News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by bad_user on Thursday December 22, 2016 @02:15AM (#13235505)
Ironic that after Germany shut down some nuclear plants they had, they started importing more energy from France, which has nuclear power plants near the borders with Germany.
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by sqeezy on Thursday December 22, 2016 @03:19AM (#13235784)
actually you are wrong.

germany is exporting way more as they are importing http://phasenpruefer.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Handels...

Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by grzm on Thursday December 22, 2016 @03:25AM (#13235811)
The image is from the German-language article "Stromexport Deutschlands erreicht immer neue Rekorde (aktualisiert)", 7 October 2015.

http://phasenpruefer.info/deutschlands-stromexporte-bricht-r...

English title courtesy of Google Translate: "Germany's electricity exports are constantly growing (updated)".

Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by JanezStupar on Thursday December 22, 2016 @04:12AM (#13235981)
Offcourse they are exporting - or more accurately, forcing the neighbours to deal with their green energy surpluses.

Context matters, a lot.

Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by philipkglass on Thursday December 22, 2016 @04:40AM (#13236101)
Both France and Germany are net electricity exporters on an annual basis.

But when France sends surplus nuclear electricity to its neighbors that's supposed to be a plus for nuclear technology. When Germany sends surplus renewable electricity to its neighbors that's supposed to be a minus for renewable technology. Both nuclear and renewable generation are rigid in their own ways; neither is as flexible as gas powered generation, but of course neither has the substantial fuel costs or emissions of gas powered generation either.

Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by evgen on Thursday December 22, 2016 @06:05AM (#13236464)
This is because in energy production timing matters. If you over-produce and dump your energy into our shared grid then I must throttle back my base load production, and then when the sun goes down and you do not have enough capacity to handle your needs and require me to increase my production so that you avoid brownouts then your energy production plan is flawed. If the only way you can make your energy production look acceptable is 'on an annual basis' then your plan is pushing the negative externalities onto your neighbors.
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by jessaustin on Thursday December 22, 2016 @06:42AM (#13236608)
Is the German army involved in this dastardly scheme? How else could one explain the atrocities of international power distribution that you describe?

Oh, right, there are contracts for all of this stuff. Power companies freely negotiate how they sell power to each other. "Externalities", try again.

Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by JanezStupar on Thursday December 22, 2016 @10:01AM (#13237618)
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/germanys-gree...

When they have their surpluses - they are actually paying their neighbors to take power from them. I.e. they are selling it at a negative rate.

When the renewables are offline - they are paying a premium for electricity from fossil fuels.

While Germany does indeed _produce_ stellar amounts of renewable energy. They are completely dependent on their own and neighbors fossil power production.

Thus they can claim that they are "exporting" renewables. The turth is that their renewables infrastructure and the retarded system of incentives they have set up - result in one of the most expensive electricity prices in the world: https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-elect...

Notice how the more renewables a country has - more expensive the electricity is.

Why? Because renewables are really not all that ecological as the activists would like to claim.

Simply because renewables cause more problems than they solve. And the surplus resources spent (or rather wasted) on "green" energy are also a form of energy. Thus one can argue that "green" energy is actually a net contributor to pollution - due to the aforementioned externalities.

Until we get insane amounts of storage (which will also pose a significant potential for pollution) - green energy industry is actually contributing to problems.

And while you are sarcastic - current state of affairs is not due to common sense or economics. But due to politics.

Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by ldp01 on Thursday December 22, 2016 @07:02AM (#13236679)
But it's a private market? the only people who should be suffering are those who own generation equipment which can't keep up with the higher rate of change of dispatch. E.g. Steam turbine operators.

I think your point has some merit if the net effect is higher power prices overall. Unfortunately I don't have this information...

Either way, the reality is that renewable technology is making the slow-ramping generators uneconomical. Even if you remove wind-farms from the supply side of the equation you still have roof-top solar eating into the demand side and creating a daily demand profile which requires gas/liquid fuel generators to match.

I've seen a recent example of a cool summer day (Australian) where the daily demand minimum actually occurred at mid-day due to coincidence of maximum roof-top solar generation and low air-conditioning use! Under this kind of scenario your nuclear/coal steam turbine will be running at a horrible financial loss...

Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by JanezStupar on Thursday December 22, 2016 @06:03AM (#13236458)
The point is that Germany is exporting energy when nobody needs it and is thus causing problems for the grid.

France exports energy when German solar cells and wind are in a dip.

My point is that German exports are peak surpluses that cause problems for the grid and French exports are on-demand because steel mills need to work when wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

But thank you for proving my point. Although you tried to obfuscate away the context.

Are you a renewables activist?

Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by philipkglass on Thursday December 22, 2016 @06:30AM (#13236566)
If "nobody needs it" then there will be no consumption in another country to take the German production. (Some production does actually get curtailed, never matched with consumption in Germany or in a connected country). It's not like Germans are smuggling waste-electricity past customs agents into another country. French reactors do very little "on-demand" adjustment either. You can see graphs here; look at the yearly ones: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/

French electricity trade with neighboring countries makes a exports make a jagged line. Fossils make a jagged line. Nuclear is the smoothest line of any of them: it does hardly anything on-demand. It does the same thing day after day. That is an advantage in certain ways (no worries about lost production on a windless night) but a disadvantage in others; you cannot save money/resources by stopping a reactor the way you can by stopping a gas turbine.

I am someone interested in post-fossil electricity. 15 years ago that meant I was primarily interested in nuclear power. Much to my surprise, the nuclear industry basically stalled and the renewable industry expanded scale and cut costs much faster than I thought possible. Following the change in the numbers, I am reading more about renewable technology than nuclear technology nowadays. That's where the most rapid improvements are coming from. I'll change my opinion again if the numbers change again and nuclear starts delivering aggressively on scale-up, costs-down. I'm interested only in numbers from real hardware, though. I've seen enough daydreams in the forms of PowerPoint and TED talks (from nuclear dreamers and renewable dreamers alike) to last me a lifetime.

Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by lispm on Thursday December 22, 2016 @03:41AM (#13235868)
Actually Germany is a net exporter of electricity.
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by evgen on Thursday December 22, 2016 @06:07AM (#13236476)
That relies upon other countries to handle its wide swings in production variance.
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by jerven on Thursday December 22, 2016 @06:47AM (#13236626)
Yes and france depends on other countries for its incapability to quickly vary production. In other words the nuclear fleet of France has a significantly higher capacity factor than the average demand of the french grid because it can push power to other countries. If that did not exist the french nuclear power would be a lot more expensive (uranium is not free!)

Power demands fluctuate as do power generation capabilities. If your generation is inflexible, as nuclear and solar both are at this time (economically speaking right now in this year). You need quick reaction power (e.g. gas peakers) or e.g. pumped hydro.

The funny thing is a wholly nuclear grid needs storage as much as a full solar+wind grid does. Of course in a mixed grid both techs can play to their strengths.

For example in Lazard's 10.0 LCOE analysis solar plus battery is 92 USD per Mwh, while Nuclear starts at $97. That is smack in the middle of LCOE coal costs!

But the solar, will have a lot less of regulatory and construction uncertainty! And a much smaller financial risk. As 3 years from project start to completion is normal. With most projects being set up in independent financial contracts of about 100mw nameplate to allow cancellation if performance or market do not materialize.

Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by lispm on Thursday December 22, 2016 @06:53AM (#13236641)
That's temporary. New powerlines to south Germany are being built, a new HVDC line to Norway is under construction.

Additionally we will see a lot of new ways to deal with surplus electricity. Surplus electricity in the North will grow over the next two decades. Power to gas, Power to Heat, etc. will be feasible then.

France has the same problem, but different. Demand varies + production varies. On many weekends they have surplus power from the nuclear plants. In summer and winter nuclear power may not be able to meet demand. In hot summer weeks, the nuclear power plants overheat the rivers. In cold winter weeks, the electrical heating of French consumers creates more demand than nuclear electricity is available. This problem may increase, since France has aging reactors, but new reactors are not coming online - maybe one EPR - but when? 2018? 2020? 2022?

Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by ketralnis on Thursday December 22, 2016 @03:05AM (#13235732)
If you believe that most of the cost is in disposing of waste and cleaning up a disaster, outsourcing that sounds like win/win
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by coldtea on Thursday December 22, 2016 @03:17AM (#13235777)
Yes, let's lower the cost of disposing of waste - with whatever means necessary, dump it into lakes if needed.
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by soebbing on Thursday December 22, 2016 @03:22AM (#13235802)
Do you have a source for that? A quick search seems to suggest the contrary: https://energytransition.org/2015/06/is-germany-reliant-on-f...
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by throwaway1892 on Thursday December 22, 2016 @03:32AM (#13235840)
Well, Germany replaced its nuclear power plants with Wind turbines + coal/gas thermic power plants.
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by zakk on Thursday December 22, 2016 @04:06AM (#13235954)
So increasing emissions. That's very bad.
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by damptowel on Thursday December 22, 2016 @05:07AM (#13236216)
I dont't get how people can choose possible local disaster (nuclear) over certain global disaster (co2 emmiting power generation). Not to mention deaths from air polution.

I'm all for solar and improved storage solutions, but we have something we know works and works right now, without uncertainties regarding constant baseload.

Worst of all are green parties everywhere wanting to shut down nuclear, resulting in the building of gas, coal, or paying for importing either those or nuclear. In which universe is that the green solution?

Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by eeZah7Ux on Thursday December 22, 2016 @07:34AM (#13236820)
If anything, nuclear disasters are 100x worse. Released CO2 will be decreased by being absorbed by vegetation and CO2 capture, once the world decreases its CO2 production.

Increases in atmospheric background radiation, on the other hand...