They might be dragged back to reality kicking and screaming, but even Germany starting to come around again on nuclear. They are extending the life of their 3 operating nuclear plants. The say it's only till April...my guess is it will be long-term.
While shutting down nuclear was always stupid from a climate lens, it's only 6% of their energy mix so there's reason think they can replace it by next winter. With the gas crunch potentially being worse next year though I doubt it
While shutting down nuclear was always stupid from a climate lens, it's only 6% of their energy mix so there's reason think they can replace it by next winter. With the gas crunch potentially being worse next year though I doubt it
With what? This is reliable baseload that needs to be replaced with reliable baseload, and they can't get gas from Russia....so coal?
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
While shutting down nuclear was always stupid from a climate lens, it's only 6% of their energy mix so there's reason think they can replace it by next winter. With the gas crunch potentially being worse next year though I doubt it
Lol, only 6%? In the worlds 4th largest economy, where they are desperate for any time of energy these days, that's pretty huge. Especially when there's no obvious replacement for it...apart from more coal and wood.
Also, why the hell would they want to replace it at all? Is that nuclear energy just too damn stable and efficient for them?
With what? This is reliable baseload that needs to be replaced with reliable baseload, and they can't get gas from Russia....so coal?
Yes 6% is not a ton. It wouldn't be easy, but their mix shifts by more than that yearly as the chart shows. I agree it's stupid because it would probably increase coal further but I'm simply saying the remaining plants closing wouldn't be catastrophic. Heck, their electricity consumption dropped by more than 6% in a year due to demand destruction and efficiencies. I simply don't think it's a big issue.
Again, ending nuclear was and continuing it is stupid. My point is simply that these last 3 are not a big part of the mix anymore and keeping them open or closing then ain't that much of a deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5
Lol, only 6%? In the worlds 4th largest economy, where they are desperate for any time of energy these days, that's pretty huge. Especially when there's no obvious replacement for it...apart from more coal and wood.
Also, why the hell would they want to replace it at all? Is that nuclear energy just too damn stable and efficient for them?
Why? I dunno. It is stupid. But "lol only 6%" is the same percentage regardless of size. Their ability to absorb a change by 6% in a year is well demonstrated in these charts. Their electricity consumption is dropping and their mix is constantly changing. It would be stupid, but not a big deal
It’s a big deal, SP, because German energy policy is THE shining example for climate activists globally. If they keep the Ger6 on, even begrudgingly, it is a massively important signal of reality to the rest of the unicorn fart sniffing hallucinators making decisions about our future EVERYWHERE ELSE. So yeah, it’s hella important.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
Yes 6% is not a ton. It wouldn't be easy, but their mix shifts by more than that yearly as the chart shows. I agree it's stupid because it would probably increase coal further but I'm simply saying the remaining plants closing wouldn't be catastrophic. Heck, their electricity consumption dropped by more than 6% in a year due to demand destruction and efficiencies. I simply don't think it's a big issue.
Again, ending nuclear was and continuing it is stupid. My point is simply that these last 3 are not a big part of the mix anymore and keeping them open or closing then ain't that much of a deal.
Why? I dunno. It is stupid. But "lol only 6%" is the same percentage regardless of size. Their ability to absorb a change by 6% in a year is well demonstrated in these charts. Their electricity consumption is dropping and their mix is constantly changing. It would be stupid, but not a big deal
Because 6% of a large economy impacts overall demand for alternatives to base load... If it was 6% of Luxemburg it would be a drop in the bucket. Its replacement would require fighting for more mcf of natural gas, more coal, etc.
Headlines like that can sound great, but they ignore important considerations. They are not the first to achieve net positive energy in the reaction itself, and much more than a small gain is required for viable energy production.
Nuclear fusion as an energy source is likely still decades away.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
Headlines like that can sound great, but they ignore important considerations. They are not the first to achieve net positive energy in the reaction itself, and much more than a small gain is required for viable energy production.
Nuclear fusion as an energy source is likely still decades away.
I believe it says exactly those words in the article.
So it makes sense to caution people about articles that sound too good to be true. For the record I'm not saying this one isn't, I'm just saying there's often more to a story than this type of article will typically present.
I just learned this week that Nuclear power is just a high tech way of generating steam which is how the power is generated. I obviously should have known this - but humorous that so much of our electricity is still just us finding different ways to boil water.
Yup, and it's like fossil fuels. They have all this energy locked up in them, and the best we have come up with to extract that is to make it go boom. Terribly inefficient.
Yup, and it's like fossil fuels. They have all this energy locked up in them, and the best we have come up with to extract that is to make it go boom. Terribly inefficient.
Solar is the only real different power source the rest are just turn a wheel near a magnet.
Just saw Neal Degrasse Tyson on fox business. He seemed really pumped, perhaps Mathgod should talk him down with a condescending contrarian phone call
I think it's bot a big deal, and not a big deal. Big deal for the science, not a big deal with regards to imminence of fusion as a viable energy source.
^^^ yep. Its a big deal and will likely lead to amazing leaps forward in energy production in the future but also likely does nothing for a long while.
And you can also expect O&G lobbyists/war rooms to push this as way better than currently available renewables to try to slow down development of solar/wind/geothermal, etc (mah baseline power!) so they can keep the usage of their products high for as long as possible.
I do wonder, if they get to a proven working design, if society just gives up on reducing carbon knowing this is around the corner. I know the many ways that isn't the right decision, but it will be a very tough fight to keep things like carbon taxes around.
I do wonder, if they get to a proven working design, if society just gives up on reducing carbon knowing this is around the corner. I know the many ways that isn't the right decision, but it will be a very tough fight to keep things like carbon taxes around.
Why would you do that though? You'd want to incentivize use of this and other non-carbon energy sources - unless you assume this is going to immediately be cheaper then other sources.
