€16bn buys you roughly half of a 1GW nuclear reactor these days. Thus, Germany spending €16bn on 10GW of gas capacity means getting ~20x as much capacity for the same money. And unlike nuclear, gas plants can be throttled properly, so it actually works well together with a large amount of renewables.
The fossil fuel expansion
It’s not actually a fossil expansion, because at the same time, coal plants are closing and renewables are being built. Renewables are also cheaper and thus prioritized in the grid. These new gas plants are essentially for backup only (no doubt their prospective owners would like to see them used more though).
Germany shut down its final three nuclear reactors last April, despite warnings that it would cause more fossil fuel to be burned.
And that didn’t happen. Instead the percentage of renewables in the grid has increased. In the past, inflexible nuclear plants meant that wind power often had to be curbed more often.
Last year, a report from Berlin’s own climate agency said the country was likely to miss its target of cutting greenhouse emissions by 65 percent by 2030.
And that’s not because of electrical energy generation, it’s because Germany is lagging in other sectors:
Mobility is not electrified enough and there’s not enough public transit.
Heating is not electrified enough.
Germany produces way too much beef and dairy products.
€16bn buys you roughly half of a 1GW nuclear reactor these days
Not necessarily. Slovenia is planning to get 1,6GW of power for that money. They included current experience (Hinkley and others) in account - but who knows.
When one looks at current state, Germany is pretty much on pollution side while France is always on the green side. Renewables can get you so far but at the same time force you to cover their power with gas/coal based power plants when sun isn’t shinning and wind isn’t blowing. Both of them are still generating plenty of CO2. Bottom line is that unless Germany comes out with plenty more of co2 free renewables and a huge energy storages (specially this is the problem, you can slap more solar panels easily), it will still emit plenty of CO2 no matter what.
Mobility is not electrified enough and there’s not enough public transit.
Heating is not electrified enough.
Yea, but not really. Heating is mostly used during winter when sun isn’t as its best. And cars are mostly being charged during the night, when sun isn’t shinning either. Perhaps if hydro and wind were enough, but I doubt it they can power such at scale energy demand. OTOH if there were nuclear energy backed, then yes.
Slovenia is planning to get 1,6GW of power for that money. They included current experience (Hinkley and others) in account - but who knows.
Planning to is doing a lot of work there. Hinkley Point wasn’t supposed to be a £50bn build either, same with Olkiluoto which I think cost around €30bn.
Adding to that, there are only two nations left that currently don’t totally suck at building reactors, and those are Russia and China. Do you really want your electricity generation to mortally depend on either?
Germany is pretty much on pollution side while France is always on the green side.
For one: Are you speaking about the graphs on Electricity Maps? Because their CO2e estimates suck, for various reasons. The major one is that they assume nuclear emissions to be 5g/kWh, when the scientific consensus is that they’re somewhere in the region of 90-150 g/kWh. There are differences but they’re probably not as big as Electricity Maps makes it seem.
For two: CO2e is not the only type of pollution there is. Nuclear waste is an issue too, and will likely be an issue for longer than humanity.
Renewables can get you so far but at the same time force you to cover their power with gas/coal based power plants when sun isn’t shinning and wind isn’t blowing.
Solar and wind will get you a large part of the way on their own and then you need to augment them. But no one says you need permanently augment them with gas/coal. Batteries are getting better, grids span more regions, and at some point you have temporary overcapacities that ideally connect to H2 generation. Admittedly, that final part is the wonkiest bit in the equation.
Right now, the major holdup in Germany is in fact the grid, where Germany is beholden to short-term regional interests that prevent a good solution long-term (essentially, southern Germany is lagging behind on wind energy and does not want to change that but still would like to keep its industry).
Heating is mostly used during winter when sun isn’t as its best.
Fortunately, if you compare monthly wind (top) and solar generation (bottom), it looks like this:
And cars are mostly being charged during the night, when sun isn’t shinning either.
Cars stand around for over 90% of a day on average, so all most people would need is a charger at work. And wind power obviously works throughout the night as well.
Perhaps if hydro and wind were enough, but I doubt it they can power such at scale energy demand
While hydro is unimportant in Germany domestically, it is built out well both in Scandinavia and in Alpine countries, allowing Germany to import. However, wind power already delivers a very significant amount of electricity—much more than solar in fact.
OTOH if there were nuclear energy backed, then yes.
Nuclear does not work as backup for renewables, at least old-school nuclear never did. Nuclear production graphs are usually a flat line, both for safety and for economics reasons. You could of course pair them with storage (either batteries or some kind of hwat storage), but then you’re making very expensive energy even more expensive.
€16bn buys you roughly half of a 1GW nuclear reactor these days. Thus, Germany spending €16bn on 10GW of gas capacity means getting ~20x as much capacity for the same money. And unlike nuclear, gas plants can be throttled properly, so it actually works well together with a large amount of renewables.
It’s not actually a fossil expansion, because at the same time, coal plants are closing and renewables are being built. Renewables are also cheaper and thus prioritized in the grid. These new gas plants are essentially for backup only (no doubt their prospective owners would like to see them used more though).
And that didn’t happen. Instead the percentage of renewables in the grid has increased. In the past, inflexible nuclear plants meant that wind power often had to be curbed more often.
And that’s not because of electrical energy generation, it’s because Germany is lagging in other sectors:
Not necessarily. Slovenia is planning to get 1,6GW of power for that money. They included current experience (Hinkley and others) in account - but who knows.
When one looks at current state, Germany is pretty much on pollution side while France is always on the green side. Renewables can get you so far but at the same time force you to cover their power with gas/coal based power plants when sun isn’t shinning and wind isn’t blowing. Both of them are still generating plenty of CO2. Bottom line is that unless Germany comes out with plenty more of co2 free renewables and a huge energy storages (specially this is the problem, you can slap more solar panels easily), it will still emit plenty of CO2 no matter what.
Yea, but not really. Heating is mostly used during winter when sun isn’t as its best. And cars are mostly being charged during the night, when sun isn’t shinning either. Perhaps if hydro and wind were enough, but I doubt it they can power such at scale energy demand. OTOH if there were nuclear energy backed, then yes.
Planning to is doing a lot of work there. Hinkley Point wasn’t supposed to be a £50bn build either, same with Olkiluoto which I think cost around €30bn.
Adding to that, there are only two nations left that currently don’t totally suck at building reactors, and those are Russia and China. Do you really want your electricity generation to mortally depend on either?
For one: Are you speaking about the graphs on Electricity Maps? Because their CO2e estimates suck, for various reasons. The major one is that they assume nuclear emissions to be 5g/kWh, when the scientific consensus is that they’re somewhere in the region of 90-150 g/kWh. There are differences but they’re probably not as big as Electricity Maps makes it seem.
For two: CO2e is not the only type of pollution there is. Nuclear waste is an issue too, and will likely be an issue for longer than humanity.
Solar and wind will get you a large part of the way on their own and then you need to augment them. But no one says you need permanently augment them with gas/coal. Batteries are getting better, grids span more regions, and at some point you have temporary overcapacities that ideally connect to H2 generation. Admittedly, that final part is the wonkiest bit in the equation.
Right now, the major holdup in Germany is in fact the grid, where Germany is beholden to short-term regional interests that prevent a good solution long-term (essentially, southern Germany is lagging behind on wind energy and does not want to change that but still would like to keep its industry).
Fortunately, if you compare monthly wind (top) and solar generation (bottom), it looks like this:
Cars stand around for over 90% of a day on average, so all most people would need is a charger at work. And wind power obviously works throughout the night as well.
While hydro is unimportant in Germany domestically, it is built out well both in Scandinavia and in Alpine countries, allowing Germany to import. However, wind power already delivers a very significant amount of electricity—much more than solar in fact.
Nuclear does not work as backup for renewables, at least old-school nuclear never did. Nuclear production graphs are usually a flat line, both for safety and for economics reasons. You could of course pair them with storage (either batteries or some kind of hwat storage), but then you’re making very expensive energy even more expensive.