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 :)
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?
> 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.
> 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.
> 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?
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.