I think it's quite silly to turn off nuclear power plants, rely on Russian gas, and sit in the cold when we could simply not do that.
For context[0], in 2013 (the year before Russia seized Crimea), Germany generated about 100 TWh of electricity from nuclear energy, and last year it was about 70 TWh. In that time, renewables have nearly doubled, from about 150 TWh to 240 TWh.
Of course, annualised figures don't account for the fact that there is less solar potential (and more heating demand) in the winter, but if the cost of importing non-Russian gas is cheaper than the cost of replacing ageing nuclear power stations or extending their design life, then the only concern is how much you are slowing down the race to net zero.
[0] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...
Germany doesn't have an LNG import terminal:
"The current large-scale LNG receiving countries in Europe are Belgium (one terminal), France (four terminals), Greece (one terminal), Italy (three terminals), Lithuania (one terminal), Malta (one terminal), the Netherlands (one terminal), Poland (one terminal), Portugal (one terminal), Spain (seven terminals – six operational), Turkey (four terminals) and the UK (three terminals). Collectively, their overall LNG capacity is 237 billion cubic metres (of gas) (bcm), which is sufficient to cover approximately 40% of Europe’s gas demand. Russia also has an LNG regasification terminal which is supplied entirely by Russian gas." [2]
[1] https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/production-and-exports/the-...
[2] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/lng-europe-2021-current...
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/energy/bloc-2...
I mostly see this type of writing in formal settings like contracts, or in cheques I think it's also done (but I've never seen a cheque so not sure). Now I have a chance to ask! Why do you write the same number twice? I always assumed it was to make reading easier with large numbers (not having to count groups of zeroes) or prevent writing errors (in formal contracts), but this is not a large number and HN has an edit system.
If nuclear is still working, demand for gas will be much lower hence lowering the dependency on Russia
(and while Russia is the biggest source, there's alternatives, and more will come up due to the conflict)
Source for all numbers: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/sankey/energy/sankey.htm...
16.03e6 TJ gas total
2.03e6 TJ used for electricity only
2.30e6 TJ used for electricity & heat, 60% of resulting (usable) energy is electricity
-> 1.37TJ
-> 3.40TJ of gas used for electricity, around 21%
Had other industrial nations acted like France in the 70s our problems, health wise, climate change wise and geopolitical would be about 1000x better.
- Less uranium is being produced than being consumed.
- The Russian sphere of influence is responsible for most uranium exports by far.
- Raise tsunami or hire incredibly incompetent operators to create nuclear reactor incident
- Wait for reactor containment vessel to crack open
- Collect hydrogen produced from hydrolysis and send it down the gas pipes
If that's true then it's completely unrealistic for heat pumps to become mainstream anytime soon.
We need to find alternative sources of natural gas, fast. Fracking may be a good choice at this point in time.
My idea is that augmenting with heat pumps is the most sensible step for most people. Such a system might provide a portion of the heat, and could be used for smaller heat zones (eg, some downstairs living room and/or bedroom) rather than the whole building.
My thought is that the advantage for augmenting is that it makes the geothermal setup much more affordable. You'll not end up needing to go super deep, or to install sophisticated insulation barriers.
That way, your geothermal setup can be pretty primitive.
"Households in England and Wales to be offered new £5,000 Government grant from April 2022 to help replace gas boilers with heat pumps."
Which is a long term win, as they won't need to import as much fossil fuels, and it helps meet climate targets. Any impact on Putin is merely a bonus.