New coal plant Datteln 4 test runs disrupt German power prices
By the way, by 2022 Germany plans to kill 70 TWh zero-emissions supply from nuclear power. Guess what will replace it?
@kravietz hm, let's take a look at the data
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiemix#/media/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg
red is nuclear. below are fossils, above are renewables.
Just to give you an idea: 400 MW wind plant occupies ~70 km2.
To replace the current 7 GW from nuclear you'd need 17 such wind farms... except wind works at 30% on average due to intermittency, so you need 3x that which would require 3675 km2 so roughly area of 61x61 km2 of nothing but wind farms.
And then you would need some kind of storage (not yet existent).
the storage actually exists. what they do in Italy (not sure in other countries, i never worked in facilities there) is to use surplus of energy to pump water up to the higher dam. So they will produce energy with the same water when coming back from the dam.
https://it.qwe.wiki/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
unfortunately I cannot find an english link in the page, but I think google translator works pretty well on same page...
Pumped storage is well known and used in all countries that have some kind of mountains, including Germany where it can cover for around... 5% of the capacity. Perspectives for increase are dim as not many residents are willing to move to allow whole valleys to be flooded for new reservoirs :)
> nuclear plants better than dams
A dam occupies tens of square kilometers of land. A nuclear power plant occupies 0.1 km2.
> it cannot scale on demand
You're talking about 70's power plants. Modern nuclear power plants can scale their output in 20 minutes. Modern gas plants for comparison - 10 minutes.
> people protesting against nuclear power plants
People protest against nuclear power plants out of ignorance while protests against dams and wind farms are rational.
> A dam occupies tens of square kilometers of land. A nuclear power plant occupies 0.1 km2.
so basically you think people is against nuclear power because of soil consumption?
> You're talking about 70's power plants. Modern nuclear power plants can scale their output in 20 minutes. Modern gas plants for comparison - 10 minutes.
On powerpoint everything works. The problem is, to scale in 20 minutes you need a smart grid. In Italy is there since 2000. IN Germany there is nothing like that, as I noticed when I moved here. You are still using electromechanical counters, not connected to any communication network. Meaning, you send humans to read consumption, while in Italy consumption is sent over the network. I used to work in the software used to receive data.
But the point is, no power plant can scale in 20 minutes, just because it needs to know it must scale, and with no smart grid you cannot. You cannot take the measure on the plant itself, because the grid will take a lot to charge and discharge.
So yes, on powerpoint modern nuclear plants can scale in 20 minutes, IF there is a smart grid, IF the grid itself support discharging and charging back with the same slew rate.
I smell propaganda , being honest.
> People protest against nuclear power plants out of ignorance while protests against dams and wind farms are rational.
Yes, everone is equal, but someone is more equal. And of course, you decide who.
Sorry, I still smell propaganda here.
> people is against nuclear
Some people in some countries are against nuclear power as result of hype and FUD spread by anti-nuclear activists who created a completely false and black-and-white picture of radioactivity as being something unnatural and harmful.
As result of this anti-scientific fanaticism some countries - like Austria or Germany - are replacing their zero-emission nuclear power plants with high-emission fossil gas and coal plants.
> And of course, you decide who
I'm an IT guy and don't decide on anything energy-related.I have just the same right to speak about it as you. And when I see Greenpeace spreading information that is simply false from scientific and engineering point of view, I'm speaking about it. So can you. Prove me wrong.
> I smell propaganda , being honest
And you're right. There's plenty of propaganda out there. Just one example - European Greens spreading panic about "forest fires spreading radioactivity" when IAEA and a dozen of other scientific agencies monitoring Chernobyl confirm there's no increase in radioactivity. This is certainly propaganda, you're right in that.
> On powerpoint everything works.
This is is what you said in the first place:
> nuclear plant (...) cannot scale on demand
Your statement was false. Nuclear power plant *can* scale output.
What you are talking about *now* is the grid scaling, which applies equally to wind, solar, nuclear, gas or coal power plants.
oh, now you play on useless details.
no, they cannot scale in 20 minutes, once they are connected to a grid. which is the reason we build power plant. Unfortunately, in the whole planet, no known grid can allow that.
Sure, you say that an ISOLATED nuclear plant can scale in 20 minutes. fine. If it's isolated, it cannot even start, to be honest. Yes, it needs bootstrap from the network too. So ok, IF there was a power plant able to start DISCONNECTED from the grid, and then you were able to start one, then you could descale in 20 minutes. Unfortunately, no real grid can do that without entering protection state.
So yes, on powerpoint everything works. Reality is different. And this was my point.
So basically NO, it cannot scale in 20 minutes. It could having a whole grid allowing that, by example in Italy (the example I know) a single powerpolant could descale ~10GW in one hour. Which is VERY quick for the standards, because the project started after a huge blackout, so they set very high standards.
In Germany you have no way to do that, since there is no investment in the grid since 20 years. You don't descale at all, you are betting industry will absorb all, together with railways. This is why basically is very hard for you to stop railways , even with coronavirus.
So don't propose nuclear plants when your grid cannot support it. You need to cover 20 years of lack of investments before. Then you can start to have modern power plants.
Just for the record, this is why windmills and solar power aren't used for industry in germany. What german companies are doing to appear "100% okostrom" is to buy financial "green" assets from Norway and Sweden, to "green wash" non-green powerplants, also named as "emission trading".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
If you put a modern plant in the german"s obsolete grid, you will end in some overproduction issue, and then more dams would be needed. No smart grid, no modern powerplants. "Modern" means this too.
So basically, Germany can only keep gas and carbon for industry, plus windmills and sun for residential, unless germany renews the power grid , covering 20 years of gap.
For the record, I also worked in the same issue with a Dutch company which was doing the same as Italy, in the nederlands, but using GSM and SMS in counters: they only sent the lecture, every month, while in Italy each counter sends the consumption 24/7, so they have "half smart" grid.
To say germany is more or less alone in Europe with this 1980's-like power grid.
Forget putting "modern" powerplant in this grid. Is not digital enough for that. It only carries power, and a little data. Germany can only make power with current technologies, unless powerpoint proofs otherwise. (sarcasm here).
So I'm sorry, I know there is "modern" nuclear power, but it requires a "modern" power grid, which is not existing in Germany.
So you are discussing of unpractical things.
> Germany can only keep gas and carbon for industry
But you are certainly aware of the fact that they are building new coal and gas power plants right now as we speak, and their whole Energiewende is - today, in practical terms - by replacing 70 TWh of *existing* nuclear plants by gas?
> appear "100% okostrom"
This is precisely my point! They are claiming their Energiewende is "green"... and increasing their fossil gas imports at the same time!
sure they build new gas and coal plants. Design is very old, it comes from 1980, so they are very new but not very "modern", just because there is no digital grid.
Just for the record, after using a smart grid Italy stopped to import energy from france and switzerland because of optimization savings. They only need something in summer, because of air conditioning power nightmare.
But again, is not changing the power production you do the most of savings today. The big saving you can do is using a smart grid.
To give you a reference, domestic power in italy is limited to 3KWh per contract. Some (like me) used to have 4.5Kwh because of warming with heat pumps. Companies are allower 6Kwh, and 10Kwh or more is only for industry. And people is living pretty confortable.
In Germany you have 16KWh per contract. Wastes of power are everywhere. 10/12Kwh consumption for taking a shower. Seriously?
And you think this is an issue you can solve using another kind of power generation?
The issue is not in power generation, is in 1980's-like distribution grid and even worst model of consumption. germany can do NEW plants, but not MODERN plants, because they need a modern grid.
There is only one industrial country which has a worst power grid than Germany in the world, which is USA, but this is a completely different kind of energy-third-world. Yes, they are even worst, and they pay the price with lot of blackouts.
german grid is very stable because it is oversized for robustness, but you pay the price in summer, when electric trains are stopped in the middle of nowhere, to cover cities which are sucking all the power for air conditioning. With a smart grid this would not happen, by instance.
> this is an issue you can solve using another kind of power generation
I don't. This is what Greenpeace and German government is saying.
I'm saying they are stupid and anti-scientific by shutting down their nuclear reactors and replacing them with gas and coal when we need to decarbonize. And also for bullying other countries to get rid of zero-emission nuclear energy and buy the Nord Stream gas from Germany.
You just gave me yet another good argument about the grid.
sorry, those nuclear reactors were obsolete, Perhaps one of it was running with Thorium. Which seems a nice idea, but it has too little testing time to be very safe. Design was 1980.
Sure, you could upgrade , but then again the modern ones are in the need of data, then you need a smart grid, and Germany did not invested. So yes, shutting them down was due diligence.
not really true.
the dismantling of THTR-300 , is expected to start in 2027. It's part of the plan, even if the powerplant stopped to produce in the early '90s.
Here the full story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
The "dismantling plan" also covers this disaster.
And here we have another issue with nuclear, which is the long-term planning needed.
no.
What I was pointing is that is not true "germany is dismantling only 3rd generation with this umbrella-operation".
Actually this "dismantling operation" is cleaning lot of dust hidden under the carpet: this depleted fuel facility is also covered, and depleted fuel costs a shit load of money to dismantle.
If you want to contextualize in our discussion, to dismantle a end-of-life gas plant is WAY cheaper. And perhaps takes less.
Except an average gas plant outputs 490 gCO2eq/kWh and an average nuclear plant - 12.
unless you can’t deploy in germany the plant you have in mind.
Again: you are comparing what you have in facts with something you could have if this was a different planet.
Sure, with a perfect power grid and a perfect nuclear plant you can do nuclear power without CO2 pollution, adding some 20,000 years-long issue of depleted nuclear fuel.
So basically you kick the can: we are fixing the CO2 thing, and who cares if the next generation will have to deal with some tons of unmanageable nuclear waste. Which is what happened with CO2 in the last generation.
Even without mentioning the issue of depleted fuel , this nuclear plants only exist in your dreams. It would take ~15 years to have them, while improving the power grid, then it would work for 20 years, in 100% safety, then it takes 30 years to deplete, clean the location, and a shit load of money to deplete the fuel and scories.
Unless you mention the nuclear plants of your dreams, or the one you read about on Westinghouse’s powerpoint slides. They are built in weeks, they work for decades without any risk , or risk being constant, and you dismantle them in a few minutes.
I’m sure some technology like this exists on powerpoint.
On powerpoint, everything exists.
Your strategy in discussing is to focus on a single detail every time, like CO2, forgetting a problem like that has thousands of rationals. This way is only good for politics, not for reality.
> in 100% safety
Yes, most of the 400 nuclear reactors active today operate at 100% safety. And this is in spite of the fact that media will hype every single broken cable issue if it happens at a nuclear plant, even if totally unrelated to the reactor operations. Love hydro power? A single Banqiao dam failure in 1973 killed 230'000 people, some 80 people killed in Russia 10 years ago, 200 in Brazil... but you never heard about because it's not nuclear.
Want facts? Here:
> the issue of depleted fuel
What "issue" exactly? 96% of spent fuel is recycled back into MOX fuel. Here's video that shows the process exactly:
https://scitech.video/videos/watch/53184e23-6490-4158-a616-68af6afc0925
What is left? Not much - here's almost all high-level waste from Swiss nuclear power plants over ~50 years of operations. Yes, there's a guy in the middle.
> clean the location
Do you know how many years it takes to close a coal mine or recultivate a coal ash heaps?
The *whole* UK nuclear industry over 60 years left ~2000 m3 of high-nuclear waste.
That's roughly how much ash coal-powered power plant outputs IN A DAY!
And it's also slightly radioactive, it contains mercury, arsenic and other crap.
So yes, tell me about the huge cost of decomissioning :)
> Your strategy in discussing is to focus on a single detail every time
Absolutely, because in your every comment you clearly demonstrate a number of misconceptions that you believe in. I don't blame you because Greenpeace spent a lot of effort to spread these misconceptions.
> you are comparing what you have in facts with something you could have
Isn't that what the proponents of 100% renewable are doing all the time, except their strategy has 0% chance to work?
yes they are. If you protect your network , shutting it down (blackout) and you have a carbon powerplant, it just shuts down.
If you do the same with a nuclear plant, with no warning , you risk a disaster which will pollute Germany for decades.
Sure, also carbon and gas gives radioactive pollution (most of people is not aware coal contains "natural isotopes", which are falling-off all around the powerplant) , but you can protect the grid in case of blackout, and the powerplant will not explode.
With nuclear power without smart grid, if you have a real countrywide blackout, you can only pray each and every safety control works.
Sorry, nuclear power may be ok, but the modern one, and the modern one REQUIRES a smart grid to be safe.
> you risk a disaster which will pollute Germany for decades
You're again speaking about 50's reactors, none of which are in operation in Germany. Any 3rd and 4th generation nuclear power plant will shut down automatically, without human intervention and without power. If you need simple explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx_XoqXNtRM
Russia still has some RMBK reactors and since 1986 there were *zero* nuclear incidents. Chernonbyl wouldn't happen if operators did not force it.
> also carbon and gas gives radioactive pollution
You are 100% right but the only reason why you need to make this disclaimer here is because of Greenpeace propaganda that pictured radioactivity as something scary and unnatural.
Solar panels, wind turbine magnets, coal, oil and gas, uranium mining - all result in release of small amounts of radioactive elements. This is engineering and engineering is dirty at times.
I partially agree here.
I am not into green things. What I am saying is that the modern powergrids are going hybrids. "cause they can".
Meaning, on a good powergrid you can mix windmill, solar, nuclear,dams, gas and coal, making it cheap and sort-of-green.
The big mistake I see in all sides, is thinking like "one source for all".
Again, if you want to stop polluting a better solution would be:
1. EU-wide smart grid. This would be a huge impact. You have sun in winter in the south of europe. You have more wind in northern sea. And so, and so. You can save A LOT doing that. "A Lot" could mean two-digits numbers, even bigger than 20%. How much re-engineering in power production you need for the same figures?
2. Contrywide smart grids. Same here. In the summer, when air conditioners are going, a 3-hour cloudy bavaria is overproducing, while a hot NRW needs power. Currently, what happens is dams in Bavaria are fill of water because of overproduction and while NRW buys from France. Madness.
after you have a smart grid, it doesn't matters anymore if power is constant or not, you can compensate pretty easily. Computers will do it.
Focusing on the way you produce energy is not worth, IMHO.
> The big mistake I see in all sides, is thinking like "one source for all"
I don't know anyone in the pro-nuclear circles who would push for 100% nuclear. The idea is to have as much wind and solar as practically possible in each country *and* smart grid *and* nuclear for baseload (instead of gas/coal) *and* replace nuclear fission with fusion when it becomes feasible.
the costs are much bigger of doing savings using smart grids. This is the issue here.
Sure, you do 20% of power in Germany with nuclear power.
Or you save 20% with a smart grid.
so basically, the rational way is to decide which of two ways is cheaper and safer. and I would say, hardly you are in risk because of a smart grid.
There is little lack of energy today. What we lack, because of this private equity sucking all the money, is a modern distribution grid. As wide as we can.
Little cost. Quick break even. No added pollution. huge pollution saving. How you can beat this with nuclear power, at the same price?
> people is against nuclear power because of soil consumption
People are against wind and solar power because of land use, and their argument are rational.
Some people are against nuclear because of anti-scientific propaganda from Greenpeace whose arguments are not rational and make climate change worse.
Right now Greenpeace and EU Greens are the biggest friend of fossil industry.
the very problem is, is hard for me to translate. I was working to this project when I was in Italy, so all was in Italian.
Being honest, I'm not even sure numbers are still the same. By example I am not sure if the digital counters are still sending the instant consumption and phase at the same interval, or the rate of 10GW in the network is still the same.
It was the beginning of 20s...
What I am sure is Germany has nothing like that: they prefer to keep 1980 design, giving 16KW/h to each customer, up to 400V 3phase (not joking, I have at home) in some areas, but they still send people to read counters at home. Still mechanical counters.
And you can see the result every summer taking a train: people starts using air conditioning, the network doesn't scale or descale, so they react taking away power from the railways.
And your train keeps stuck in the middle of nowhere for hours.
The issue is, they didn't invested in power infrastructures in the last 20 years. To shut down nuclear plants was due diligence for Merkel, since you can't upgrade to modern ones, if you keep a non-digital power grid.
but a nuclear plant has exactly the same issues, with excess of energy instead of lack: it cannot scale on demand. So in a low demand moment, you have to pump water up some reservoir.
When Italy was planning nuclear power, there was put a reservoir there, like in Brasimone (i used to live 15 km from there). This is because you cannot easily descale nuclear power production, and you need to distribute the power grid. Overproduction and underproduction , under the grid's perspective, are both issues you need to solve with reservoirs (or other massive way to waste energy, in case of overproduction).
last but not least, is not clear to me why you keep in consideration population's will when it comes to dams and windmill, but you ignore people protesting against nuclear power plants.
What makes you think people would accept nuclear plants better than dams?