For those people, it has to be "clean renewables", with the speculation being that technology will fix all the issues with it. That ignores that maybe technology can also fix the issues with nuclear - and more readily so.
Renewables are not working right now (see Germany) and they aren't necessarily cleaner, considering that all this infrastructure needs to be produced with ordinary industrial processes.
Of course it's not an either-or, renewables can make more sense in some places and not so much in others.
I like nuclear but c'mon. Its clear that its not at an acceptable level of safety. Large scale disasters like Fukushima can't be hand waived away.
>Renewables are not working right now (see Germany)
What am I supposed to see from Germany? They're the largest electricity exporter in Europe.
> considering that all this infrastructure needs to be produced with ordinary industrial processes.
Is this not true of nuclear power?
Should Japan be building nuclear power plants in areas which are at risk of both? Probably not. Should that be stopping countries like Germany fro building them? Also not. The same standard doesn't have to apply everywhere.
I am no nuclear safety inspector, but I would argue that there's large variance in terms of safety in different nuclear installations. Not putting a nuclear plant next to a Tsunami-coast would be a major factor here.
> Large scale disasters like Fukushima can't be hand waived away.
Neither can the Bhopal disaster, yet we continue to engage in large-scale chemical production. It needs to be put into perspective.
> What am I supposed to see from Germany? They're the largest electricity exporter in Europe.
In terms of kilowatts, perhaps, but not economically. Energy prices in Germany are almost double those in France. Germany exports a lot of surplus wind energy, sometimes for negative prices just to keep the powerlines from overloading. Lack of wind needs to be compensated by dirty coal (50% of their energy mix) or import of (likely nuclear) energy from neighboring countries.
Without coal (or nuclear from the neighbors) the system would collapse. There are no means of storing the wind energy in a remotely economical fashion on the horizon and there are no obvious alternatives to wind (at least for Germany).
> Is this not true of nuclear power?
Yes, but nuclear power isn't considered "clean".
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
Cattenom is especially great for Luxembourg as it's the only country on this planet which is threatened in it's entirety by a nuclear disaster from a single nuclear reactor.
You should have seen through you charts that the small difference can't be related to the actual amount required in Germany. Germany sells more energy elsewhere...Much more: https://www.agora-energiewende.de/service/agorameter/chart/p... The main problem right now in Germany is that you don't have the transfer infrastructure to deliver the amounts of energy generated by renewables everywhere. https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2019&month=... You also HAVE to let coal in even if you don't need it and turn renewables off because of standing contracts with the providers. Germany is still paying for coal plants that have been turned off because of this. This is the main reason why energy is so expensive in Germany. There are newly build coal power plants which will never run because nobody needs them. And the amount of renewables is rising: https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&...
PS. there is also Gas but you don't seem to care about all that I guess because I can't imagine how one could overlook that.
There is not a single reason for Germany to turn to nuclear again. Its time has passed and no, Germany doesn't need Frances nuclear power...
Wait, your country is building coal plants in 2019? At least reconvert them to gas or oil.
Otherwise I agree that the difference is small. Your country is probably exporting for cents at a dollar during wind peaks and importing at night when France sells surplus nuclear energy at a discount. The issue with many variable renewables in the mix is that you have to build excess transport capacity which only gets used during peaks. Not to mention that solar has 0.2 max capacity factor and wind around 0.45 - the difference between that and 1 is idling.
I don't get what you want to say with all that. Of course Norway is not expanding capacity. Why should they? Renewables are coming. Here and there. And if the US wants to deliver cheaper LPG, why shouldn't we buy it?
> Wait, your country is building coal plants in 2019? At least reconvert them to gas or oil.
You don't start building something like that the year before it's finished and no. There are no new coal plants planned. The exit from coal is planned and no the ones that have been finished last year or the year before and never been turned on will not be converted to gas or oil because nobody needs that too. How is it you don't get that? I gave you an overview over a whole years energy production in Germany. We're selling the stuff for cheap in masses.
Because it requires building a terminal in Hamburg or another Baltic port and a distribution pipeline. It's easier to keep buying from Russia.
What you do not understand is how energy is being produced/sold. Supply has to meet demand at all times, otherwise energy is sold at a discount or lost. Pure end of the year statistics don't mean much.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...
Your figure of 19,5% only accounts for lignite, not hard coal.
The peer reviewed study I posted right here said the risks are underestimated.
It is still highly location specific though.
Might there be value in efficient energy transport using high voltage DC? There is probably a lot less fluctuation in power supply and usage if you sum up over larger areas (especially east-west, as you average out time-of-day effects)
https://reneweconomy.com.au/dispelling-the-nuclear-baseload-...
"The north German states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein are already operating on 100% net renewable energy, mostly wind. The ‘net’ indicates trading with each other and their neighbours. They do not rely on baseload power stations."
These rather sparsely populated states combined make up for only 4.5 million of Germany's 83 million population. Germany still supplies 50% of its power with fossil fuels, of which coal makes up 35%.
It is also completely misleading to say that these states are 100% "net renewable". They're part of the national grid. Perhaps they're the places where disproportionately many wind turbines are deployed (e.g. on the coast).
Think about it, if Germany knew a way to fix the problem of base load, why haven't they implemented it? It couldn't be a problem of financing, they spent a huge amount of money on subsidizing renewables already.
"In 2014 the state of South Australia had 39% of annual electricity consumption from renewable energy (33% wind + 6% solar) and, as a result, the state’s base-load coal-fired power stations are being shut down as redundant. For several periods the whole state system has operated reliably on a combination of renewables and gas with only small imports from the neighbouring state of Victoria."
Same story, Australia nationally relies on 30% coal to support its base load. To even out peaks from renewables, natural gas is used. The idea that the "base load requirement" is a myth is in itself a myth. If you use the right numbers, they don't add up.
They are at the coast and it's not misleading since they produce much more and even have to turn off turbines. The nationwide peaks are also impressive: https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2019&month=...
> Think about it, if Germany knew a way to fix the problem of base load, why haven't they implemented it?
Because of politics, money and lobbying. There are jobs in the coal industry especially in the east germany where Fascism is getting powerful. You don't want to lose those votes. There are also long running contracts with energy suppliers that force Germany to pay for coal plants who are not producing power at all. Wind turbines have to be turned off because the sparse power lines infrastructure is clogged with dirty power. Adding to that, there is a movement of people who are afraid of power lines nearby...and yes, there are many and they are slowing down the expansion of north-south infrastructure.
> Same story, Australia nationally relies on 30% coal to support its base load.
Yeah same story, Australia relies on their coal industry. Who wants to tell the voter that they'll cut those jobs and coal is being mined everywhere throughout the continent.
> The idea that the "base load requirement" is a myth is in itself a myth. If you use the right numbers, they don't add up.
As you have seen, the reasons why renewables are not even further and even more relevant are beyond the technically related reasons. Most of them are political and this is surely no reason to turn back to nuclear. Especially because the growth is there and it's unstoppable:
https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&...
It is clearly misleading to point at an island of green energy when there's coal all around it.
> Because of politics, money and lobbying. There are jobs in the coal industry especially in the east germany where Fascism is getting powerful.
That still doesn't add up. Just because you want to keep coal jobs alive doesn't mean you have to burn it at home. You can just export it, coal is valuable. The only reason you need subsidies is because extraction is too expensive when done by German labor.
> Wind turbines have to be turned off because the sparse power lines infrastructure is clogged with dirty power.
That's an "interesting" way to frame the high volatility of wind energy against the low volatility of other methods, when having to buffer that volatility is the main problem.
> As you have seen, the reasons why renewables are not even further and even more relevant are beyond the technically related reasons.
I haven't "seen" anything. No numbers, no calculations. I'm sure there's some impact of coal lobbying, but that can't be what prevents the development of alternatives. Germany has blown an incredible amount of subsidies into wind energy, so now you're telling me there's none left to solve its problems because of coal?
...which is the reason why they have to turn off turbines. And the reason why they keep this coal running is because nobody want's to kill jobs when there are elections incoming and the right wing party is on the run in the region.
> You can just export it, coal is valuable.
No, it's not. It's already heavy subsidized and coal in Poland or even further east is so cheap, it's still cheaper if you carry it through half of Europe. Most of the mines in Germany has been closed down because of this even before the environmental movement got popular. How do you not know this?
> That's an "interesting" way to frame the high volatility of wind energy against the low volatility of other methods, when having to buffer that volatility is the main problem.
No it's not. If I have cheap renewable energy but can't transfer it because I have to pay for coal, it's clogging the infrastructure. So just what I wrote.
> I haven't "seen" anything. No numbers, no calculations.
It's not like those are the 90s. You didn't even know how cheap coal is. Maybe you should invest some time googling. The information is out there.
> that can't be what prevents the development of alternatives. Germany has blown an incredible amount of subsidies into wind energy, so now you're telling me there's none left to solve its problems because of coal?
What are you talking about? https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&... This is the development of alternatives and it's not stopping or anything like that. Coal power plants are being turned off and there is already a deadline for them all. There is not even theoretical space for nuclear there.
1. https://www.planete-energies.com/en/medias/close/france-s-ov...
2. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
Coal is clogging up the infrastructure...this is why wind generators have to be stopped. It's a very known fact here we even get it explained by power providers at the end of the year when they explain the bills and this is also the reason there are huge projects to expand the infrastructure. We even have to pay for coal plants which HAVE been turned off (especially in states which do not produce coal) because of the ongoing contracts. We have coal plants which never have been turned on and the company which build it now tries to sue for money from the tax payer for all those Euros lost or at least to cover the costs to remove it again...and no those lignite-fired plants are not that easy to fire up/down. That's why they run through even in East Germany where there is more then enough renewable energy.
And why should I look at Frances power mix (calling it "mix" is ridiculous...)? It's dangerous remains of a dead technology. Germany can only hope Fessenheim will finally be turned off before it falls apart and Luxembourg can hope that Cattenom doesn't eradicate it completely one day. Meanwhile Germany is exporting energy and has to turn off renewables after they dropped nuclear. There is no way back to that and only because France doesn't care about their nuclear waste (especially if it disappears in Sewersk),doesn't make it less of a problem. Germany will have to deal with that for decades and millennia to come even without a single new plant. Nobody wants the shit back here and all over the world. You need to finally face the facts. Meanwhile renewables grow further and further.
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/service/agorameter/chart/p...