CERN drafts plans to idle accelerators due to Europe’s energy crunch
swissinfo.ch
swissinfo.ch
It's a shame that the timing just had to coincide with the start of LHC Run 3, though. They only managed to generate around 5-6 months of data after 3 years of upgrades. I imagine that should still be enough to keep the scientists busy this Winter, though.
Also from my understanding most of the electricity that is generated for CERN is by nuclear power plants and since so many of those are currently under maintenance they may need the power they do have to supply export agreements etc.
https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/cross-border-electrici...
Similarly; during the potato famine Britain exported much of Irelands food crops.
Now, the UK is doing this to it's own population, much of it's Oil and Gas from the North see is being exported.
Ordinary people are getting hit with what will be some of the biggest prices rises in Europe, but the people who have been in charge for 12 years don't care.
The new prime minister says she will fix this, but she was a minister for 8 years in this government, and her solution is to keep all the energy company profits, and give people a stopgap that will be added onto their bills for the next 10 years.
With the new energy profits levy introduced in July, the headline tax rate for oil & gas profits is now 65%, which is some way off letting the energy companies keep their profits.
What the UK is doing is letting its energy companies make bank while prices are high, and taking a (temporarily enhanced) cut of that to fund a cost of living subsidy for consumers.
What I would like to know is how that handles amortization? Especially for renewables where the capex is huge and the opex small. Is that a before or after amortization number?
The prices quoted are absolutely crippling, though. I wonder if people would actually prefer a 1970s style rolling blackouts to having two thirds of small businesses go bankrupt.
So, that 65% tax on profits really isn't doing much, it's passed on to customers. Tax rises only make sense here with capped prices.
In the Netherlands we're also getting questions about why we're exporting so much gas we need ourselves. Well that's why. We've already sold it, it just hasn't been delivered yet.
I don't disagree that those in charge don't care, but that doesn't mean this problem is caused by exports...
1 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpay....
Once other EU LNG terminals come online, and as the UK needs more energy itself over winter, it stop exporting. Hopefully some more UK gas storage will come on line in the next few weeks as well, but probably not enough to make a significant difference to this winter's outlook: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-31/centrica-...
> solution is to keep all the energy company profits
Interesting way of taxing people outside of one's jurisdiction to subsidize local people.
https://home.cern/news/news/engineering/end-yets-awakening-h...
For power consumption but also for maintenance etc.
The root cause was to source your energy needs from an old enemy. And it seems that what made this happen was the green transition at home.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/france
Renewables and Nuclear make up about 50% of the total. It may very well grow, but there will be a time lag because French institutions are not known for their expedience.
The worst problem is that the French nuclear reactors have massive issues - over half their capacity is currently offline because of massive defects or barely producing due to a lack of cooling water [1]. That same drought also impacted Swiss nuclear plants [2] and Italian hydro power [3].
On top of that, the German gas peaker plants that used to be relatively cheap are now, thanks to the Russian invasion, extremely expensive - but since the French don't have an alternative, they pay absurd amounts of essentially government-funded money [4] on the spot markets, enough to make even the expensive gas peakers worth it, which in turn drives up the price for anyone else on the shared European electricity grid.
And to make the situation even worse than it already is, this is not just a spot market crisis. There is no indication at all that the situation in France will clear up any time soon - to the contrary, it will get exponentially worse in winter, as the majority of France uses electric heating - and the drought induced hydro crunch will need many months of constant rainfall to refill all the natural reservoirs before the plants can act at capacity again. This makes long-term electricity futures absurdly expensive as well, and the price hike of these futures hasn't even begun to reach electricity consumers yet.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32605337
[2] https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/baden-wuerttemberg/suedbaden/a...
[3] https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-scorching-summer-heat...
[4] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2022/07/28/energy...
Besides, even the largest US carriers of the Nimitz class barely reaches 200 MW of power (and the majority of it goes directly to the propellers via steam turbines, not via intermediate electrical systems). Your typical actual power plant however goes into the ~1000 MW/1GW and above region.
[1] https://gizmodo.com/that-time-a-canadian-town-derailed-a-die...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier#...
So France, with a single one.. and I'm sure it has better things to do
Unless you want them to surface their super stealthy and secret nuclear submarines that are in charge of nuclear dissuasion
Send an email to Macron though, I'm sure he'd like to hear about HN experts who want to use an air-carrier that develops less than 10% of the least powerful land based nuclear plant to power the grid...
Source?
Unfortunately there's really only one county on earth with a substantial aircraft carrier force.
They do make some electricity, well, by domestic standards it's a lot of electricity, but in terms of a country's need for electricity it's a drop in the bucket. The Ford is probably capable of making 125MW of electricity (details are classified) and is the only carrier of its type in service for a year or two yet. Older US carriers have smaller, less capable reactors and are less equipped to generate electricity from the steam.
How much is 125MW? Well, roughly this, one random mid-size wind farm: https://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/pages/black_law.aspx
Admittedly you decide when you get 125MW from your aircraft carrier, whereas the wind blows when it likes - and the carrier is portable, sort of, but that's just not very much juice and it's the only one of its kind in the world.
That's basically a drop in the ocean, not enough to even consider that "every little thing helps".
Anyone still thinking that this will ever reverse until the country is called Eastern Ukraine instead of Russia is in for a very rude awakening. There will be no more gas from Russia and the import capacity for other sources is already booked out.
To make it worse: when the winter is over, the crunch to refill the storage will begin again, and this time with no Russian capacity at all and to make it worse likely without (or with significantly reduced output from) the Dutch gas field in Groningen [1].
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/01/natural-gas-...
We have experience in delivering ourselves as hostages to Putin in exchange for cheap gas - the events following the 2014 invasion of the Krim should be more than enough proof of just how many spineless and corrupt "leaders" Europe has. I have no doubt that there are enough who will cave to the pressure of the streets should the situation escalate.
The call to open North Stream 2 is nothing more than Kremlin propaganda, and the only ones calling for it here in Germany are more-or-less plain Kremlin fifth column agents.
Besides: opening NS2 would be a symbolic caving before Putin - a signal that even invading a country for annexation gains, a no-no ever since WW2, is not too much of a crime for Europe to look away.
Yes, by removing Russia from Ukraine. No one thought of "normalising" relations with Nazi Germany's Hitler as my ancestors marched through Europe either.
What should we do? Send everything we reasonably can to Ukraine so that they can drive out Russia. And then send some more that they can get rid of Putin once and for all.
Yes they did - France and Britain attempted to appease Hitler for 5 years.
Of course the lesson to learn from that is exactly that appeasement doesn't work. Letting Hitler get away with annexing Czechoslovakia only emboldened him to go further.
Eventually enough has to be enough. I'd rather deal with the pain now than wait until Russia turns its attention to our own borders after it's finished with Ukraine.
One has also to acknowledge that the economic sanctions and the military support for Ukraine are also very hostile moves.
Indeed. It is a good start but shame we aren't doing more.
Seems to be true, yes: https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russias-oil-gas-reven...
Governments seem to be responding to this. This week, Russia is saying it will block all sales to any nation implementing the G7 proposed price cap on Russian gas. (Russia is free to not sell anything if they don't want to, of course).
However, thanks to this invasion, Russia now only has a few years remaining of such significant gas exports left, no matter what: the more time passes the more substitutes for Russian gas are installed, because it is unacceptable to NATO and EU nations for Russia to have the capacity to threaten them with reduced fuel supply.
There's also the question of what fraction of Russian export capacity to Europe would vanish in the hypothetical where the pipelines going though Ukrainian territory were destroyed for whatever reason (I can think of at least three scenarios leading to that).
Jamal is 33 billion m³ a year [1] and Soyuz 26 billion m³ [2], while each of the North Stream pipelines has 55 billion m³ capacity [3] - meaning that even in the case that both Jamal and Soyuz are irreparably destroyed for whatever reason, North Stream has more than enough capacity to take over. And that was the entire point why Ukraine, Austria and Poland were so opposed to the buildout of North Stream - had both been opened, Russia would have been able to completely cut out all the transit countries, leaving them completely at the mercy of Russia and Germany's notoriously Russia-amorous politicians.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamal%E2%80%93Europe_pipeline
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_transmission_syste...
At this point, the European natural gas market is sufficiently skewed by state involvement that "economics 101" is marginally more useful than astrology. Geopolitics 101 is what you should turn to for answers.
If they will keep it open at all, it will be only after some heavy concessions on the EU side.
I think that being pro-nuclear actually can make sense until there is enough renewable capacity installed. Its IMHO better than firing coal and generating more CO2. Also we already have nuclear waste, so we are already in a unfavorable situation and producing some more is probably the better tradeoff than ruining our climate. In my opinion, the safety of these power plants is, however, the biggest pain point that is not solved and will likely never be.
We still should work towards renewables so nuclear power can become a thing of the past.
There's no "massive defects" involved, it's a combination of 1. regular refueling maintenance which happens every summer; 2. some maintenance being delayed due to COVID-19 that was finally able to be scheduled this year; 3. a minor corrosion issue [1] being found with the welds in one of the newer plants, leading the power plant operator to stop all similar plants for safety reasons to be manually inspected.
> barely producing due to a lack of cooling water
There's plenty of cooling water, it's just warmer than usual upstream of some of the plants, and the plants have rules about not rejecting water above a certain temperature to the river in order to protect wildlife. These rules can be waived and in fact have been waived several times this summer and previous summers to continue producing at higher load -- it sucks for the fishes that get +1°C, but we're basically making a choice between warming up the rivers or warming up the planet with more CO2 emissions. This is indeed the same situation as in Beznau (CH, the article you linked), but absolutely not comparable to the problems with hydro in Italy that are actually due to lack of water. You can't waive a lack of water.
> no indication at all that the situation in France will clear up any time soon
(1) and (2) are absolutely going to clear up by winter. https://nuclear-monitor.fr/ shows the planned maintenance end dates. Just by the end of the month EDF is planning to have 11-12GW back online [2] (though their maintenance end dates tend to slip up by a few days in general). That leaves the 12 reactors (out of 56) impacted by (3). I suspect that if it actually comes to blackouts, (3) might also clear out, if we decide that the minor safety risk of the welding issues is less bad than the people actually dying due to lack of power. Unfortunately anything involving nuclear safety makes people freak out and require 100% reliability, even when it's absolutely irrational to do so and causes more human deaths.
[1] https://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Pages/20... [2] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbeQue0XkAAraJu?format=png&name=...
Minor? Your link is outdated. EDF was forced to prolong the shutdowns recently [1].
> (1) and (2) are absolutely going to clear up by winter.
It will, but the drought is likely to reappear next summer, which is why not just the spot electricity market is bananas but also the futures market. Additionally, there is the very real potential of further issues cropping up - the French plants are almost all extremely old [2]
> Unfortunately anything involving nuclear safety makes people freak out and require 100% reliability, even when it's absolutely irrational to do so and causes more human deaths.
Well, the problem with nuclear is that even a tiny fuck up has the potential to irradiate a large region for decades. We still can't eat game or shrooms in Bavaria without checking them for radiation levels, and that over 35 years after Chernobyl.
[1] https://www.france24.com/en/france/20220825-france-prolongs-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Fran...
Your link doesn't say anything about the severity of the issue, just the number of reactors it impacts (12, which is the same number I indicated).
> It will, but the drought is likely to reappear next summer
Sure, by then the welding issues are hopefully finally addressed (the plan is to have the maintenance done by January, but I strongly suspect this will slip by a few months) and then it's only the regular refueling which has been happening in summer for almost 50 years.
> which is why not just the spot electricity market is bananas but also the futures market
Well, no, that's due to a lack of electricity production capacity. Issues with the french nuclear fleet are part of that problem, but they're not all of that problem.
> even a tiny fuck up has the potential to irradiate a large region for decades
Absolutely not. Tiny fuckups happen all the time and have no consequence. Major fuckups happen once in a while and also have no consequence (TMI, for example). Huge fuckups have happened twice in the past 40 years, and only once with major irradiation consequences (Fukushima Daiichi has roughly no exclusion zone left at this point 11 years after the accident, the last town has been reopened earlier this year). The nuclear industry has learned from all these fuckups, from the tiniest ones to the catastrophic ones, and something like the issue at Chornobyl just cannot happen in France.
This is false, and not the reason for the (currently) low load factor of nuclear.
Most reactors are off for maintenance, like they are each year in autumn, in order to be ready for the peak demand that winter is. This year might be slightly worse, but it's not unusual at all.
There is also no lack of cooling water. There is only a law that was set many years ago that can be changed without any impact on the safety of the reactors, and this law is limiting only for a few reactors a few days each year. Very anecdotal.
So; while we do nothing to reduce energy usage (including turning lamps off), UK energy companies are making some of the biggest profits ever.
The unfortunate thing is that it was basically politically untenable for them not to do this. In the run up to the announcement (basically a u-turn) there was a steady drumbeat of news headlines and articles telling us that they were driving everyone into poverty by not capping energy rates, that it was destroying businesses and no-one could afford it, that the rest of Europe was doing this and only our incompetent leaders were failing to do so because they wanted us to freeze, and so on.
The average home owner probably won't be able to afford a changing their fridge, their washing machine, their tv, etc. It'll be a case of turn off the heating during winter.
https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index/comparisons
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/04/25/watt-dnt-...
Don't forget most mining is done in China, not Europe. And your first link mainly tries to show that Bitcoin consumption isn't a lot compared to other uses. So I don't really see the point.
Do you feel the same way when the "problem" is "people who want a say in government" or "student activists" or "Uyghurs" and "dealing" with it involves genocide? It's true that authoritarian countries can act decisively on real problems sometimes, when their own private politics align. But they far more regularly act "decisively" to make things worse, to crush freedoms, to cover up their own corruption, etc. It's not particularly admirable that once in a while they have good issues too.
That's why Democracy is the worst form of government excluding the alternatives. But it would be nice to have a democratic government that is also capable of acting decisively. I don't have any ideas how you'd do that, but it doesn't seem wrong to express the desire.
Democracy being swift like autocracy is basically impossible. Any pretense of democratic government action needs the discussion to happen, which takes lots of time, and this makes the action not swift.
Instead, the way western governments seem to approach these crises is that lawful process is violated by the government more or less, tough dubious measures are introduced more or less in the interest of the country, then some people protest, maybe lawsuits get filed, then justice system gets bogged down for years, and in some cases we get rulings that government broke the law. This usually changes nothing.
No, I dont admire them. That government has earned 0 respect, despite some hard numbers they can achieve (or not, who knows)
That's called "authoritarianism".
What when they take actions that you not only don’t support, but they impact you and your livelihood? With the same level of not using kids gloves?
Cryptocurrency is a cancerous scam that needs to die. But I want to give them same due process rights as any other activity.
This doesn't make sense. You want it to die, which is done via LAWS. Yet you complain about the laws passed by the Chinese government to kill it?
https://fortune.com/2022/01/04/crypto-banned-china-other-cou...
China isn't alone in banning it, and the US COULD ban it as well (similar to how gold was banned in the past).
They not only choose not to, but it is rapidly becoming "financialized" - Trading on the CME, and the major players on wall street looking to get into the game and collect their "rent".
Try protesting and legally challenging laws in both cases as infringing on your rights.
Normally people like to write "authoritarian communist government" to make it sound really bad.
So like the people of China want crypto banned, and the government does it and this is BAD.
whereas the rest of the world adds fuel to this ponzi scheme and this is good?
Tell us, when the US outlawed ownership of gold under executive order 6102 was this "authoritarian" because it is unclear that the people voted on it or asked for it?
I'd say expropriation of gold was authoritarian, i.e. undemocratic, because it was done by president, not Congress. US, with its strong president, is not a perfect democracy, powerful groups/president can do things that demos does not want.
That's not claiming it was a bad decision or policy. There were probably good reasons for that step, and it may have helped the country.
if you look carefully, you can see that based on PPP China has overtaken the US. You may also notice that the US is the one on the downtrend?
Most countries have had serious economic and financial issues over the last few years.
It seems to have worked out for them and eventually the cities became inhabited. But it was a huge gamble and here in the west we would call it a scam.
Of course one thing you can't fake is international currency when trading with other countries. But this is one thing China has more than enough of because we all pay them to make our goods.
Priorities. Bitcoin (as other POW based cryptocurrencies) waste a huge load of energy, with a single Bitcoin transaction that cost over US$100 of energy (old estimation when energy costs were a lot lower) and mining farms sprouting everywhere hosting thousands of nodes of which each one draws 2000-5000 Watts, just like one or two heaters, but kept on 24/7 with their fans pumping heat into the atmosphere. My point is that before looking at CERN, maybe, just maybe, they should look at other places where energy is wasted by turning it directly into money (and heat), also without creating businesses and jobs.
I don't think that's very doable though. Bitcoin ASICs only stay relevant for a short time, when they're surpassed by more efficient models, and no longer economically viable. I doubt the owners of these are willing to turn them off and let their investment expire without using them. Also, the increasing cost of electricity dramatically reduces that write-off period.
Besides that, CERN is mostly publicly funded and one huge consumer so the government has lots of control over them which they don't have over miners, which are also more fragmented between many different operators. And the research CERN do is not time critical.
So I still think it makes sense. CERN is one thing they can actually do without too much trouble and has a relatively large effect.
You're going to have to be more specific because right now I can't even figure out what you're trying to argue.