News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game by troupo on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @06:38AM (#38275649)
> Germany is currently in an unplanned surprise energy war with Russia

Ah yes. This war is the reason why 134 GW of renewable energy only produce ~20GW, and why Germany burns 20 GW of coal (by pure coincidence that's about as much as the capacity of all decommissioned reactors since 2011)

Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game by ceejayoz on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @06:43AM (#38275682)
The war is why coal specifically is being used to make up demand, yes.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/energy-crisis-fu...

The long term plan was always EU-wide energy projects to account for “its cloudy in Germany” scenarios. That plan isn’t complete.

Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game by troupo on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @07:00AM (#38275787)
> The war is why coal specifically is being used to make up demand, yes.

Again:

- is it war that makes renewables produce 15% of their installed capacity?

- is it war that made Germany shut down 20GW of nuclear power plants?

> That plan isn’t complete.

And it never will be complete. Because when it's cloudy in Germany, those clouds don't stop at Germany's borders. Literally see the comment above about Denmark.

Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game by ceejayoz on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @08:33AM (#38276419)
> is it war that makes renewables produce 15% of their installed capacity?

No form of power meets its theoretical "installed capacity". No one runs their nuclear, gas, coal, or oil plants at 100% 24/7/365 either. Yes, some days it's less windy; some days it's more cloudy. The dramatic fall in cost for new solar and wind capacity makes the solution pretty obvious; you build more to account.

> is it war that made Germany shut down 20GW of nuclear power plants?

It's war that makes Germany temporarily wish they hadn't.

> Because when it's cloudy in Germany, those clouds don't stop at Germany's borders.

They're unlikely to cover the entire EU's interconnected grid (and there's talk of generation in Morocco; https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/04/13/...). When the entire EU is covered in clouds, it's especially unlikely that there's no wind at the same time.

Given Germany's plan is 60% renewable generation by 2050, not 100%, they clearly understand the need for some flexible options for the tail ends of things.

Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game by troupo on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @12:12PM (#38279237)
> No form of power meets its theoretical "installed capacity".

And yet unlike renewables nuclear (and coal and gas etc.) are very close to that. And nuclear routinely runs close to its capacity, predictably.

> When the entire EU is covered in clouds, it's especially unlikely that there's no wind at the same time.

So each EU country has to overprovision enough solar and wind to potentially generate power for the rest of the EU countries? Case in point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38276778

Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game by ceejayoz on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @03:08PM (#38281731)
> And yet unlike renewables nuclear (and coal and gas etc.) are very close to that. And nuclear routinely runs close to its capacity, predictably.

Sure. Apples to oranges; they're not the same thing. Theoretical perfect-day max generation isn't how you provision solar/wind, that'd be stupid; the folks building out Germany's renewable efforts aren't stupid.

If you need a certain baseline of a certain renewable, you overprovision (and trade capacity with other areas and generation methods). Given the cost of new solar/wind capacity these days, that still makes perfect economic sense. Any long-term renewables plan is going to include energy storage and peaker plants of some kind to ensure a reliable grid on a national/continental scale.

Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game by troupo on Thursday November 16, 2023 @07:02AM (#38288503)
> If you need a certain baseline of a certain renewable, you overprovision

How much? Is 200% of required generation enough? Is 500%?

Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game by ceejayoz on Thursday November 16, 2023 @09:36AM (#38290007)
Again, you act like building power infrastructure is a "we're done!" scenario. It's like demanding to know how many more lines of code Linux will need to be finished.

Germany - and the rest of their interconnected EU grid - will continue to build out cheap, clean power for the forseeable future.

Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game by natmaka on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @09:23AM (#38276881)
We progress towards a mix of renewables (wind, solar...) deployed at continental scale ( https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... ) , backed up by V2G ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid ) and green hydrogen ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage ).