the end you will want a distribution network with an even load because that will be the most cost efficient use of the distribution network. Part of low/high tariffs are not only to get an even load of sources, but also to get an even load on the distribution grid.To put that into perspective: Before the war in Ukraine, 50% of my electricity cost are distribution costs. The other 50% generation costs. Both numbers before taxes.The same goes for generation. Electricity costs a fixed amount to generate. What is sold below a profitable price must be compensated with a higher price later on to compensate for the loss. This causes huge price fluctuations which is not beneficial for a society and economy. Currently some companies in the NL have changed their working hours because their equipment is too expensive to run. It is cheaper to just pay the employees for not working compared to paying the electricity bill. Needless to say this is bad for business. So in the end you will want electricity for a constant price during the day (24 hours). Keep in mind that a lot of people / companies have fixed tariff contracts so they can plan their finances better.Solution: stop thinking in terms of generating precisely enough electricity to meet demands AND stop thinking in terms of making demand meeting generation in case of renewables. Both are not going to work in the future. All the elasticity needs to come from hydrogen storage (as batteries are too expensive for storage that needs to bridge >8 hours; just google that).With elasticity coming from storage you can start to add flexibility to your sourcing. A country can ofcourse choose to become reliable on hydrogen imports but recent events have shown that is not a good idea. And that is where nuclear power plants come in handy: they buy a country independance and reliability. And you can run these at their optimal economical operating point 24/7. When the electricity isn't needed right now, it goes into hydrogen storage.In the NL the government likely has seen this as a great advantage. Since the NL has been a big natural gas producer until not so long ago, it is already in 'our' DNA to be energy self sufficient to a large extend.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2023, 11:37:57 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 10:05:51 pmBollocks. You can't fit enough people on earth to consume the amount of energy that the sun delivers to our planet. Over a 24 hour period, the sun supplies the earth with average amount of 160Watt per square meter. Now calculate the number of square meters of our planet and multiply.If you analyse how much energy 'we' consume, you'll see that the Sun supplies the earth with like a million to a trillion times more energy than we consume. Just for kicks look at the pictures of how many solar panels need to be put in the Sahara to supply the world with electricity. The amount of energy the sun produces is insane.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 12:19:37 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 14, 2023, 11:37:57 pmBollocks is what you've just spewed, because it is absolutely contradicts all human history. We won't need more people for that, just compare how much energy per human was consumed just 100 years ago vs nowadays, and there is absolutely no reason to believe this trend will not continue.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 12:37:16 am
content: The sun does produce an insane amount of energy, but a large portion of that energy falls where nobody can make use of it. There are significant costs and losses to transport energy over long distances.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 06:21:45 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 14, 2023, 11:30:12 pmI'm saying this again, but a lot of elasticity can andwillcome from distributed thermal storage of heating/cooling buildings and hot water. This is a truly low-hanging fruit which is still not being fully picked. In many cases, the storage resources exist, and it's only control systems that are lacking (disclosure: we are manufacturing and selling such things.)Industrialprocessescan't flex, but industrial, commercial and householdheating/coolingcan. Cost for storing energy into hot water or just building materials is ridiculously small compared to both hydrogen and li-ion solutions, and the time constants that can be had are easily around 24 hours.This still won't solve the "it's cold and the wind is totally standstill for 10 successive days" condition, the time constant is too just long. You still have to burn fossils - or store excess renewable production as hydrogen as you suggest - to bridge that gap. But this condition does not happen every winter at all. In total, this is below 1-2% of annual energy.All attempts to oversimplify the energy solutions of humanity fail. The solution is a large palette of sources, and a large palette of storage / load management systems, because every system has different drawbacks compared to others. Even just simple averaging enables synergy; with explicit control and planning, even better.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 07:27:27 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on April 14, 2023, 08:54:28 amthere is gas and then there is gas. You cannot automatically put hydrogen into methane pipes, you see that carbon atom in the CH4 is huge, needs a big hole to get through. Hydrogen is one of the smallest attoms, seals that keep methane in will let hydrogen leak. To use hydrogen the network would need rebuilding.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 07:31:00 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 14, 2023, 11:37:57 pmI didn't bother explaining it to him in the detail you went to. I hoped he'd come back with a rational argument that would have had to say what you just said. Instead he accused me of abusing my power by replying to him perhaps pointing out that he was just running around trolling the thread with nonsense. He's been doing the typical thing of shifting the point to keep going without answering any points.

author: Traceless
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 08:51:32 am
content: FWIW I think it is a very good decision to get rid of all NPPs. Gas should be substituted by hydrogen and the coal plants should be shut down ASAP as well of course and only serve as backups.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 09:38:17 am
content: Quote from: james_s on April 14, 2023, 11:15:55 pmSame as anything that relies on trust. You have auditors and chains of trustworthy organisations and paperwork. Yes fraud can happen but if you make it difficult and with significant consequences (e.g. being barred from trading) then it becomes too difficult to pull off.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 10:21:34 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 15, 2023, 06:21:45 amI think you are blinded by wanting your idea to be succesfull. You proposed some interesting numbers but I don't think these systems are usefull for domestic use as they will only make sense if such a system can provide storage over periods that lasts way longer than 6 months. Now calculate the volume of water and thermal insulation you need; the volume required is just too large. I ran some numbers on my own but the water storage is just too bulky and too cumbersome to install even if I would make it underground in the garden.If you can't span a long period, you'll have to rely on alternate sources being available. Remember that every energy source will need it's own distribution network so having multiple sources increases the cost. Especially if the load on that distribution network is extremely uneven over time (which is what local storage is supposed to solve).Recently I have put solar panels on my roof and the first thing I noticed is that their output varies a lot per day. If I want to add a meaningfull storage system to it then that storage system should be able to even out electricity use over a time span of at least 2 weeks. I might manage not needing electricity from the grid for 6 months a year during the summer months. But I'll still need an electricity grid connection which costs money even if I don't use it at all. And I'll still need to pay for all the grid & generation upgrades that are needed to supply electricity in the winter.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 10:47:17 am
content: Nah, I'm not saying distributed thermal storage solves every possible problem.But the gain what you get by storing for just 6-12 hours is pretty significant. We are currently struggling with things like having a lot of excess electricity during nighttime for nearly 0 cost, then consumption increasing at 7:00 and wind getting still at the same time (an interesting natural factor), a huge discrepancy, then at least 2-3 good hours during daytime, again worse in late afternoon, and so on.This is the low hanging fruit: control loads like hot water tanks, in-floor heating elements (which peoplealready have), EV chargers and heatpumps during the best hours of the day.It does not solve the need for longer-term storage but it's nevertheless a huge difference for a relatively low cost. It's also not for everyone because if you heat both your house and your domestic hot water by burning gas or oil and drive a gasoline car, there is nothing to control. At the same time, some users have excellent "user stories", like those with direct electric heating of both the house and hot water.Additionally, weneedwant longer-term storage, in range of weeks, or even better, annual storage. Hydrogen is a strong candidate here indeed, but you can't just go and buy your personal hydrogen storage box, but you can buy an energy management device which makes clever use of the resources you already have. For those who have them.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 11:22:41 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 15, 2023, 10:21:34 amTalking about time constants, I ran the simulation with our current optimization algorithm which just optimizes for spot prices given the limit on time constant, which is basically how much storage you have (explicitly in form of water, or implicitly in the construction materials of the house).The results are as follows:TC= 4h AvgOnPrice= 7.96c/kWh ( 82.8%) Money= 62.40EUR -> 51.61EUR(-17.3%)TC=12h AvgOnPrice= 6.52c/kWh ( 67.7%) Money= 62.40EUR -> 42.23EUR(-32.3%)TC= 24h AvgOnPrice= 5.59c/kWh ( 58.1%) Money= 62.40EUR -> 36.21EUR(-42.0%)TC= 3d AvgOnPrice= 4.76c/kWh ( 49.5%) Money= 62.40EUR -> 30.85EUR(-50.6%)TC= 7d AvgOnPrice= 4.00c/kWh ( 41.5%) Money= 62.40EUR -> 25.89EUR(-58.5%)(Data is simulated with Finnish weather conditions and spot prices during this year, Money refers to a dimensioning where 0.9*1kW of heating power is needed at -30degC outdoor temperature; scale accordingly.)The conclusion is, while it would be fancy to have a massive pool of water able to store energy for a week (let alone TWO weeks, which I did not even simulate because my stupid algorithm implementation was never designed for such large time constants and gets computationally slow), savings one gets from even just shuffling the hours within 4-hour window is not meaningless, and this does not require massive constructions.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 12:21:08 pm
content: But this is under the assumption that spot prices stay constantly low. IMHO this is a very poor assumption to make. Especially when the ROI time is long (>5 years). Once there is a significant number of people having their own storage (OR the utility companies decide to implement storage as this is obviously economically worthwhile), the daytime prices will become lower and the night time prices will rise. I have been paying the same price for electricity (day / night) for a very long time already. The NL grid uses pumped storage in Norway.Quote from: Siwastaja on April 15, 2023, 10:47:17 amThat is a decission I have put on hold for about 10 years. Metal hydrate storage systems are available but their ROI time is like >30 years. I'll just see where it goes. It could be suitable solid state batteries are available in a decade and/or metal hydrate storage systems become available. At this moment the grid is my battery as I get the same amount of money per kWh consument / delivered to the grid but that is going to stop in the next couple of years (but long after the solar panels have paid for themselves).

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 01:04:43 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 15, 2023, 12:21:08 pmThis is of course true. Solving the problem removes the problem, after which the incentive to keep solving it seemingly disappears. But it's a fallacy - if you remove the solution, the problem reappears.This pattern is true for any problem, btw., and we are all susceptible to this brainfart. For example let's say vaccinations (not some covid-20%-effective-bullshit but good old true and tested vaccines we all agree on): when you vaccinate, the case numbers go down, and vaccination seemingly becomes redundant and stupid thing to do. Yet if you stop vaccinating in large enough scale, the disease makes a comeback.We are fully aware that solving the very thing we are solving finally undermines our own market. But at that point, we are still needed and there are many other things we can also do.BTW, the ROI for our little box, at 349 EUR, is 0.5 years to 2 years, depending on the customer case (and we don't sell to customers who don't need the product). But it's still very early to say anything solid about it since it has been on the market just a few months and we have just handful of customers. We will see how it flies.

author: mikerj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 01:07:17 pm
content: Quote from: Traceless on April 15, 2023, 08:51:32 amWhy? Explain your reasoning.Quote from: Traceless on April 15, 2023, 08:51:32 amWhere do you believe this magical hydrogen going to come from?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 02:32:38 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 15, 2023, 12:21:08 pmWith wind power entering the grid, while the idea of expensive day and cheap night may change, it's pretty easy to see how electricity prices could vary at the half hourly level.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 02:46:10 pm
content: So it is April 15 today. Is Germany dancing and partying ?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 02:51:59 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on April 15, 2023, 02:32:38 pmDid you do any research whether people are willing to have energy contracts based on spot prices and requiring people to live along how the wind blows and the sun shines? From what I see is that very few people are willing to do that and thus prefer flattened, predictable energy prices. Hence, any consumer solution that is based on spot prices will only serve a niche market and not solve the bigger issue with intermittant energy sources like wind and solar. And the whole grid capacity costs for large peak demands comes on top of that. You are thinking way too much in terms of engineering a solution and way too less in terms of what people will accept as a solution.

author: DC1MC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 02:52:20 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on April 15, 2023, 02:46:10 pmSure, we've finally reached the world first place of energy costs, finally passing the long time champion Bermuda, is a bit rainy today, but I think the BUGA festivities will go full speed soon to celebrate this event.Cheers,DC1MC

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 03:00:42 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 15, 2023, 02:51:59 pmYes, conventional electricity pricing is done on hedged markets. But you can subscribe to a service likeOctopus Agilein the UK that does expose you to half hourly energy pricing. Or use a service likeOctopus IntelligentorOVO Charge Anytimewhich gives you cheap EV charging provided you let the energy provider determine when and how that happens. These services will only become more common as the grid gets 'smarter' and intermittent energy more common. It's expected the UK will have about 45GW of wind power by 2028, and around 20% of all cars will be electric. If you can dispatch 50% of those cars at 7kW each, you've immediately got 20GW of load that you can turn on and off as needed to balance supply and demand.I've actually just put down a deposit on a 2nd hand ID.3 which supports this technology. The next step up is V2H which allows the car to part-discharge into the home at peak times - though there does need to be some consideration for battery wear if this leads to heavy cycling.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 05:33:53 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 15, 2023, 02:51:59 pmWhich part about the automated control you failed to understand?It makes no sense to time your coffee making or dishwashing for cheap prices, that's real penny pitching. But you can automate the large loads which are not sensitive to exact timing. If you have those, not everyone do of course. Probably the only reason you don'tgrokthis is because you don't, but it's blatantly obvious to those who do.QuoteThis "niche" is actually pretty big as people are understanding more and more that the average price of the spot contract is less than a fixed contract (yes, we researched, and this is the one thing we expected to have to explain, but people have actually seen enough and found it out themselves already), and if you haveanycontrollability to your patterns, it's significantly cheaper.This is always true in the long run, due to simple laws of economics - the spot price is the true price of the energy, and no one is going to leave the money on the table and sell for less than the market value. Never happened in the human history, for any product, in the long run (communist states that tried something similar, failed). There are periods of times when fixed contracts are cheaper for a while, and people get scared and get rid of their spot price contracts, but then they regret it a few months later when the opposite, and usually larger spike happens.Currently we are having a large group of people who panicked last year and signed into 0.40e/kWh (!!!!!) fixed contractsfor freaking two years during which you cannot terminate the contract, yet the spot price average so far, this winter, which wassupposedto bethe crisis winterand the sole reason why people panicked and changed their contracts, is... just 0.10e/kWh.After 2 years, their mistake has cost them something like 10000 EUR and misery having to change their living habits, reduce the room temperature and take cold showers just to save energy because it's so freaking expensive. They will happily take 0.05e/kWh average price spot energy from then on. Their panic choice cost them exactly what they were trying to avoid.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 05:46:49 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 15, 2023, 05:33:53 pmI always set my dishwasher and dryer to run in the cheap off peakDishwasher uses about 2kWh per cycle, and it runs about 200 times a year, so at current prices that is about £100 a year in electricity saving.Maybe small change in the grand scale of things, but hardly any effort to just press 'delay start' and '2 hr' instead of 'start', to save this £100 a year.In the future we may have appliances with a Zigbee connection to the smart meter, which allows them to be scheduled to run whenever the energy is cheap. You would just load the dishwasher, and say "run when cheap, but be ready by 9am", kind of thing.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2023, 11:41:24 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 15, 2023, 12:21:08 pmThis is your circular argument:I pay flat rates for power, this must remain in placeThe grid should not have massive fluctuations in power price, so needs lots of storageThis locality has greatly mismatched seasonal use so we need impartially efficient/cheap seasonal storage to limit price fluctuationsThat worked when power was backed by fossil fuel storage or massive hydro and the storage was already inherent/low cost. Gas peaking plants being the shining example of this with their LCOE being dominated by marginal costs (fuel and maintenance).Simply removing your (imagined) need for long term storage, a more economically viable solution is to over provision the generation by a factor of 2-3 or possibly more. Cheaper power in the months (and hours) when its less demanded, more expensive when in high demand because long term storage is expensive. You might not like that, but its a cheaper system for everyone (including you) and there will be retailers offering fixed rate contracts which you can take up. On the other hand I'd prefer to be price responsive and save some money. Spot prices of wind and solar will have periods of low price/high generation long enough for storage in the 3-7 day range to be very practical and cost effective. Even plants that could hold energy for weeks-months at a time will be cycling daily as that is more profitable.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 10:46:22 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 15, 2023, 05:33:53 pmHave you thought about loads that run continuously for hours like lights, computers, TVs, refridgerators? Those are significant electricity users that can't really be timed. In addition not all heavy loads like washing machines and dish washers can't be run at night due to the noise. And then there are simple things like cooking dinner on an electric stove / using a microwave around dinner time. If you make a carefull analysis, you'll see that a significant amount of electricity use can't be timed at all.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 10:52:51 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 10:46:22 amMaybe washing machines can't run at night for some machines (though my Bosch direct-drive machine is deadly silent even fully loaded at 1400rpm, it came with the house and I thought it wasn't working right at high speed until I looked carefully at the clothes moving). But dishwashers? They are not really that loud. Maybe 45-50dB(A). If you sleep in your kitchen you might complain, but you're not going to notice them otherwise. The dryer is the loudest of all my appliances, mostly because the compressor mountings on my one need a bit of love.Really, you are creating artificial boundaries to justify your position: I lived in both a 1 bed flat and now a 4 bed house, and I would have no issue running either the washer or dishwasher overnight (because I frequently did even in the flat, I was on a deemed dual rate tariff, which basically meant I had no choice but to have cheaper off peak and slightly more expensive on peak, just how the building worked.) With the bedroom door closed, you couldn't hear either running.As for other loads, like computers, entertainment etc. Of course they need to be powered all the time, but that is not the point. Electricity would always be there. The idea is to shift as much aswe can, not everything, into the times when energy is most available. Thereby limiting the amount we need to convert into inefficient stores of energy, like hydrogen. The luckier households might decide to invest in home battery storage to further arbitrate on this pricing disparity, though market laws would tell us in the long term as everyone does this, no one would win. But early adopters, or those who combine with solar, may benefit.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 11:01:52 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 10:46:22 amYeah, you can think about them until cows come home. If you want to penny pitch and make your life miserable, you can of course choose to watch TV only during cheap hours, and sit in darkness, and save a few EUR a year.Look, I understand that you don't have electric heating (direct or heat pump), electric hot water heating, or an EV. You heat both your house and hot water with natural gas. You have not much to automate, and very little to gain. You could time the washing machine and dishwasher like tom66 does, but if you don't like the noise at night, then you can't do that either. Your case cannot be optimized.Yet, for example here we have hundreds of thousands of households who spend 5MWh/year in such non-timeable random loads and 20MWh/year in direct electric heating, latter of which can be trivially automated. Electric water heaters (storage tank type) are also extremely common here and other Nordic countries. Typical size here is 240 to 300 liters with 3kW resistor set.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 11:04:31 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on April 16, 2023, 10:52:51 amIt is not my position, it is what -I'm quite sure about- most people will want. I only outline how electricity is used in general. You still didn't answer the question to provide research about what people actually want from a utility company. What I see in the NL is that most people have long term fixed price contracts or contracts with prices that change twice a year. Companies that offer spot prices are rare and have very few customers. IOW: any proposed solution that is based on spot pricing will have an extremely large uphill battle to gain acceptance & market penetration. At least in the NL...

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 11:09:37 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 16, 2023, 11:01:52 amActually my case can be optimised by adding storage. Either locally or at the grid level.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 11:09:49 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 10:46:22 amBaloney, straight up nonsense. The majority energy use in most developed nations are transport, and HVAC:https://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 11:15:24 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 11:04:31 amHere, it's been a roller coaster journey:2020 - early 2021: Fixed contracts at 0.05EUR/kWh for 2 years. Many swallowed the "early adopter" pill and signed into spot contracts nevertheless.December 2021: historically high spot prices up to 1EUR/kWh, panic among those who did not understand whataverage costmeans. Return back to fixed contracts, this time 0.10EUR/kWh for 2 yearsSpring 2022: Putin happens, panic, fixed price contracts increasing steadily, reach 0.45EUR/kWh for 2 years(!!!) during the summer. Idiots sign up.Winter 2022-2023: Nothing happened, spot prices not nearly as bad as people thought, not any worse than 2021. Average spot price around 0.10EUR/kWh.Spring 2023: People who took fixed contracts in panic are angry as hell. There is a massive push to spot contracts because of the feeling of getting conned by power companies into paying more. People start understanding that the spot price is the true value of what they buy, and it only gets worse with fixed contracts.But let's see how it goes. Obviously now it's again possible to get a relatively good fixed contract (at 0.08EUR/kWh). But, the difference is here: earlier people consider spot pricing as some sort of risky, ugly con. This turned around: people now understand the trap in fixed contracts, and the safety in the spot contracts.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 11:16:17 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 11:04:31 amAnd there is nothing stopping retailers from continuing fixed contracts despite variable wholesale pricing. It is your ridiculous argument that fixed price consumer contracts requires seasonal storage, and the lack of suitable storage is then a reason to not install variable renewable generation that is the problem. Fixed price just means the retailer is taking a bet on when you will actually use the energy, some consumers will profit from that choice and some will not.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 11:17:52 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 11:09:37 amThis is true - what I meant, your case cannot be optimized with my proposed solution. We all know that.You should run a calculation though how much it costs to store the energy for your TV using hydrogen, while there areotherhouseholds that have loads 10 times larger than that, and whichcanbe optimizedeven without hydrogen/li-ion/P2X/etc. storage.Look, making the production and consumption match helps everyone, even if your household is not part of the solution directly.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 11:20:59 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 11:04:31 amWell, there is already a crude way to estimate how many Octopus Go customers there are, one of many tariffs that works on off peak electricity for EV and other use. Their EVs switch on at 0030 and off at 0430 due to timed charging (this is the only provider using the half-hourly start). You can already detect this in the grid data. Here is agrid engineer talking about this phenomenon.They were noticing around 600MW step change - so in EVs alone at 7kW that's 85,000 customers in 2021. There were about 600k EVs in 2021 in the UK, so Octopus managed to capture a good 7% of the market. But this is a lower bound, as there will be EVs not plugged in, those on other off peak tariffs, etc. And of course the situation in 2023 is even bigger, but minutely data for the grid isn't publicly available at the moment.Early days, but there's clearly demand for those services.Also this:https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news/domestic-flexibility-could-reduce-peak-electricity-demand-23-new-study-shows

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 11:31:55 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on April 16, 2023, 11:20:59 amYeah. I don't have the slightest fear of the market being niche. It's the opposite, if anything I fear the competition being very tough, with some very large players appearing and taking the jackpot (with the combination of good enough product, and brute force marketing.)

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 11:35:57 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 15, 2023, 05:33:53 pmAnd this is exactly why spot price contracts are not suitable for a large number of people. With a fixed income it is much easier to deal with fixed costs than surprise costs. Keep in mind that a lot of people don't have financial reserves and/or capability to deal with strongly fluctuating living costs.To give an example: A long time ago I had a variable interest rate mortgage. At some point (IIRC around 2009) that got bumped up from 4% to 6.5%. Fortunately that is announced well in advance so I could take measures, but a spot price changes at 'random' so you never know what you are going to pay in advance. You really need to be setup for that.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 11:38:05 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on April 10, 2023, 08:35:20 pmIt’s not either “chance” or “risk”, but rather that “risk” is a subset of “chance”: A risk is a chance of somethingbadhappening.“Chance” contains no connotation of positive or negative, it simply means it could happen. So “chance” can be paired with a desirable or undesirable (or neutral) occurrence.So no, you couldn’t say that “exposed wires are a safety chance” because your stated outcome - safety (a positive thing) - contradicts the rest of the sentence. Although “chance” and “risk” are really both the wrong word, we’d actually say a “safety hazard”.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 11:50:01 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 11:35:57 amThat is perfectly understandable, and no one is taking that option from you.Yet surprisingly many got into the trap of signing up into massively expensive fixed cost and chose to drop their room temperature and start taking cold showers to compensate because they don't have the money to pay for the "much easier to deal with" fixed cost, then complain it's the fault of others they signed up with a bad deal and that the state should compensate by redistributing taxpayer money.Therefore, fixed cost is no silver bullet either. People are weird and make stupid decisions with money. The best feature of a spot contract is that you can terminate it whenever you want.BTW, I'm one of those idiots and have a fixed contract. At 0.13e/kWh, not nearly as bad as many others, but still more than spot average, which I do regret but can't do anything about it.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 11:55:22 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 16, 2023, 11:50:01 amYes, and at the same time it is that group of people that will demand levelling of prices and thus drive a grid storage oriented solution instead matching supply & demand. IOW: the problem isn't purely technical but also sociological.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 12:02:14 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 11:55:22 amWhich cannot be suddenly implemented to the extent needed, so we work together with multiple solutions that aim for the same goal. Just like we still have both trains and cars.The advantage of load management is that it is available NOW and works NOW, while you are hoping your total hydrogen solution will be available in 10 years, with no one knowing for sure if it's a realistic scenario or not.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 12:10:56 pm
content: I'm not hoping anything. Only outlining what the limits are in the big picture (beyond what is logical from an engineering perspective only).

author: Traceless
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 01:00:21 pm
content: Quote from: mikerj on April 15, 2023, 01:07:17 pmThere are a couple of good reasons:It is a misconception that nuclear power is unconditionally cheap. Nuclear power is cheap because we use it in an irresponsible way. That is we reap the benefits py producing energy but do not deal with the environmental debt in form of nuclear waste but just keep piling it up in "intermediate storages" until we have a better idea. The ultimate plan seems to be that someunlucky commune is gonna draw the short strawand becomes the final nuclear waste disposal site. To this day the "final disposal problem has not been solved". One of the most vocal advocates of nuclear power in Germany is Bavaria, howevery strangely when it comes to the question where to put the waste they absolutely refuse to store the waste.So the reasoning here is simple: If I want to use nuclear power I need to be willing to deal with the waste. So unless I'm a) willing to store nucelar waste in "my basement" (figuratively speaking) and b) to payin advanceall future maintenance cost for that storage until the waste becomes innocuous (i.e. the next 24000 to 1000000 years), I can not use nuclear power responsibly. Conclusion if I'm not (willing/able) to use nuclear power responsibly I shouldn't use it at all.Another good argument is: "Uranium doesn't grow on trees" or more precisely If we use nuclear power we rely on imports. Apparently a lot of uranium comes from Russia which, for obvious reasons is not a partner you want to rely on for your energy supply. Of course there are other sources but ultimately the Russia crisis has demonstrated that crucial infrastructure should not be indirectly controlled by external actors. Simply put a country is not independent as long as it is not able to ensure its energy supply.Bonus: A distributed power grid based on renewables is much more resilient against military attacks and natural disasters.Quote from: Traceless on April 15, 2023, 08:51:32 amGermany is working on agiant off-shore wind-park. As others have mentioned there is still the transport problem because not every region in Germany is close to a coast. So using excess energy to produce hydrogen which then can be transported is a good solution.So what about the cost? Yes energy in Germany is currently insanely expensive (for private households). However this is not a problem of renewable energy sources or the shutdown of nuclear power plants. But a political problem introducedby the industrial lobby. Private households are forced to massively subsidize energy production for large companies. As you can see theaverage household paid 33,50 ct/kWh while the average business only pays 19,89ct/kWhand you can bet thatthe largest consumers like Thyssen Krupp, BASF, Bayer, Rheinmetall etc. pay *a lot* less than that. So the price won't be a problem once we even out the energy price and have large companies pay their bills themselves.Quote from: Bud on April 15, 2023, 02:46:10 pmGermans don't do such things, we build stuff

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 01:23:22 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 11:35:57 amWhat people wan't often is what they got used to. In the world of renewables, flat aviabilily needs a lot of extra resource, while demand management needs some intelligence.I bet people who are scared about changing tariffs are partly confused because they don't seem know when the electricity is cheap and when not. Changing that, and many like rob66(I am playing with that as well just for fun , and I can tell you it is NOT a big issue at all) are going to do some adjustments if that can save money. And the rich will pay for the extra tech and the flat tariff.But to make an interesting comparison:What is the cost of your planned H2 storage, how long can it store, what is the max capacity of it, how long will it take to charge it up, and how much is the NPP, and what is its rated max power? (Also its planned duty cycle is interesting as that is crucial to to see ROI in time.)

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 01:26:05 pm
content: Quote from: Traceless on April 16, 2023, 01:00:21 pmThere are a few misconceptions about nuclear waste. The fast decaying portions stop radiating quickly which happens in a 100 to 200 year time frame. After that the radiation levels are way more manageable and thus the waste is way easier/safer to store and handle. There is too much focus on 'radiation must be to zero before it is safe'. That is nonsense.A much bigger concern is that nuclear waste is a concentration of toxic metals which remain toxic until the sun swallows the earth. However, there are other toxic/dangerous waste materials which we can't break down like asbestos and those simply get burried. So in the end the idea of storing nuclear waste underground is not such an alien idea at all.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 01:42:12 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 16, 2023, 01:23:22 pmThe 'home' hydride based storage system that was discussed on this forum a few years ago has an ROI of 30 years (based on low volume production pricing). IIRC it has power rating somewhere 4kW. But the capacity and durability outperformed Li-ion batteries by a large margin. You'd be going through several battery packs over the same time period. With the higher electricity prices that we have here at this moment and with solar panels added to the mix, the ROI would be much shorter.Hydride storage is still in the ramp-up phase but it is a good contender for local / home storage solutions. Especially if you have solar panels or want to even out spot price volatility.The solar panels I have on the roof are capped to 4200W (inverter limit) but I have no load that needs such an amount of power AND I can't rely on the solar panels delivering that amount of power every day. It doesn't mean that I'm going to buy a hydrite storage system right now but it is something I'm going to keep an eye on (just like battery storage).

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 01:50:34 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 01:42:12 pmSorry, I was asking about the planned hydrogen-nuclear power plant combo you mentioned what the Netherland is going to build.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 02:38:30 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 16, 2023, 01:50:34 pmAha. I didn't get that. According to the latest plans the new nuclear power plants should deliver a total power between 2GW and 3.3GW. Where it comes to hydrogen it is not really a combo. It looks like the aim is to have a total of 4GW worth of electrolysers to produce hydrogen by 2030 in the NL. The hydrogen storage (*) is being build regardless whether the nuclear power plants are actually going to be build. There is still debate about the location. Putting the new nuclear power plants near industry that needs both electricity and hydrogen or place the new power plants next to the existing nuclear power plant. Both have pros and cons.* Underground either in salt caverns or empty gas fields. Empty gas fields are plenty and salt caverns can be made. The efficiency of underground storage is in the 98% ballpark.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 03:05:27 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 02:38:30 pmSo there are no costs known yet? Not even the planned capacity for the H2 or any detail? How was the calculation done?Because my assumption would be, that if you would take the money for the NPP, and instead build additional H2 storage(above the already planned), and/or renewable from the same amount, you would get a better solution.Especially if you take into account, that because of the fluctuating renewables, the selling price of the storaged electricity could go quiet high. While during the daytime in most of the cases the price of nuclear energy would be very low especially in the next 10-20 years, where we expect way more renewables to come. (With the floating wind turbines a lot of new possibilities open up.)And if you using the NPP for the H2 filling, than again it would have to compete with with wind and solar. So I would really like to see how the calculations were done.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 03:48:28 pm
content: AFAIK hydrogen storage in salt caverns is being build to store 36000 metric tonnes of hydrogen (as a start). The empty gas fields can potentially hold many times that much. So there isn't a practical limit in terms of storage capacity that is and/or can be made available in the NL.The calculation has many factors. Nuclear, solar and wind are more or less on par where it comes to price per kWh to generate in the NL; around 4 euro cents per kWh. Transport costs through the grid are about the same or higher. This already shows that just looking at generation costs is going to skew any comparison if you don't take transport costs into account. Roundtrip efficiency for hydrogen is around 50% but is likely to improve significantly over time. But even at 50% efficieny, you are only looking at a price increase ballpark 33% at the consumer end because the transport costs are still the same (excluding taxes which make the relative cost for storage even smaller). Alternatively the hydrogen can also be used for an industrial process or vehicle that needs hydrogen anyway. On top of that, the NL intends to import and distribute hydrogen through the several sea ports it has which have direct pipeline connections deep into Europe.And again, the nuclear power plants aren't intended to just produce hydrogen. Hydrogen production is supposed to happen when there is excess energy or when the hydrogen supply runs low. The nuclear power plants will primarily be feeding the grid.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 06:09:00 pm
content: Did you or anyone consider storing thermal energy in said salt caverns and empty gas fields?I mean, simple "unidirectional" geothermal (which replenishes simply through the surface of the Earth by the Sun) is very popular here in colder countries and is not that expensive. It means drilling a 200-meter deep hole in the bedrock or whatever soil type here. But you can also replenish it by reversing the direction. This is known to have time constant in many months to even annual scale. Some people do it even here. The Earth itself acts both as the storage medium and insulation (think about it as an infinite R-C ladder, each layer adding less and less effective C).This could prove way more practical than hydrogen, but I don't know enough about the proposed hydrogen solution to really say anything about it for sure. It just sounds suspicious, while Iknowthe geothermal storage option does actually work and has good track record, nothing novel in it.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 06:34:15 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 16, 2023, 06:09:00 pmThe thing is that hydrogen can be traded as a commodity and/or converted into electricity while heat can not.That doesn't mean thermal storage isn't on the radar but only for hot water / heating purposes. There are several geothermal plants in operation already and there are some companies that have developed underground seasonal heat storage systems for buildings / district heating but these run into serious permitting issues as it is not clear wether the heat storage system is part of a building or not. So local governments don't know what kind of permit a heat storage system falls under.Using underground aquifers is more likely to happen (compared to using empty gas fields) and it is being researched as well. BTW, you can't store water in a salt cavern because salt dissolves in water.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 09:00:20 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 06:34:15 pmThere is a concept out there that could do thisin theory:https://helioscsp.com/mit-proposes-pv-to-discharge-energy-from-2400c-silicon-thermal-storage/I'm guessing pretty bad total efficiency, though the output might be utility heat + electricity?In other news, seems not all German politicians had their brains scooped out when it comes to energy:https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-energy-nuclear-bavaria-idUKL1N36I0J7

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 09:28:39 pm
content: So with all these great ideas, have we saved the planet yet?

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2023, 09:36:37 pm
content: I think its a solid plan if it works out in the end, less danger. It seems good land and reputation for safety have become more important for countries then cheap rates. I think a nuclear meltdown is one of the few things that can in 1 day really hurt a country for 100 years to come. You just can't fix that.I expect the litigation resulting from a nuclear incident in the EU would dwarf savings very quickly. Don't want to pay even more reparations for some cloud of dust you sent to Finland or something lol

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 07:04:31 am
content: Quote from: daqq on April 16, 2023, 09:00:20 pmIn theory thermal storage at very high temperature could work, but it would be low effiviency when converting back to electricty. At the very high temperatures the stress to the matrials can also be quite substantial. It would also only work on a relatively large scale to keep the heat loss reasonable.For the idea to restart the residual German NPPs: this makes relatively little sense and also the power companies don't think it is practical, as a restart would take 1-2 years at least.The plants would need a major revision and there are not even regulations and thus no plans or preparations for that.The idea of a restart is more like a pre-election idea of someone who is not in charge nor running for the relevant position. So this is just for publicity.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 08:53:03 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on April 16, 2023, 09:28:39 pmActually, the real world is much further in "saving the planet" than you understand (you would understand if you looked at energy production graphs and CO2 calculations, but I can see your agenda is preventing you). Many of these "great ideas", mainly solar and wind energy, but also including thermal storage, load management and heat pumping I keep mentioning, are in everyday use and together, significantly reducing CO2 emissions already. It is already showing as a clear difference to the imaginary case in which we would have continued burning fossil fuels for our energy needs. This gap widens all the time. It is large enough now to say it was not a fallacy, which it indeed seemed to many, me included, a decade ago.It is more difficult to say how the political stability would be if we were even more dependent on fossil fuels than we currently are. We are still seeing a classicfossil fuel warin Europe (i.e., conquer fossil fuel resources violently so that you sell them to others, what USA has always been doing with oil, and Russia does with natural gas), but we are also evidencing coping through fossil fuel crisis with renewable energy, something that would have been a ludicrous, futuristic idea during the previous fossil crisis (oil crisis in 1970's/1980's). In 1970's, the world tried to cope through fossil fuel crisis with load management and nuclear, and currently we are being more successful (to the point of Germany goingoverboarddemonstrating that success, with the outcome some interpret as failure). After 1970's, the fossil fuel use just skyrocketed again with no real solution, as nuclear was never able to really scale up (and cheap fossils stopped the improvements in storage and load balancing).In other words, your fun-making comments would have flied better in 2011. Now it tells more about you and your inability to accept new data and viewpoints, than about the world around us.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 10:36:58 am
content: My opinion on shutting down all nuclear power plants: it's total nonsense! Shutting down an old plant for safety reasons is fine, but it should be replaced with a new and hopefully better one. With the shift to electric cars and heat pumps for heating we'll need about three times the electric power we're generating at the moment. I don't see how we could achieve this by just adding more PV and wind generators. And we also need more transmissions lines. As a German saying goes, electric power comes out of the wall socket. But nobody asks how it gets into the socket.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 11:31:26 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 03:48:28 pmBut this is the point, the 4 cents/kWh is only valid for old nuclear plants. You can not base the calculation on that. (And we of course COMPLETELY exclude the waist storage price for tens of thousends years)The prices in Olkiluoto if you count with 8,5 billion euro cost and 50 years of working would be around three times of the 4 cents.. I also read some 11billion Euro may Siwastaya can check that. Hinkley point C is not ready yet but already way over the planned costs.So if this is how the calculation was made than it can not be valid. And basically all the extra costs only to justify some extreme rare Dunkelflaute events, which could be countered by just keeping the gas plants in readiness and not building anything.Also no other information is aviable on the H2 storage? Costs, power etc.? I tried to find some, but found nothing so far in english or german sites.I really would like to see how the argumentation went, as with the floating wind turbines countries like Holland will have enormous wind power potential in the near future.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 11:52:04 am
content: Does the Green party, its officials and supporters, sort of celebrate this , at least symbolically ? Maybe singing kumbaya ?Its quite an achievement, have to admit that./sarc

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 12:09:10 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 17, 2023, 08:53:03 amI am always surprised by how much opposition there is in engineering circles to a change to the status quo, when it is clear there are significant advantages to moving away from it.Regardless of anyone's particular acceptance of anthropogenic climate change, it is clear that it is unsustainable to continue to extract and use fossil fuel energy to power our vehicles, electricity grid and heating. Countries which supply this resource are often politically unstable compared to European norms, and shortages (often politically or economically motivated - see OPEC, and Russia) can lead to the price increasing considerably, creating the risk of fuel poverty and economic harm.There are health impacts and non-CO2 environmental impacts of fossil fuel usage too. For instance oil spills, which can be economically devastating to areas, and there are concerns over fracking. Using fossil-fuel powered cars in cities has done significant damage to public health too.A renewable supergrid with storage leads to a possible future where energy is so cheap we are incentivised to use it whenever possible. It means we need to adapt how we use energy, but incentives will reward those who are most able to do so and significant opportunities will arise from this. At the same time inefficient industry that relies on continuously cheap power, at the expense of everyone else, will need to adapt or die. But that's life.Yes, there will likely still be fossil fuel usage (or synfuel) in 2050, because some applications are challenging for batteries or hydrogen. So we will need to be pulling CO2 out of the air for those applications, as well as to undo the CO2 emitted so far.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 12:35:03 pm
content: Quote from: madires on April 17, 2023, 10:36:58 amThis is an excellent point. I once calculated it, and the bog standard air source heat pump is better bang-for-buck harvester of renewable energy than a home PV system. What's even better, it harvests renewable energy during calm wind and darkness.It basically acts as a multiplier: you feed it with X amount of electrical energy of any origin, and it produces 2..3*X amount of renewable energy originating from solar, seasonally stored by our atmosphere and the Earth itself. Therefore, it's also a partial solution to the storage problem.While running a heatpump from a renewable energy source means harvesting even more renewable energy (obviously great!), running it from nuclear or even coal source still means harvesting renewable energy - this is not obvious to everyone.Therefore, keeping the nukes running for a while more while allowing the gas price to skyrocket due to the political difficulties, would have allowed electricity price to go down and gas price up, driving people to finally install those heatpumps, which should have happened ages ago; and has happened in Asia no problem, and even in Nordic countries where they areworse, no problem. But Central Europe - nope.(Exact same logic is true for EVs.)

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 12:45:37 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on April 17, 2023, 12:09:10 pmOr just keep using fossils the way* we do now, and have done for the last century. I don't see it as a big problem as climate negatives scale linearly down and political problems probably more than linearly. The point here is that those niches are truly niches.*) referring to everything else except quantityAnd we need oil and natural gas anyway for chemical processes, manufacturing plastic etc. And some natural gas comes "for free" when drilling oil. As these processes are in place, better keep using them for niche "energy purposes" as well.But I'm a closet optimist. I really have quite positive outlook of how these energy things are going. We don't really need any silver bullets, and also won't need to change everything. The massive energy reform is now happening and can't be prevented, and fossil fuels will have a supportive small role in the energy systems of the future.For example, while I'm all for playing with hydrogen and believe we will be seeing probably even significant H2 solutions in the future, it's not thenecessaryelement we need. What's important, giving too much weight for H2 will be a problem, because while we can do without H2, we can't do anything with H2 alone, or with primary bias in H2 solutions.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 01:01:37 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 17, 2023, 11:31:26 amThese near-zero-wind-near-zero-PV "Dunkelflaute" events are by the way of similar rarity (at least in the same order of magnitude) compared to unplanned SCRAM events (following small checkups and fixes) of nuclear reactors - they happen not every year at all, but sometimes at the worst possible moment during the coldest week of the year. This is what makes large reactors like OL3 problematic, too. You lose a lot at once.This is why nuclear has always been dimensioned with backup fossil fuel production and no one is saying this is any sort of problem. Only with wind power, the critics found this idea of making the need for such backup a big deal. This is what one gets when driven by agenda instead of mental honesty.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 01:02:46 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 17, 2023, 12:35:03 pmIn central Europe you get up to 4-5X efficiency because of the mild winters. You have to calculate with that! By the way in Sweden heat pumps are already broadly aviable, probably they are in clear majority already. But they are mostly geo-sourced.And now the new german legislation expect every new heating systems to be at least 65% renewable based from next year on. That would also mean mostly heat pumps.Sometimes I wonder whether Putin is a top secret Greenpeace agent meant to cut short the fossil fuels based buisness modell of Russia, which could do a lot of harm if unchanged.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 01:05:38 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 17, 2023, 01:02:46 pmNote that my notation of "1X input power = 3X renewable harvesting" is equal to COP of 4. That would be typical realistic for central Europe mild weather.I always want to be a little bit conservative when promising savings, but COP exceeding 4 is indeed possible if the conditions are just right and the devices used in the correct way.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 01:05:49 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 17, 2023, 01:02:46 pmPutin is a NATO sleeper agent, his goal is to convince all of Europe to join NATO.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 01:13:41 pm
content: BTW, you can sometimes hear this argument: "Olkiluoto 3 got so badly overbudget and overschedule because Finnish authorities were so demanding with safety or outright sabotaging the project". This is an obvious lie and the proof is easy to find; the Flamanville 3 NPP, which had the benefits of being in the homeland of Areva,andstarting two years later after using Olkiluoto 3 as a proof-of-concept, is even more overbudget and still not finished:Quote from: Wikipedia link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_PlantAt estimated cost of 19.1 billion, it will leave Olkiluoto 3 in shadows and create some of the most expensive electricity known to human kind.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 01:25:06 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 17, 2023, 01:05:38 pmOh, I see, I read 2,3 first, which would be already at around minus 10 degree Celsius.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 08:01:32 pm
content: Quote from: madires on April 17, 2023, 10:36:58 amI don't either, I've said that multiple times and mostly get shrugs.We'll sure have to shrug a whole lot to get all this electricity generated.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 08:16:56 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on April 17, 2023, 07:04:31 amWell, restarting an existing plant is quicker than building a new one. The main problem I see is to get the people together with the right knowledge.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 08:22:23 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 17, 2023, 11:31:26 amThere are litterally hundreds of nuclear power plants on the world and the majority is build within planning and budget. If you look closer at the power plants you mentioned, you'll see that incompetent governments where duped into greenlighting projects that where cleverly setup to leach as much money from those governments as possible. Maybe even on purpose by people within those governments to setup the projects for failure. The exception doesn't make the rule though.As I wrote before: the time the waste is extremely radioactive, is relatively short. Order of magnitude 100 to 200 years. Not the millenia environmentalists tend to claim; their claims are based on wanting to wait until the radiation is zero but that isn't part of their FUD story. And neither is the fact that nuclear waste consists of toxic metals which remain toxic until the end of the the earth's existence.Where it comes to H2 storage: Hystock mentions a 98% roundtrip efficiency for underground storage. So for every euro worth of hydrogen you pump in, you get 0.98 euro worth of hydrogen out.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2023, 11:45:44 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 17, 2023, 08:22:23 pmAll the low "priced" nuclear is from life extension, by carving out the capital expenses and saying they are already paid for (and to be paid in future). Forgetting that those projects had extremely expensive energy costs while operating:https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculatorSo by one economic assessment it does make sense to continue extending operating licenses and run those capital intensive installations into the ground, but it's a sleight of hand to say that the energy is cheap. Only the marginal cost of ongoing operation is cheap.Back on real figures over plant lifetimes:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.pngNuclear generated electricity is expensive, and not getting cheaper despite what the industry has been promising. New build is uneconomic if you only want the electricity, life extension is about the same cost as well sited renewables (but with radically different political outcomes).

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2023, 05:13:53 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 17, 2023, 08:22:23 pmThere are only a handful built after 2000, though. The few successful are in China. Hundreds of financial success stories are from 1960's to 1980's. The art seems to be partially lost. You can't ignore the current track record and just say "hey, all those who failed were just bad implementations, there's nothing wrong with the principle." If this is true, why so many fail? Something has truly changed in how nuclear power is implemented since 1980's. Especially if you want to see more nuclear, this can't be ignored, because poor track record is preventing investments as we speak.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2023, 02:19:17 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 18, 2023, 05:13:53 amIt is not the "art" is lost, it is just made sure it will be made safer than those old plants. And that costs money in the whole complexity of the process.Talking about incompetent governments:If Finnland, UK and France are all incompetent well, than we can agree that most of the governments are incompetent so they shoul not touch such projects.And in China we can not see the true costs, so I wouldn't bet on those being successful.Quote from: nctnico on April 17, 2023, 08:22:23 pmHeavy metals are toxic, even lead. And they stay toxic even without radiation.With H2 I meant the full process of production, and storage, but even at around 50% full efficiency of power - gas - power, it will be much cheaper than a new nuclear plant.Germany just signd some agreement with Norway and Denmark to buy green H2 so we might have to take a look at those plants. (In planning I suppose?)

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2023, 08:27:01 pm
content: But that still makes Germany reliant on importing energy. There is a large geopolitical aspect to having your own energy supply.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2023, 09:31:06 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 18, 2023, 08:27:01 pmOf course. Precisely.What makes you think that Germany, or any EU country for that matter, actually wants to be self-reliant?

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2023, 02:17:55 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on April 17, 2023, 07:04:31 amWell, if Söder would be smart, and the studies from last summer are conclusive regarding the costs, and other issues, than he could initiate a local referendum. Because it would still have more democratic mandate than the Governments Atom-exit. Other states could follow where the last and newest NPPs are. (And just turned off.)Because the only "argument" that speaks for the current shut down is :" because the government decided to do so".So if its cheaper to run them for an extra 5-10 years, than renewables on the similar scale than neihter democratic or cost argument are present for an early shutdown.Quote from: nctnico on April 18, 2023, 08:27:01 pmFun fact is that Germany is on average energy (electricity) exporter. So the minimum policy in this situation would be to at least, to agree to not alow energy exports from coal. So to really have that capacity as a backup for emergency. And until the 2030 coal-exit, there is still many years left where it would make sense to import at least nuclear electricity from France (or renewables from other sources), instead of burning coal, if France manages to repair their NPP soon. But I don't know about any such agreement.

author: psychoacoustic
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: April 19, 2023, 02:30:45 pm
content: At least according tohttps://www.smard.de/page/home/topic-article/209944/210326,in Q1 2023, Germany had a net export of 8785 GWh. AFAICT, daily production from the 3 remaining Nuclear power plants was roughly 70 GWh/day, so even without those the overall flow should still be outwards.I also found the projections on renewables interesting:https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Energie/Unternehmen_Institutionen/ErneuerbareEnergien/ZahlenDatenInformationen/EEStatistikMaStRBNetzA.pdf

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2023, 03:17:39 pm
content: The Green party is destroying the host ... and also will be dragging France and Hungary too.

author: psychoacoustic
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: April 19, 2023, 05:11:22 pm
content: Ah yes, those evil Greens......that weren't in power when the deadline for turning off the AKWs was decided. It was a Government of CDU/CSU and FDP. It was also their work (with generous help of the SPD) to get Germany addicted to cheap russian gas. Thanks Gerhardt!Look. Turning off the the Nuclear Powerplants was a _political_ decision. Right or wrong, it's what the majority of people _at the time_ wanted. As others have pointed out already, the parties in power probably _didn't_ think this is a good idea, but they also wanted to get votes from that segment of the population.I'm quite disappointed(?) by the absolutism in this discussion. There are good arguments for turning the power plants off (long-term storage, cost, safety...), good arguments for keeping them running (reduction of CO2 emissions, base load stabilization, ...) good arguments for (and against) building new ones.While scientists and engineers can work out these arguments, it's the job of the media to keep the discussion factual, and thus let "the public" make up their minds. This should incentivize the politicians chasing votes to do what at least a significant portion of the people actually want. I'm dreaming, I know.But if we as engineers (which I would hope on this forum would be the most vocal) dismiss every argument as either "links-grün versiffter Quatsch" or "paid shill for the nuclear lobby", well, then the base for any discussion is lost.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 19, 2023, 08:06:01 pm
content: Quote from: Traceless on April 15, 2023, 08:51:32 amAnd unicorns are real. where will you get the hydrogen? oh yea, you can get it from fossil fuels or..... electricity

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2023, 08:16:04 pm
content: @psychoacoustic: I do not disagree with most of your points, but the problem with this energy question is precisely that, as you pointed out, there are good, rational arguments for both approaches. So if you actually stick to a purely scientific/engineering approach, you'll be stuck with no decision. That's where politics comes into play. You gotta make decisions.But then, once politics is involved, it's a whole other mess. Then political short-term goals come into play, along with heavy lobbying and all kinds of shit.Long story short, you need politics to make the decisions and enforce them, but politics comes with nasty baggage, including having to plan things on a short term, because that's how our modern democracies are tailored. They have to promise stuff within a few years, while some decisions - like this one - should IMO turn into at least a 20- to maybe even 50-year plan, with a reasonable transition instead of brutal, unreasonable and even wasteful actions.

author: Nikola Tesla Junior IV
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2023, 09:46:59 pm
content: Incredible amount of information and mis-information on this post.There is an increased concern in VOLATILE weather. There has been a decision (non-disclosure) to shut-down many "Volatile Location Facilities".Cesium 137 has a half-life of ~30-33 years. By the time it is "Inert" it will have caused more devastation on this planet, then it has seenFROM ANYTHINGin thousands of years. There has been an unidentified amount released. They disabled many of the radiation monitoring stations across the pacific ocean, and "updated them".There is much to consider, at the top of the list lies destructive potential. Some of these reactors have been classified to possess ELE (extinction level event) capability. Some believe "The bullet has already left the barrel". A Process in which can not be halted after a trigger event. The Pacific Ocean is the largest ECO system on the planet. To sum it up shortly, it is bigger then all the land mass on earth combined, it ultimately controls worldwide currents and interconnects throughout the entire world through them. It contributes monumentally to Global weather, Food chains, ETC.Of all the things discussed in this thread, they pale in comparison to the destructive potential contained within nuclear reactors, which absolutely must be considered.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2023, 10:09:59 pm
content: well hopefully they will get rid of those ceasium gauges and implement more ultrasonic sensors. Developments in ultrasonic can maybe get rid of some radioactive measurement equipment that always seems to have its physics package go missing. The poster above is referencing to the ceasium canister that was apparently smelted by accident in thailand and sent dust to god knows wherefor flow measurement it seems like a brute force caveman solution TBH

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 03:09:35 pm
content: Quote from: psychoacoustic on April 19, 2023, 05:11:22 pmI agreed in 2011 with the atom-exit. But during the years we have seen failures which were not corrected to the proper extent. (Coal staying in the system.) And the storage solution for the renewables not in planning.We most of the time here discussed quiet factually the CURRENT situation not whether it was a good decision more than ten years ago. Every government can correct course in emergency cases as the german government also did that with the military but not with the nuclear energy.There were two arguments for keeping the course:1. It might be not possible to run the plants longer, or not "economical".2. The majority does not want to run them longer doesn't matter the circumstances.BUT: 1.It seems that it is possible to run them longer, even if not for just 1-2 years, and it seems to economical as well, at least no one could show here the docs from last year how much that would cost to prove the contrary.2.The german government did not ask the people officially what they think.(Sorry but asking 1000 peoples oppinion is not the way to do it, otherwise no one would run complicated elections.)But if someone wants Facebook , Twitter and the rest to run a country, this is the way to do it.I am only waiting for the day when some other ridiculous group will come up with the idea that every people should have three arms, and than governments will jump on it because the "majority" likes the idea."The public making up their mind":Well, that is the case in Switzerland, where the population is being asked about the main issues. In Germany the population is never asked about any actual major decision, only about the the few faces to rule.In some other countries at least there are a few referendums some times, like in Sweden the people were asked in a referendum about the nuclear exit. Or in Holland there was a referendum about the Ukraine to bacame some associated EU member.So the problem is not how democracy works, but how most of the democratic countries are actually pseudo democratic, where no one actually knows which decisions are supported by the majority.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 05:58:20 pm
content: The problem is that the general population are not qualified or competent to take technical decisions. So if you want to hold a referendum on how energy is produced there should have been some caveats. So apparently nuclear is not nice, did they also agree that coal is not nice?. So lets say people who have no business in the energy industry get to decide how it should operate. Should these people not be made responsible for those decisions?I would assume that the logic is:1) nuclear bad2) coal bad3) gas not good4) buying gas from a war mongering nation - unacceptable.Given those assumed circumstances to be reasonable and what people voted on do those that want nuclear shut down now accept to live without the electricity they did not want generated.It's all well and good people getting to make a decision, but they should also be responsible in the face of the consequences.It's a bit like our MD, we tell him that engineering need 4 weeks to develop the project, he comes back from the customer and tells us they want it in 2, why are we supposed to try the impossible?Now that the energy system has just been rendered even more polluting than it was do those people who voted for this care? or do they live in a bubble unburst by the fact that the problems they created are now someone elses?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 09:19:03 pm
content: The best approach is the one I use for customers as well: Don't build what they want, but build what they need. In the end politics works the same if you look closely.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 11:51:12 am
content: Quote from: Simon on April 20, 2023, 05:58:20 pmAnd are the general politicians competent enough to make such decision? Usually a buch of lawyers, sometimes not even that.What happens is, that a small number of "experts" (unaccountable) sits down with the politicianand tell them what they think.Now if we accept that, than acually we could give up the whole concept of democracy because alsoin dictatorships things work quiet similarly. Don't think that the dictators never ask anyone!The dictator always knows best what is good for the public, and is working towards that goal,and the dumb population of course don't know shit but the great leaders.And of course you can wote down the politician, but does anybody ever know what the actual reason amongdozens of decisions was, which caused a party to loose an election?And there IS an example of democracy, and it is working quiet well, much better than most of the pseudodemocracies in every aspect. I don't see there nonsense decisions.Edit: How does it work? The same experts and many more tell the public their oppinion, and just like the politicians the people are making up their mind.And I bet if people would have a say about big issues in Europe in the last 10 years we would be much better off."4) buying gas from a war mongering nation - unacceptable."I have to add here that the Iraq war was causing more death than the Ukrainian so far, but it is OK to buy from the US now or energy (oil) from Britain. So in a few years this is not going be an issue I suppose. There wasn't even a sigle sanction back than. And this why now some people wonder sometimes about the high moral ground of some countries.But to be on a bit: Blowing up the gas pipes was not a german decision, the gas from there would have been enough to substitute the nuclear plants. Only the stop of the NS2 usage was a political decision, and stopping the oil import but that is not used to generate electricity."It's all well and good people getting to make a decision, but they should also be responsible in the face of the consequences."And does now anybody faces the consequences in the current systems? Any politician ever had to pay back billions when he made a wrong decision? No. Maybe loosing job, and having an extreme high income level after it. Basically no consequences.Look at the case with Dizzy Lizzy! How much is she paying back or having any consequences of her decision? Nothing."Given those assumed circumstances to be reasonable and what people voted on do those that want nuclear shut down now accept to live without the electricity they did not want generated."They didn't even vote 12 years ago, but now there is an emergency situation. And we don't know what the public wants, but the stupid decision was made by the expert politicians. NOT by the people.(As far as I know even the oppinion polls are telling that the population would liked to keep the remaining NPP for a while, but they werr not asked.)But democracy is not about making the best decision(what is the best decision, how do you measure it?), but to decide to do what the public wants. It has its faults, but it still works better than anything else. And the consequences is always beared by the common people collectively called society both in democracies, and in dictatorships as well.Quote from: nctnico on April 20, 2023, 09:19:03 pmI am quiet sure that most dictators are thinking doing the same. Not sure if the dumb uninformed non-expert russians would be asked, the war would still going on.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 03:41:17 pm
content: my point is that Joe Bloggs does not have a clue what he is actually making a decision on, to the point that he thinks the decision is helping him when it could be harming him and his fellow countrymen. My point is that there is one result of this, the energy system will produce more greenhouse gas emissions, this hurts everyone and is not necessarily cheaper so it is a loose loose choice. Now there is a way to redress this. If less power is required then there is less need for carbon emitting generators to be used and the price also drops due to lower demand. So those who voted to turn off the power should go without power! Then they might take a serious interest in how this woks and start to understand the realities.

author: switchabl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 04:57:18 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 03:41:17 pmCall me a cynic but I strongly suspect thatpoliticallythe one result of keeping nuclear power would have been less PV and wind, not less coal and an energy system with broadly the same CO2 emissions (potentially at somewhat lower prices). In Germany, coal is not just about energy, it is about mining jobs (and voters).(And to be fair the energy sector is actually on track to meet reduction goals, at least for now.)

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 05:08:36 pm
content: Well what is the nuclear to be replaced with?

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 05:19:28 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 03:41:17 pmBut the same applies for the politician. When Ms Baerbock doesn't even get the gimnasium level math,what kind of more expert tech oppinion can she have than Joe Bloggs?So everything you mentioned also applies for the politician.And again the german population is not allowed to vote on any issue,(I would really like to hear the reasoning when some expert explains why the germans are collectively more stupid than any other European nation.) so they did not vote on anything,expert politicians voted for them in this case obviously against the peoples will it seems.(Only local referendums are allowed in Germany.)So I agree with you that those POLITICIANS who woted for this, should bear the consequences(and that of all the other issues by moving to certain part of Berlin), and use no electricity anymore, but it won't solve the actual situation.If you read the swiss press, you will see that until a referendum comes, most people probably read morearticles and studies, debates than the "consulted with experts" politicians in other countries.Quote from: switchabl on April 21, 2023, 04:57:18 pmWhy should it be like that? It can be done better. And the coal -exit is already decided.There are many more voters who don't want coal. There is money for hundredthousands of uneducated from Africa fleeing into the country who don't even speak the language, so I bet there must be some money left for the few thousand german coal workers as well.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 05:30:52 pm
content: I am confused. I was led to beleive 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.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 05:48:00 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 05:30:52 pmAnd what is the guarantee that a politician understands anythig the expert says? What is the guarantee, that a very broad spectrum of experts are consulted, instead of a lobby group? That there is a debate?Dictatorships are basically based on your argumentation. No joke.And the only example wehere this (let the people decide) system is working is Switzerland. I don't see them as hopeless. Rather the pseudo democracies. I see big changes in Europe which are qiet possibly against the will of the population.And if you would mention the big democratic trauma, the BRRRR... you know what. The problem there was rather not having to have a second voting, when the circumstances were clear. If people still would wanted to have it, they could have voted accordingly.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 06:01:21 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 21, 2023, 05:48:00 pmI am not saying that the politicians would get it right, but at least there would be some semblance of trying and this would be publicly scrutinized even if through later leaks. But I have no confidence at all in a democratic vote.People seem to confuse democracy with what is right. Just because it is what the majority wanted does not make it right. the majority are never going to be knowledgeable on the issue so the result will be just pop luck, no better than the politicians.Yes I am scared by a recent vote where even I voted the wrong way. I am not angry with those that told lies and I did not vote on those anyway. I am angry with those that just said: "this is a really bad idea - trust us". The result was I did not. I did try to seek out information but as a simple citizen with limited time and not knowing where to start it was impossible. Did any news channels bother to make programs that just explained the facts? NO! did anyone make say a YouTube series that gave information? NO! All we got was debates between people with opinions praying on peoples fears, at no point did someone say: "look guys it works like this, now make up your own mind if you think this is worth while. Now if we change you get this, now make up your minds if that is what you want". No the public discourse was reduced to political silos having a mud slinging match in an attempt to scare people to vote one way or the other.I doubt very much that any issue or debate would be held properly, it's just .... people..... 90% are too stupid to know what is good for them. That is after all the reason why we have a political system, someone has to make the decision. OK you don't like those politicians, but, the majority voted for them so basically truth and reasonableness are fucked either way.

author: switchabl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 06:08:34 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 05:08:36 pmBetween 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 pmThere 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.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 06:16:19 pm
content: Quote from: switchabl on April 21, 2023, 06:08:34 pmbecause 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

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 06:40:55 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 05:08:36 pmYou fail to find a sensible answer, because the question itself is aloaded question("have you stopped beating your wife" question), and loaded with wrong information.The correct question is, "whatwasthe 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

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 06:58:08 pm
content: 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.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 07:58:46 pm
content: 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 pmThere 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 pmNuclear 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.

author: switchabl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 08:29:29 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 06:16:19 pmYes, 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 pmGermany 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.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 05:17:05 am
content: Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 06:58:08 pmYes, 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.As someone once said,"I don't want to make the wrong mistake."

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 05:29:07 am
content: Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 05:30:52 pmWell, 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.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 05:45:13 am
content: Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 06:58:08 pmOh, 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 youreallyneed to know what you are talking about.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 05:53:36 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 22, 2023, 05:45:13 amWhy? What do you mean? Do they not provide continuous output?

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 06:34:44 am
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on April 22, 2023, 05:53:36 amThey normally provide continuous output, but that is exactly part of the problem: they don't provide reseves for peak power and possibly too much at night.The other point is that there is a chance that they have to shut down for safety reasons - not very likely, but it can happen, especially with many reactors of the same type and thus a possibly common weak point in the design. There have been times when multiple reactors had to shut down for urgent unplaned safty checks. A fault in one plant can thus trigger the shut down for a whole series of reactors of the same type.Not having that option to shut down if a flaw is found is a very bad idea and would compomise safety.With nuclear the backup is normally not needed that regular, but one still needs a plan B.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 07:14:05 am
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on April 22, 2023, 05:53:36 amNo, they don't. Sudden unplanned SCRAM events have to be accounted for (not a massive problem in a county with dozens of reactors and good grid, though), but even more importantly, nuclear is almost always dimensioned to run at 100% power continuously while load variations are large. This is the reason why we never saw >50% nuclear in any country, but always as a mix with fossil fuels; the synergy with fossils is good as their production can be ramped up or down quickly.Solar and wind production is similar "special snowflake", which just replaced nuclear production in Germany, and still needs supporting fossil fuels.The big difference is, solar and wind production is so much cheaper per produced kWh to build and maintain (total cost of ownership with all true expenses) that overdimensioning them does not become such a problem overdimensioning nuclear production would have been (no one tried).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 08:25:08 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 22, 2023, 07:14:05 amThat depends entirely on the type of reactors. The ones that are planned in the NL are types that can be regulated quickly. But even without that, you can convert the excess electricity into hydrogen. Keep in mind new nuclear power plants aren't build in a few years so by the time these new plants are finished, the hydrogen infrastructure and demand will be scaled up much further.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 08:32:43 am
content: What about those Small Modular Reactors?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 09:12:44 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 22, 2023, 08:25:08 amIt's not about being technically able to do it, just about cost. If you build too much and throttle them to significantly <100% average power, TCO will be even higher than it already is. Given the always-existing fluctuations in load demand, and increased fluctuations in renewable production, the maximum cost-effective share of nuclear will only get lower and lower.Quote from: iMo on April 22, 2023, 08:32:43 amWas following with interest a decade ago. Except total 2 demonstration units (in China and Russia), it did not happen, no signs of happening in any meaningful scale. Like Solar Roadways, one needs to understand the difference between ideas/marketing and practical solutions. In the end, the market makes the choice. This is one of those "by all means prove me wrong" cases.The whole idea is based on mass manufacturing bringing costs down: classically, smaller units are higher cost per energy produced, so you need to compensate somehow, and that "somehow" is supposed to be makingthousands. But it's a chicken-egg problem, as the market won't buy the expensive reactors, mass manufacturing and getting the costs down will never happen.

author: .RC.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 10:26:12 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 22, 2023, 07:14:05 amDepends on what price you put on reliability. You must have storage and yet one struggles to find information on storage costs for grid sized networks for 100% reliability. How many hours or days storage you need.At the end of the day, storage is very expensive.But all this emissions stuff. No need to worry. There are enough billions of people in third world countries, that will burn every last bit of coal, gas and oil. Because it is cheap to utilise as it is such low technology. You do not need a single piece of silicon semiconductor material to turn fossil fuels into electricity.It might be expensive in western countries, but that is only because of regulation.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 10:45:00 am
content: Quote from: .RC. on April 22, 2023, 10:26:12 amThis is going in circles. Again: you don'tneedstorage, and it has nothing to do with reliability. Fossil fuels can be used to supplement renewables just like they were and are used to supplement nuclear. This is how it works now and it works well.

author: mendip_discovery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 12:06:43 pm
content: Not sure if anyone else has posted this link.https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/Its UK only but an interesting site to look at it shows the usage.Is there pages similar this for other countries?

author: .RC.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 12:13:50 pm
content: Fossil fuels are being phased out though.There is not going to be this fossil fuel backup in the future.

author: switchabl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 12:16:41 pm
content: Quote from: mendip_discovery on April 22, 2023, 12:06:43 pmFraunhofer ISE has a very comprehensive website for Germany (also covers other European countries but the level of detail and the quality of the data varies):https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 12:55:00 pm
content: Base must be backed up with something, always.Coverage of peak demand must also be available, always.Plants are down, cables are cut and so on.Sure there is a limit but all down because of one is not very good practice.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 03:24:45 pm
content: Quote from: .RC. on April 22, 2023, 10:26:12 amIndeed. As I outlined before: generation costs are like 20% of the end consumer price of the electricity. Margin, transport and taxes make up for the other 80%.QuoteI tend to disagree here. A lot of the third world countries have excellent opportunities to generate hydrogen. Hydrogen is the new oil and unlike oil, you only need land area and solar panels to start harvesting energy & making money. This in turn leads to more money spend in the economies of those countries. And this hasn't gone unnoticed by the governments as well. All the countries in North Africa are trying to get a piece of the hydrogen production cake.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 04:09:17 pm
content: Quote from: .RC. on April 22, 2023, 12:13:50 pmYou can keep hoping that, and there might be political reasons tosaythings like that, but it's not really going to happen any time soon, and it doesn'tneedto happen. Just getting the volumes used significantly lower is good.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 04:12:52 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 22, 2023, 03:24:45 pmOr, using hydrogen as an intermediate product, synthetic fuels which can be transported using existing oil transport infrastructure.Anywhere with excess solar and wind production and good enough grid, this can be done. Efficiency will colossally suck, but it doesn't matter if the power would be wasted otherwise.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 05:01:32 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 22, 2023, 04:12:52 pmAlso keep in mind that solar panels that are installed near the equator in desert areas receive twice as much radiation from the sun compared to those installed in central Europe. So even when losing half the energy due to conversion losses, you still end up with the same cost per kWh because the generating side is twice as productive for the same investment.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 05:10:16 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 22, 2023, 05:01:32 pm... only if the conversion to fuel is with zero investment. The key is to make this cheap as well. PV panels are quite affordable already.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 08:10:05 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on April 22, 2023, 05:10:16 pmI agree PV panels are very affordable already (both due to lowering prices and increasing efficiency -which is great-) but adding storage is still costly. Currently most consumer PV owners use the grid as a 'battery' but at some point that will stop and you'll be forced to pay for storage in order to maximise the ROI of your solar panels. You can't just look at generation costs alone. You need to take into account storage and distribution costs and that will paint an entirely different picture.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 08:39:28 pm
content: The conversion of electricty to hydrogen is relatively simple and should not be a big cost factor.The cost for storage is still not that well known - so far more like an upper limit for batteries and the hydrogen path. How much storage is needed depends on a lot of factors, like the local demand, production mix and the grid capacity. Especially the pumped hydro part is very position dependent. So it is not an universal price.Nuclear power would also need some storage / backups, if used for more than a small fraction (like 20 %).Hydrogen is still not that easy to transport. So ideally some of the more energy intensive productions (aluminum, some chemistry, glass) would move. The aluminum production moves to were electricity is cheap - that is nothing new. It is way easier to transport than hydrogen.Especially at the favorable locations the renewables could get away with less storrage as they are more preductable there. So it is not just more energy from the same PV panels, but also a more regular supply.I am afraid some energy intensive industries will no longer be competative in central Europe.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 08:44:34 pm
content: In the NL the debate is to put the new nuclear power plants near energy intensive industries or not. One of the problems is that creating high quality products is not something you can move to low cost countries very easely. For example.: Tata steel in the NL produces some very high quality steel products that can't be sourced from China. Additionally there is also more focus on sourcing products with a low CO2 footprint. IIRC I have read some news articles saying that there might be CO2 footprint dependant import taxes for products made abroad to level the playing field.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2023, 01:55:42 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on April 21, 2023, 06:01:21 pmQuoteAnd what that scuritnizing means at the end? Basically nothing else as if a bad vote had to be scrutinized, with the difference, that in the last case the decision would had come from a democratic decision, and there would be much more public scrutiny BEFORE the decision.QuoteSo you don't belive in democracy? Or why do you have confidence of people voting on dozens of complex issues in 4 years intervalls and making it right, while not trusting the same people on deciding one single issue?QuoteWhat you describe here are rather symptomps of a country where the culture is giving up more and more the concept of democracy, because the population is getting used to the fact that they don't have a possiblity of voting on anything meaningful, so they don't have to follow whats happening. (The proposed internet reforms and the silence around them showing also in that direction.)Many people in Britain did not have the slightest clue what the EU is. I have talked to many britons who belived that health care is only free in Britain within the EU. (And these were not the most uneducated people, I have to add.) And similar nonsense.When peolple are getting used to the fact that they don't have a say, they will stop reading some news, because why the hack should they? They can't have a say on any policy, that is the job of the politicians.In Switzerland they vote 4-5 times a year, and I don't remember any of this wrecking the country. Even we in Hungary did have a few referendums, and none of those were disastrous.QuoteWell OK, but why waist so much money on different political partys, and voting? The same people surely can't decide what the total complexity of politcs was during many years, so let just be one group of expert to decide, and than they could also have longer planning times. Like 5, and 20 yearsWhen you vote for persons, but don't have a say on anything, than you basically trust those up there to be smarter than you. In Russia and China for example I thik they are following and always followed the very same logic. They also have oppinion polls. But than people also can have the bad oppinion, just because they are uninformed, it is not that important anyway, but if it was getting important, than you can "educate" them.I don't hate politicians, but there is a difference when the politicians are not allowing the public to decide on anything, and when they are.Someone said this in the old days:"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."I only know the B... referendum where a nation comletely screwed itself, but it as I said it was rather the missing of a second referendum the main issue, and by not letting the people vote would only lead to UKIP running the nation now, until they are having a majority to alow a vote.Again politicians followed a decision which in its true form was not supported by the majority.(probably)Quote from: switchabl on April 21, 2023, 06:08:34 pmAnd here we go again. A coalition(not even a party with a majority) spd/green wants to do something. No chance for a referendum on it, but they loose an election. So you ask why did they loose it, but of course no one has a clue. Maybe because of this. So an other party gets into power which didn't want to do it, but then suddenly they change their mind and do it. Can we call this as a representation of the will of the people?And than the 2015 issue and now the drogliberalization as well, which will create even more tension not just in Germany but in the whole EU....

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2023, 02:04:06 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 22, 2023, 08:44:34 pmBut as I understand right from our discussion here the Netherland went for the nuclear optionwithout having numbers comparing TCO and ROI for the renewables+storage and the nuclear+storage?And for the nuclear price they were counting with the 40+ years old NPP's with 50 years plus safety standards? I assume that you are just going to buy all the plans for an old german plant, or maybe an even cheaper from Chernobil?Is this really the way you did it? (Did you just outsourced the expert energetical planning and decision making to Hungary? Because that would be a plausible explanation)

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2023, 03:34:09 pm
content: You are assuming things that aren't there. I suggest you use Google to find the reports that the Dutch policy is based on. It is all public.

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2023, 05:01:19 pm
content: I am not assuming, but stating that you mentioned 4cents/kWhr price for nuclear energy.So either that price was not for the proposed new NPPs, or NL calculating with a price almost 3 times cheaper than that of any other new NPP's of other nations around.I found articles like this:https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Dutch-study-finds-commercial-support-for-nuclear-nhttps://www.reuters.com/business/energy/netherlands-plans-build-two-nuclear-power-plants-by-2035-2022-12-09/(Two NPP's for 5 billion Euros)Or this in dutch by kpmg:https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ronl-1b94eccd-4055-4b06-aca5-3c28e7ab7776/pdfBut I don't speak dutch so it will take some time to go through it. But still not sure this is what you mean.But if you could help out with a link, we could finally see what nucler price the NL was aiming for, and how the decision was made.