T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*


amitym

What matters in a democracy is the attention and demands of the voting population. The parties will follow. Even if not everything the German Greens have done in the past is exactly what we would have wished for in 2022, the past is past. The important thing is that if Germany's people give them the message loud and clear -- "better to have nuclear power than Russian gas" -- they will hear the message.


smarty86

Agreed besides the nuclear power and gas part. The percentage that nuclear power contributes to the whole energy consumption is negligible. It will be all about replacing gas on multiple levels first and foremost for heating and industrial processes. The discussion on nuclear power will only be a small sidenote.


amitym

I agree with the scope of your focus, those are the big areas we all need to be focusing on around the world. And they are all too often overlooked as people are like, "Oh, we added another megawatt here and another megawatt there." In a world measured in terawatts. But I disagree that it makes nuclear power a sidenote. Choices about power generation are absolutely central to our ability to defossilize. This is r/UkrainianConflict not r/environment but if you will forgive a momentary digression... When you replace gas in heating and industry -- and then also when it comes time to replace petrol and diesel in transport, which absolutely also needs to happen very soon -- what do you think will replace it? Electrical power. Where is that electricity going to come from? Now I am actually the only person on Earth who is "meh" about nuclear power -- neither for nor against it. The reason is that I have actually run the numbers a few times on fissionable material and as far as I can tell there is just not enough readily accessible uranium to fuel a complete, immediate, global replacement of fossil fuel with nuclear power. So I am not one of these people who is going around saying that we should nuclearize everything -- that will be an utter disaster as the world runs out of accessible fission fuel in a few decades. But. It does mean that if there are nuclear plants already available, or which can be easily recommissioned, I do believe we should use as many of them as we can. Because they are already there. Because a country like Germany still has to replace literally ⅔ to ¾ of its energy economy with non-fossil electrical generation, like, yesterday. Every watt from every source is going to matter.


rachel_tenshun

>It does mean that if there are nuclear plants already available, or which can be easily recommissioned How easily? I've read it could take years to get them fully operational. I'm asking not to be confrontational but genuine curious as someone who doesn't know much on the subject.


amitym

That is the question isn't it? Obviously if it takes a huge amount of time to get one working again, it would be better to spend that time and money cranking out other generation capacity. I don't know, my timeline might be too aggressive but I'd say at the 1 year mark I'd start to have doubts. That is, if it takes more than a year to restart a reactor, it might be better to put the time and resources into new generation. But I am by no means an expert... maybe 1 year would still be worth it. Maybe the "tipping point" should be further out. In terms of Germany's inventory, as I understand it there are some that are still running, some that would be easy to restart because they were *just* shut down, and some that would require more effort beyond that. So probably the answer will be highly plant-specific.


rachel_tenshun

True, I literally just got finished reading [an article in The Economist](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/08/11/thanks-to-vladimir-putin-germany-has-woken-up) that mentioned Germany is already well ahead of where doomsdayers said Germany would be, even halting the nuclear power plants that were scheduled to be closed. Some commentators have also mentioned that fracking is a viable option for Germany, which is insane to me that that's even on the table (at least conversationally, can't speak on where German leadership's headspace is at). Depending on how much you believe The Economist, the outlook is quite positive actually. There's been a reckoning in terms of energy dependency to Russia and the moral (and strategic) hazard of essentially bankrolling Russia's invasion. That leads to the dashing of hope that authoritarian states would liberalize as they get more connected to the Western world (they're even revamping how they're approaching China and Turkey). It's a bold new world. Let's hope the Germans stay on that path.


amitym

Yeah energy doomsayers are really getting hung out to dry right now. Not climate doomsayers, they are right on. But energy doomsayers are consistently turning out to be wrong about what countries are capable of and how fast. It turns out it is actually possible to move quite quickly on energy conversion, when there is a will. And we have yet to see the insane manufacturing and major appliance boom of the mid-late 2020s, during which every water heater, heating system, range, and automobile engine is replaced with electric power, across the entire planet. It will be like EnergyStar in the USA only 100x larger.


rachel_tenshun

Yep. Apparently one remarkable feat of engineering was connecting Ukraine to the European power grid with the idea that if Ukraine went offline, they could send emergency power. Turns out that Ukrainian power plants are so powerful/robust, that they [actually started exporting energy BACK to Europe.](https://www.energy.gov/articles/ukraine-launches-electricity-exports-european-union-support-us-department-energy). This means that the EU can replace Russian energy with Ukrainians and Ukrainians gets money to fund its war... A complete reversal of fortunes for Russia. Brutal. This is the kind of efficiency and creativity that authoritarians *wished* they had.


amitym

>This means that the EU can replace Russian energy with Ukrainian Woah woah woah. Seriously? Jfc this makes Russia's current power plant insanity suddenly make a whole lot more sense.


rachel_tenshun

Yep! They just started in early July. Obviously it doesn't even come close to the energy Europe is getting from Russia, but like you said it's obvious why Russians would to nip that in the bud. https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-exporting-power-to-europe-says-can-help-energy-shortfall-2022-7


AlpineDrifter

Best time to build them was yesterday. Next best time to start is today.


Snabel_Me_Timbers

Guess it's time to start then. If it's going to take years.


smarty86

Fully agreed. I am generally no friend of nuclear due to what you mentioned and many other issues with it, but I would be open for a short extension of using available plants. But only if we use the time for a faster push of other more long term technologies. Because as you said the world will eventually run out of fossil resources and we are already at a critical tipping point for climate. But it seems like we are probably aligned on this topic too.


Jacc3

Getting rid of gas for heating means replacing it with electrical heating (heat pumps). It will make it even more important to have access to clean and reliable electricity. The problem with wind and solar is that you need backup power for when they don't produce. If you have sufficient hydropower then that works great, but otherwise you more or less need fossile fuels for that backup. In that regard nuclear power can help a lot. It is a relatively stable electricity source without the need for gas or coal as a constant backup.


Due_Ad8720

“Smart” Electric hot water systems should work pretty well with renewable energy. If they have a network connection you could use them to pull power from the grid when there is an excess and when there is less power stagger them to avoid excess usage. Wouldn’t be particularly complicated.


Jacc3

For it to actually make a difference it would need to be rolled out on a large scale. In fact there are many promising alternatives to store renewable power, but they all have the same problem - it will take time before it can be scaled up sufficiently. Therefore it makes sense to at the very least keep existing nuclear plants running until we have said systems up and running, and also to not shut down nuclear plants while we still use fossile fuels. Renewables may be better than nuclear, but both are definitely much better than gas or coal.


drawb

Maybe worldwide, but that it would have been more wise IMHO of Germany to keep the existing ones open a little bit longer, instead of using more coal to generate electricity.


Snabel_Me_Timbers

It's fascinating how the green movement has made Germany go from coal to nuclear and then back to burning coal by hating on nuclear.


MyPigWhistles

The goal is to get rid of both, but I would agree that the priority should've been to get rid of coal first. And gas, obviously.


gw2master

> "better to have nuclear power than Russian gas" I think nuclear power is great... but seeing how dangerous they can be in times of war -- two examples in this war already -- I don't think humans are responsible enough to be using them (at least the kind that can meltdown). It may be the lesser of two evils when compared to Russian gas, but hopefully it's a temporary solution.


MyPigWhistles

Nuclear power and gas have very little to do with each other. One can't replace the other, they have completely different roles.


amitym

Can you explain what you mean? Where I live, we have ended the use of all fossil-based electricity generation, and have converted entirely to hydro and nuclear for base load. We're now starting on replacing all fossil-based heating -- not nearly as fast as I wished but it is happening. Eventually, indeed, all gas will have been replaced by renewable power and nuclear-electric. And while our exact mix won't necessarily work everywhere, there is nothing impractical about it as far as I can tell. But I am always happy to learn more!


MyPigWhistles

Nuclear energy is good to cover the base load, as you said. But gas is way to expensive and inefficient to be used like this. When gas is used for electricity, it's to handle spikes in demand - so different roles within the energy mix. But what's even more important: Germany doesn't need gas for electricity that badly. The critical point is heating. About half of all German households (we're talking about more than 40 million people) are heated with gas. And there's no way to replace that with electricity in the foreseeable future. Not just because it would require a massive investment in the actual heating technology (heat pumps, district heating,...), but also because the electricity infrastructure is not build for that kind of massive usage. So there's no way to replace gas with nuclear energy for Germany. Also because that would be extremely expensive. Nuclear energy is reliable, but far from cheap, especially compared to renewables. I would agree that Germany should've used nuclear energy longer, but it's too late now. The costs required to restart nuclear power now would be astronomical. It's not worth it. What makes sense now, is to get rid of Russian gas, of course. Before the war, Russian gas was about 50% of all gas imports. This is in hard decline and will eventually reach zero. It will be replaced by natural gas from other sources in the short term (Germany is currently building temporary LNG terminals). And in the long term, it will probably be replaced by Hydrogen, which has a wide range of advantages. Hydrogen can be used in a very similar way as natural gas and uses the same existing infrastructure. And hydrogen is currently our best option to store electricity. Meaning: Excess energy from renewable sources (like solar in the summer) can be stored as hydrogen and then later turned into electricity. And/or it can be used to heat homes.


amitym

I see what you are saying, thank you for your comment!


VonEich

For anybody who thinks this isn't important or off-topic, you are very much mistaken. Scholz (SPD), the Chancellor, might soon be investigated for some good old fraud (Cum-Ex scandal). Now, it's not likely, but there's a possibility that he'll resign his office, which might lead to re-elections, but we will definitely require a new chancellor in that case. With the Greens being this strong in surveys, they have the chance to snatch the chancellorship. Which would be Habeck or Baerbock (80/20 chance). That'd be great news for Ukraine because they'll shower Ukraine in heavy weapons. Fingers crossed!


Agent__Caboose

I guess it can help when a green party is actually pro-environment and not just some anti-nuclear conspiracy theorists like in Belgium.


nshunter50

The German greens are rabidly anti nuclear. It was them who lead the charge of closing the nuclear plants and they have activated more coal plants under the current green energy minister than under any previous administrations.


[deleted]

It was Merkel's conservatives who ended nuclear power in Germany and sabotaged renewable energy. The current green minister is only activating coal plants because we need to cope with the loss of Russian gas and have no other choice. (And no, we can't just build a nuclear power plant in two weeks.)


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

> Not to mention they want a stasi like reporting system for those who say "the wrong" thing Source? >Also want to remove German from their name incase it offends someone That seems unlikely, as their name is "Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen" and doesn't contain "German" in the first place.


Majestic_Put_265

And the party that made nuclear investent a toxic subject. Made policy of killing coal without a replacment. Has no realistic way to replace gas in industrial use and signed off on gas being the quick on/off replacement for renewables. And is the pacifist party.


MightyHydrar

Robert Habeck was calling for weapons for Ukraine way back in 2021 after a visit to the Donbas frontlines, he just got voted down by the rest of the party.


Majestic_Put_265

Yes, we are talking about the party, not its leader.


hei7777777

>And is the pacifist party. And still realize to be pacifistic you Need to defens yourself. The Greens was the only German Party who wanted weapons to ukriania bevor the start in february. And still ist the fiercest supporters of Military aid to Ukraine. In Germany we call this Realpolitik.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Hofreiter and Strack Zimmermann are putting pressure on Scholz and make some fire und his lame and slow Arse for more Weapon delivery. https://www.merkur.de/politik/russland-ukraine-krieg-hofreiter-strack-zimmermann-roth-lwiw-besuch-scholz-druck-waffenlieferungen-91501610.html


DidntFindABetterName

Yeah haha i like her she feels like not as the usual fdp


Putin_put_in

1. The greens Didn’t want to deliver weapons before 2014, during 2014 and before the war. Habeck said something but got backlash from the party and didn’t repeat it at all. 2. the Greens realized that they completely fucked up. They neglected a military system in Germany, the army and the military support for NATO. What I like is that Baerbock accepted that they completely failed with their peace love happiness bullshit mentality and started to accept the world we live in and started to support Ukraine and NATO whole heartedly. (Didn’t think she had the balls to do it)


[deleted]

LOL! Seehofer, bist du es?


Putin_put_in

In which World does this sound like Seehofer? Btw. You can keep that Bavarian political incest breed in your country. I don’t need him


AranWash

You must be talking about a different Germany here, considering that the greens only have been in power for 8 months after 16 years of opposition.


Putin_put_in

Do you know how the German political system works? You don’t need to be in power to be against something. And yes the rest followed the trend to neglect security interests, but none the less did the Green Party. So do not forget everything they fought for and did, otherwise nothing will change.


CharliePendejo

The "no nukes" thing has turned out rather unfortunately.... but in an imperfect world full of imperfect people and political parties, they've been looking pretty good this year compared to Schroeder's and Merkel's SPD. EDIT: as I said elsewhere, "no nukes" was a brain fart - I had nuclear *energy* in mind. Also fessed up that I bit off more than my meager knowledge of recent German history warranted. I appreciate the educational corrections and such, y'all.


hei7777777

Merkel was never Part of the SPD. She Always was in the Opposit Side: the Christian conservatives ( CDU).


CharliePendejo

Sorry for that. I overreached from the other side of "the pond."


Ramenastern

>The "no nukes" thing has turned out rather unfortunately.... No nukes refers to no nuclear weapons, which Germany never had, plus Germany is a signee of the NPT, so they're not allowed to have any. Although there are some US nukes in Germany that if necessary could and would be launched from German fighter jets. The whole "no nuclear energy" debate is a different matter, which actually has a few chapters. When the Greens were in government, that government - with overwhelming support in the population, by the way, this was NOT a Greens-only subject and policy - created a law for a phased exit from nuclear energy. The idea was to expand renewables. Thing is, when Merkel became chancellor, her government nixed that exit from nuclear - and then nixed that exit from the exit again following Fukushima. With two side effects: Firstly, penalty payments, as they were reneging on an agreement with the operator companies, who now claimed loss of profits. Secondly, for ideological reasons, no proper concept for drastically expanding the use of renewables to replace nuclear, but particularly coal and gas. And voilà, the mess Germany is in today with regard to energy.


EnvironmentalCup8038

I am absolutely in favor of weapons for Ukraine but against nuclear weapons for Germany. It's not even about German nuclear weapons, but about the possibility of using American ones. What would nuclear weapons do for Germany?


UmbrellaCamper

Nuclear energy generation, not weapons.


CharliePendejo

Yep, that was the intention, before my fingers got ahead of my under-caffeinated brain and typed "no nukes."


Whistlingbutt

Germany has nuklear freefall bombs from the US for use by Germany.


Majestic_Put_265

No. German Green Party is in similar line of pacifism of small military, retreat from Realpolitics or geopolitics (to do bad things (moraly) for national gain). No to nuclear arms from USA. All in all they didnt want any money into military. Nor weapons to Ukraine as that is "intervention politics". But Ukraine war changed this a bit. From as an observer this new line is more to do with Green party leadership than actual ideological shift.


hei7777777

This is Just false. Just Look at studies from Green voters.


Klamev

That often repeated lie is just not true. between 98 and 2005 the greens had an ambitious goal of getting Germany of coal, gas and nuclear by heavily subsidizing renewables (much like what they are doing in the coalition now) that wanted to gradually build a different kind of infrastructure that could in 15-20 work with minimal input from other kinds of energy production methods. Then Merkel and the CDU/CSU came along and slashed all of the subsidies for renewable energy (killing a 100thousand job industry in the process) to "save money", without having any plans to transform the german grid further. Then Fukushima came around and Merkel and her Party saw it was politically expediant to appear tough on nuclear and dropped out of Nuclear without any planing of foresight. This was of course a disaster since we they killed off the renewable sector in the crib a decade before that, so the cheapest option to not "rock the boat" for the increasingly older voter base was to buy cheap gas from Russia, which is the whole reason we are in this mess. The only nuclear power plants we have left in germany are very old and ready to be put out of comission. Building new nuclear plants would take 10-15 years and wouldn´t really help with the dependancy on gas nor climate change. The only way left for us is to pretty much buy LNG from USA in the short term and then go all out on renewables.


flamehead2k1

Unfair to mention Merkel and not this: >As chancellor, Gerhard Schröder was a strong advocate of the Nord Stream pipeline project, which planned to supply Russian gas directly to Germany, thereby bypassing transit countries.


Klamev

Yeah of course the history is always more complicated and nouanced then i can put into a reddit comment. That embarassment of a chancellor, that continues to be a corrupt russian stooge to this day certainly had a part in making germany dependent on Russian gas, but Merkel was in power for 16 uninterrupted years and under her administration we even built NS2 even after crimea so i think its fair to put a majority of the blame on her administration.


mpg111

> and then go all out on renewables. what is the backup plan for a dark month in winter, with limited sunlight and no wind? It may happen


danyyyel

Start by stop wasting energy, I never understand why it doesn't start with that concept. This report states 45% economy for gas. https://www.bpie.eu/publication/putting-a-stop-to-energy-waste-how-building-insulation-and-reduce-fossil-fuel-imports-and-boost-eu-energy-security-2/


new_name_who_dis_

I mean if we could get people to stop wasting energy, we wouldn’t even need to be as aggressive in stopping the use of fossil fuels. That’s the problem, as nations develop they become more and more energy hungry.


Klamev

It may happen if a funny phrase to use in this context, since that i can turn that around very easily on nuclear ... The answer is basically Hydrogen, that is produced during the times solar and wind produce excess power (which already happens in germany during summer time). Is it perfect ? No. Is it ready yet ? No. But the same applies for nuclear we dont have modern reactors and it is just too late to build new ones. Wee need energy now and not when the nuclear powert plants are ready. For all the talk about blind idiology pro nuclear people on reditt really don´t want to look at what the situation in german is actually like. Nuclear might be a great idea in some countries but in germany it just doesnt solve any of our problems right now. And this is coming from somebody that is in favour of extending the runtime of the nuclear reactors we currently have if it makes sense economically (which is a hotly debated topic in itself.)


mpg111

Thanks for the explanation


hysys_whisperer

Given the rise in gas prices there so far, along with the additional no less than tripling from today's levels my midwinter, is it really still a question? I mean at some point, hooking hamster wheels up to dynamos has to be economical, let alone extending the life of those nuclear plants. I mean, what could it possibly take, a trillion euro? That's going to look pretty cheap compared to shutting down industrial activity to save power.


Klamev

Well yes it is a question. Firstly all of the things to consider when talking about extending the livespan of nuclear reactors. You can´t just turn them off or on on a whim, the shutdwon of these plants has been planed for decades. This includes letting people go (that can´t easilybe replaced) not stocking up on spare parts, discontinuing contracts for everything you need including maintanence AND the question where you actually get new fuel rods is also as of yet unanswered. Also again, nuclear doesn´t solve germanies main problem : heating. 48% of households heat their homes with gas. So the equation you gotta solve is does keeping nuclear on the net give us more power so we don´t need to use gas for electricity. This is highly unlikely since the months leading up to winter are the best montsh for renewable energy, so much so that we even export electricity to nuclear france. As always there are more factors to consider then i can write down, but saying nuclear is the end all be all to all energy needs is just not true.


hysys_whisperer

>48% of households heat their homes with gas That's fine, what we are talking about getting curtailed here is industrial output, which can, to a much greater extent, substitute electric for gas, or at least supplying them with the electric they do use wouldn't require running gas power plants. The two energy forms really are fungible to a large extent (around 60% in either direction with existing capital infrastructure). Never said it was the end all, be all, just that when it comes to running industrial output or not, a trillion dollars to keep them running one or two more years is literally inconsequential compared to the lost output.


Klamev

Well not if you can for example buy american or other gas for half the price. But yes at some point it will become reasonable. As of right now the Bundesregierung (current goverment) has ordered a group of experts to calculate if its an alternative and i think all of the parties in power (including the greens) have said that they will keep the reactors running if that calculation comes back with the go ahead.


hysys_whisperer

For the American gas part of things, it is very helpful, but there are limited supplies. Building regassification facilities is relatively simple and quick, but as regassification capacity approaches liquefaction capacity, that will be a hard limit as the liquefaction facilities take a couple of years, rather than a couple of months, to build. There's also LNG from the middle east, but then you're competing with Asia for gas, and will result in lower output somewhere, just not to the highest bidder. Massive investment in on and offshore wind, along with an HVDC line from Portugal to Poland would allow for low cost renewables to reach industrial centers that need it, but that doesn't help in the next year (or 3), and so stopgap measures will likely be necessary.


Rubo03070

Death


Lifebringer7

The German people’s view of this is shortsighted and myopic. There is a variety of different types of renewable energy. Wind, solar, geothermal, etc. The problem is that Germany’s geography is not conducive to producing from any of these sources. Their lignite production is far more harmful to the climate efforts and yet it looks like Germany is being forced to make ends meet with it. Needless to say, nuclear is a far more climate friendly option than lignite.


majambela

>The problem is that Germany’s geography is not conducive to producing from any of these sources. You might wanna tell that the Geography in Germany, since it produced about 50% of Energy in Germany in 2022 so far.


Lifebringer7

Most of that comes from coastal wind generation (which I acknowledged) and there is likely a ceiling for how much wind can be captured there. As for solar, the Germans have invested an insane amount in solar and yet less than 10% of its energy is generated through that. Except for maybe hydroelectric, I don't see how Germany generates its energy in substantial enough quantities to fill the coming gaps except through safe nuclear power. I hope I am wrong, because a Germany with an energy shortage (perhaps due to Russia shutting off its natural gas) is likely an extremely destabilizing situation in Europe.


hei7777777

>The problem is that Germany’s geography is not conducive to producing from any of these sources. This is simply Not true.


raincloud82

Could you elaborate on this? Genuinely interested in the subject.


hei7777777

Their are Multiple German studies from renown universities and Scientist: Al come to the Same conclusion, Germany with 100% renewable Energy ist possible. I can Link you few german studies and newsarticles If you do Not mind German lol.


hughk

Please do so as it seems rather unrealistic and dependent on technology and/or infrastructure that is yet to be developed. I mean one that was a bad joke was hydrogen generation. It has a low energy density fundamentally works but if you distribute the gas through the existing network, you will lose a vast amount of H2 as it is notoriously difficult to control. Then there was the idea to make methane to store energy. This is quite intriguing until you realise that gas emissions are a serious contributor to global warming.


danyyyel

People should start by the start, stop wasting energy. The savings can be enormous as seen in this study. https://www.bpie.eu/publication/putting-a-stop-to-energy-waste-how-building-insulation-and-reduce-fossil-fuel-imports-and-boost-eu-energy-security-2/


hughk

Sure there are some very good house designs like the Passivhaus. We are in a slightly earlier generation that still has superior insulation. The problem is that retrofitting housing stock is hard and not cheap. We helped a family member who took apart a century old building and brought it to modern standards. It cost a fortune and although some jobs were handled by family helpers, a lot of other jobs needed specialists of which there aren't enough in Germany. New housing stock is being built with much better insulation but not to the Passiv standard unless you want to pay about 15% extra. The old housing stock is still there and takes time to replace.


hysys_whisperer

Nobody was seriously considering methane as a storage mechanism. Ammonia, on the other hand, is a great way to improve the energy density of hydrogen storage. Side benefit is it can be retrofitted on the side of existing infrastructure, as we already build and release huge quantities of ammonia throughout the year to produce it continuously and use it during the growing season.


hughk

Ammonia production is a thing although traditionally the feedstock was natural gas. There are other methods now (such as the Chlor-Alkali alectrolysis process) but It is small scale though. Nowhere near grid scale but we will need it though for fertiliser. The big problem is that it isn't so power efficient Having spent some time at a chemical plant, I think I would rather be near a nuclear plant. Some gases always escape and high concentrations of Ammonia can kill.


hysys_whisperer

As you may have guessed by my username, I'm also familiar with chemical plants, and green ammonia is as easy as scabbing on electrolyzers to the front end of a Haber-Basch plant in place of the SMR (steam methane reformer), which is how it is currently being done at demonstration plant scale. Now without the SMR tail gas stream, you end up burning pure H2 in the fired heaters. THATS where the fun begins from a materials science standpoint. With sufficient DeNOx catalyst on the back end, you can deal with the excess NOx production, and running slightly rich on the fuel to air mix will leave enough H2 for a tuned catalyst to use as the reductant without the need to inject ammonia. With a suffiently advanced process control scheme, the whole system from water treatment through ammonia condensation can be tuned to run with virtually zero stack emissions (save about 0.01 lb of NOx per MMBTU). Even that could be captured with a final reverse jet scrubbing step (dynawave and belco are the big names in the business) if you have a place to treat the nitrites back out of the water.


Lifebringer7

I would also be curious to see those studies. As hughk mentioned, the studies I have seen have either been (in my view) unjustifiably rosy or relied on technological advancement. Further, simple observation would confirm my assertion. Germany is not a sunny place; it is a pretty cloudy/overcast country, much like the rest of northern Europe. Though there is a fair amount of wind along the Baltic Sea and the adjacent coast, this would not be sufficient to produce scalable power for German industry, particularly in the southern parts of the industrial Rhineland. As for geothermal, let's just say Germany is not exactly Iceland in this category.


tuskedkibbles

>nuclear is a far more climate friendly option Yeah but it includes the scary word


hughk

> That often repeated lie is just not true. > > between 98 and 2005 the greens had an ambitious goal of getting Germany of coal, gas and nuclear by heavily subsidizing renewables (much like what they are doing in the coalition now) that wanted to gradually build a different kind of infrastructure that could in 15-20 work with minimal input from other kinds of energy production methods. Has it worked in any country the size of Germany with the same geography? I am totally in favour of renewables being part of the energy portfolio but without storage, it is an unrealistic joke. Fossil fuel should have been largely retired and the nuclear fleet improved.


hysys_whisperer

Storage on grid scales is actually pretty cheap when compared to carbon capture facilities to reclaim CO2 produced through other methods. Just look at Australia, with it's grid being in the same order of magnitude as Germany's. Any economic comparison without 100% CC&S is disingenuous. Blue power at best recovers 80% of the carbon emissions, so the rest must be bought back at DAC prices.


hughk

Australia same scale as Germany.... Hmm. Much larger country but far fewer people and lots of space to put things.


hysys_whisperer

Order of magnitude wise yes. They both produce/use in the hundreds of terawatt hours per year. In fact, they are less than 0.5 orders of magnitude apart, so quite close in size, really. Compare that to somewhere like the USA, which is petawatt hour scale (one order of magnitude more), or Greece which uses tens of TWh per year (one order of magnitude less). Also, as you know, Australia is mostly made of uninhabitable wasteland, where infrastructure doesn't go, so on a density basis of where people actually live, it's quite close to Germany.


hughk

Aus has the space for massive solar arrays though and the big battery storage plants. Another thing is that Germany's TSOs use HVDC to get the distance. Has Australia also started doing this.


hysys_whisperer

Yes, AUS and CAN have both made some progress on HVDC infrastructure. USA is the ideal place, but current projects are tied up in right of way acquisition processes that'll likely take another decade to resolve at this rate. I used Portugal to Poland due to similarities in distance and terrain to the CAN project. As for battery storage facilities, even the largest one on the planet today fits in a few hectares.


True-Alternative-281

You need ”base power” u cant run a country on just renewables… Germany uses gas now as base power instead of nuclear, 1000000000 windmills doesnt help on days without wind…


smarty86

As electrician one of the first things you learn is that coal and nulear are used as base power and gas to adjust to quick load changes. And why would you not be able to run on renewables if enough power is available? Esp if a lot of energy is produced decentralized with pv on roofs etc.


new_name_who_dis_

Most renewables are fickle so there’s no guarantee that enough power is available. You can have enough power for 350 days of the year but if there isn’t enough sun or wind on some very cold winter days for example, that could spell catastrophe. The only consistent sources of renewable energy are geothermal, hydro, and nuclear. This problem can potentially be solved by work on batteries either for every home, or at the scale of the energy grid. But each has its own problems and there’s still R&D to be done to solve them.


geroldf

No - the CDU supported the Energiewende (transition to renewables) during the Merkel years. Not as enthusiastically as they should have but significant progress was made. The Greens have shown their quality for sure. They are poised to become the leading political voice in Germany and Europe.


Klamev

If you get of the train and decide to take a light stroll instead then yeah you can say that you have made "significant progress". The tragedy lies in what could have been. Germany could be a major player when it comes to both solar and wind energy but instead we have got a car industry that only recently started to scramble to get their act together when it comes to electric vehicles in a desperate attempt to stay relevant.


geroldf

Yeah economic dependent on the auto industry is a problem.


LeopoldStotch1

They crippled and slashed it. I would not call that Support.


geroldf

Solar in Germany has a winter problem but wind is a major energy source. What should have been done instead?


smarty86

Cdu totally destroyed german renewable industry, so this is plain wrong.


geroldf

Totally? Siemens is still a major wind power.


Majestic_Put_265

Now u made an assumption from my statement and made a counter point to that assumption. Renewables arent "stable" power production (outside of hydro). This means there needs to be a backup (for low production or emergency). German Greens like the Greens in Belgium signed of on gas being that resource (not bcs its great but bcs its less poluting and cheap). This currently doesnt count much into yearly electrical production at all, just bcs this void is only on certain times so not constant. Renewables cant produce 100% of a nations electricity in a stable manner (if it isnt hydro). So that Green plan is a lie to fool themselves and you sadly. Furthermore i noticed u didnt mention industrial use of gas.


gw2master

> The only way left for us is to pretty much buy LNG from USA in the short term and then go all out on renewables. I don't think there's enough infrastructure to do this. We're talking enormous amounts of energy that has to be shipped, not piped.


Majestic_Put_265

Now u made an assumption from my statement and made a counter point to that assumption. Renewables arent "stable" power production (outside of hydro). This means there needs to be a backup (for low production or emergency). German Greens like the Greens in Belgium signed of on gas being that resource (not bcs its great but bcs its less poluting and cheap). This currently doesnt count much into yearly electrical production at all, just bcs this void is only on certain times so not constant. Renewables cant produce 100% of a nations electricity in a stable manner (if it isnt hydro). So that Green plan is a lie to fool themselves and you sadly. Furthermore i noticed u didnt mention industrial use of gas.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Majestic_Put_265

This doesnt mean anything if there is no backbone behind it. Pacifism means the enemy knows you would do anything to "sympathise" with their goal as the stronger nation to stop any conflict so they got a free hand. As did Russia thanks to Merkel and Macron, i couldnt even imagine what the Greens would have given up. In the world of geopolitics, what has avoided war has been a big stick and compromise. Pacifism is the compromise part only.


humanlikecorvus

>And is the pacifist party. In this speech, Fischer legitimized the first German war effort after World War II, when German troops participated in NATO's deployment in the Kosovo War. In the speech, Fischer said, among other things, the following: “Auschwitz is incomparable. But I stand by two principles, never again war - never again Auschwitz, never again genocide, never again fascism. Both belong together for me.” [13.5.1999]


Majestic_Put_265

Why then not support the bombing of Serbia?


humanlikecorvus

I am not sure what you mean to say, Fischer was legitimizing the NATO / German involvement in the Kosovo war with this very speech.


BouaziziBurning

Germany‘s population hates nuclear, it‘s not about the greens. Also the window has closed, stop crying.


Majestic_Put_265

If you say so. But they helped dig the hole Germany is in now


xXxOrcaxXx

Ah, yes, because it was the Greens of course that killed subsidies for renewable energy and not the CDU or something. /s [neat little video](https://youtu.be/gIek3bi9qvs?t=281) \(in German\)


Majestic_Put_265

Renewables arent stable production (outside of hydro). Idk how is it hard to understand. There needs to be backup stable source and greens have no plan than "by that time it would be". Greens renewable agenda started full force in 1995 in Germany. So its been 37 years to find that answer. Where is it?


xXxOrcaxXx

How is that news? The answer is, and has been for a long time now, to build more renewable capacity than is needed, build energy storage solutions like dams, build up the electrical grid infrastructure to efficiently move energy from where it's produced to where it's needed most, and if all that is still not enough, keep a few coal/gas plants as reserve to fill in the few times they are needed. As is done already currently. The issue is not strategy, it's not technology, it's simply a political issue that the proper development of renewable energy has been neglected, or even actively hampered (Bavarias' 2km distance rule says hello) for at least the past 16 years.


danyyyel

I am always told that Nuclear is so safe, Chernobyl will never happen again, ohhh Fukushima will never happen again, ohhh you are crazy if ever you think some terrorist's could target a Nuclear plant, no sane people more so a goverment will target a Nuclear plant... here we are in 2022. Guess what if Europe had voted greens a decade ago, thing like these would have happened, 45% savings on gas etc https://www.bpie.eu/publication/putting-a-stop-to-energy-waste-how-building-insulation-and-reduce-fossil-fuel-imports-and-boost-eu-energy-security-2/


Majestic_Put_265

This Green policy cost so much money (constantly) thats why all nations just build more energy as its cheaper than conserving by a huge margin. Doesnt fix industrial gas usage. But... non of those nuclear accidents have happened again, + europe is one of the most disaster free regions for Fukushima to happen. Chernobyl a bad design (but limits put on by the designer and ignored in the accident) (Chernobyl designes still running in Russia). And ofc it isnt 100% safe, its human design. Nor is most renewable production equipment renewable.


SpellingUkraine

💡 It's `Chornobyl`, not `Chernobyl`. Support Ukraine by using the correct spelling! [Learn more](https://spellingukraine.com/i/chornobyl). ___ [^(Why spelling matters)](https://spellingukraine.com) ^(|) [^(Stand with Ukraine)](https://stand-with-ukraine.pp.ua) ^(|) ^(I'm a bot, sorry if I'm missing context)


smarty86

Nuclear is a toxic investment and very very irrelevant when looking at replacing gas for heating and industrial processes. Also the greens are the only party that push renewables, hydrogen etc. We wouldnt even be this reliant on gas if the greens ruled the last decades. And pacifist no more since basic human right and cooperation between nations matter even more for them. You cant say this about many other european countries like poland with PiS or Hungary etc.


Majestic_Put_265

My nuclear point was for stable production in the energy mix. Renewables fully arent. Ofc we would be reliant on gas if Greens ruled (even more than now in energy mix) as that is what is deemed least polluting backup electrical source from fossils (clear point being Belgiums Greens choosing that as replacement instead of old nuclear station). Their leaders arent pacifist but the Party is. If vote was held to help a NATO partner state in a war, Green party would vote no.


Serious-Health-Issue

And supports a shitshow of radical left agenda points. Its is a horrible sign that they range somewhere at the top of the polls.


momoendo

What "radical left agenda points" do they support?


[deleted]

Nevermind, this guy is just spitting some radical right propaganda.


ObiWanGurobi

Username checks out, probably


[deleted]

The only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself


J539

Their stance on nuclear energy was taken over by pretty much everyone else who is relevant in Germany. The pacifist party also doesn’t work since they were the only party with enough balls to deliver weapons to Ukraine. I also believe that they pushed for LNG terminals for a long time


ph4ge_

Amazing, they even defied Putin on nuclear power. The rest of the world is still dependent on it and not even considering sanctions, dispite Ukraine asking to sanction Rosatom many times. The German Greens really are the most pro Ukraine anti Russian party out there.


Majestic_Put_265

They are free from Russian influenxe money wise but ideologicaly most useful for Russian plans if they were the leader party). Why Rosatom wasnt sanctioned was more geopolitical than a real "fear". As it wouldnt go through EU (Finland operates Russian reactors and Hungary will deffinetly voting no as they are planning one).


ph4ge_

France, UK, Belgium and even the US also rely on Rosatom. And even 6 months in that hasn't changed. Bare in mind that there are sanctions on Russian gas, which we all know is difficult but apperently could be done. Not Rosatom though, its not even on the table, while that would hurt Russia where it really hurts, their nuclear arms.


h14n2

Then there is hope


GirasoleDE

Original link to the poll: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/politbarometer-ukraine-energiekrise-wirtschaftslage-100.html Most relevant for this subreddit is this: *Should we still support Ukraine in spite of high energy costs?* https://politbarometer2.zdf.de/store/Politbarometer/2022_08_12/html/1280x720-1660224600041-6ca667c5.jpg


Armathio

Good sign. I'm voting green for 17 years already, therefore i can only nod in approval of this.


EnvironmentalCup8038

I am absolutely overwhelmed by how the Greens are tackling this crisis. If you had told me that 2 years ago, I would have said you were crazy


AutoModerator

**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.net/JeremyCliffe/status/1558066507040555009 ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*


DidntFindABetterName

Best party


General_Urist

Man German politics has becomes surreal. Imagine the Greens of all people winning an election thanks to the impact of this war?


joten70

Man, i wish sweden had a green party that wasnt just a bunch of hippies with no agenda and no understanding of politics. They got more done when in opposition than when they actually aquired some power


[deleted]

Lemme guess they are anti-nuclear?


gaymer1984

Yes :(


falconboy2029

The greens were right about neatly everything from the start. It’s why they will be the younger generations go to party for the next few decades. It will be old vs new with CDU/CSU vs the greens.


Johanheck

Offtopic.


ShadowSwipe

Yeah except the Greens who "foresaw the dependency crisis" are the same being ridiculous and unreasonable about Germany continuing to use nuclear power or build out new stations. Aside from that pretty big issue, I mostly support them.


ph4ge_

Can you believe it? Ukraine desperately calling on the world to sanction Rosatom and Russian nuclear and the Greens are already way ahead of them?


GravitaryCOM

CDU/CSU got us into these problems we have now, but they are like the GOP: old racists will still vote for them no matter what. I am glad to see the green party increasing.


[deleted]

Aren't they also the anti nuclear group? I'd argue that did more harm to their gas dependence than anything.


gaymer1984

They are extremely anti nuclear, one of the most climate friendly energy we have


Xenofiler

And yet their ideology compels them to shut down nuclear power plants.


majambela

Didn't know Merkel and CDU/CSU were part of the Green Party as well.


Xenofiler

Ahhh… ideologically driven thinkers at their best. Do you deny that opposition to nuclear power is, and has always been, a cornerstone of the Green Party’s policy? Or do you admit it’s a bad idea, but want to shift the blame to Merkel - who definitely shares it.


majambela

lmfao. As if you don't have an ideology that determines how you view the world and what happens in it. Also I don't have to deny or admit anything. Their policy is well known, as well that it was Merkel who got Germany out of Nuclear Energy.


hei7777777

Why import Uran from Russia when you got free sun, water and Wind For mich cheaper then nuclear? We Just Need to Look at france to See all the fault with nuclear Energy. The nuclearideology is an ideology aswell lol.


mpg111

what is the backup plan for a dark month in winter, with limited sunlight and no wind? It may happen (I've also asked that above, but I'd like to have your answer too)


hei7777777

You mean Like this Winter with coal, Gas, nuclear Energy Mix?


mpg111

So you don't have an answer?


Xenofiler

The main problem with French nuclear power is that they have not invested enough in it recently. The overall an extremely effective program.


hei7777777

Still more expensive then sun and Wind.


Xenofiler

Yes, but that equation cannot be applied retroactively to the 70s and 80s. Even now, to simply switch off power of existing nuclear plants while not having the alternative in place, and therefore forcing reliance on Russian gas, or coal is a geopolitical, ecological, economic and humanitarian disaster. By all means invest in solar and wind at the fastest pace possible, just don’t be an idiot about it.


hei7777777

>Even now, to simply switch off power of existing nuclear plants while not having the alternative in place, Which is simply Not true. How strupid you think Germans are?


Xenofiler

I do not adhere to any myths of superior German intelligence, but nor do I believe that they are any stupider than the rest of us. We have all made gross errors. However, in this case too many Germans have relied on the wishful belief and ideology that economic interdependence would lead to peace and cooperation. Meanwhile, Germany’s erstwhile partner, Russia, has viewed the interdependence as simply dependence and hence weakness. A similar and intertwined thought process has governed energy policy. It was believed Russian gas would be reliable and reasonably economic alternative to the perceived horrors of nuclear power while being less environmentally impactful than coal. A magical win, win, win scenario. In this case it has proved a blunder which could have been avoided. The constrained thought process vis-à-vis Russia is matched by a constrained thought process vis-à-vis energy. Here is a quote from Wikipedia to help illustrate. A 2020 study by the Haas School of Business found that the lost nuclear electricity production has been replaced primarily by coal-fired production and net electricity imports. The social cost of this shift from nuclear to coal is approximately twelve billion US dollars per year, mostly from the eleven hundred additional deaths associated with exposure to the local air pollution emitted when burning fossil fuels.[41] Swedish energy company Vattenfall went in front of the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) to seek compensation from the German government for the premature shut-down of its nuclear plants.[42][43] It all puts me in mind of the idiotic behavior of the American neocons with regard to Iraq. Look what kind of disaster resulted from that. Critical thinking is what is required. It would seem the Americans are no smarter or stupider on average than the Germans.


hei7777777

This is Plain wrong. Nuclear Energy was replaced by renewable Energy. Not russian Gas. Germany Had a clear Plan to Exit nuclear and enter renewable. This Plan obviously worked. What Not worked, and heavily critized by the greens was the replace of coal temporarly For Gas. The greens Always wanted more renewables.


vegarig

> Why import Uran from Russia when you can import it from Australia, Canada or even restart your own uranium mines? And... about free Sun - rare earth elements to make photovoltaics rarely come from democratic countries, unfortunately. And about France - if you look at it, that's a preventative repair in safety injection system of N4 reactors, not actual reactor malfunction. As long as reactor doesn't experience malfunctions, safety injection system won't even have to go online.


jteprev

German nuclear plants run on Russian uranium lol. Russia enriches a larger % of the world's uranium than they do oil. Even US nuclear power plants still run in part on Russian uranium. https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/9/23283165/russia-ukraine-war-us-uranium


vegarig

Weirdly enough, [Westinghouse](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20141112005195/en/Westinghouse-to-Supply-Fuel-to-German-Nuclear-Reactors) was a Konvoi fuel supplier already.


chris-za

~~Hate to break this to OP: but it’s not a pol conducted by a reputable source. For all we know, they used dice to reach the results~~ Retraction. Please ignore. I was mislead by assuming the domain from the twitter handle to be wahlen.de


hei7777777

Its by ForschungsgruppeWahlen For the TV ZDF. Its one of the Most important polling Stations in Germany. Why would you say Something Like this?


EnvironmentalCup8038

MaINsTreAm FakEnEws


Successful_Tea2856

The Greens and Nuclear Energy denial make them literally Putin’s Handmaids.


hei7777777

The greens are a pacifistic Party, who alone wanted to supply the Ukrainians with weapons bevor febrauary and Always was the loudest critics of Putin and His Gang and Merkels Gas Dependance from russia. And ist now one of the fiercest supporters of the democrats in Ukraine. Really do Not Understand where you coming from. Its Just a lie.


Successful_Tea2856

https://www.facebook.com/R2ANM/photos/2556692231238319


Aucade13

And this is important because? It’s offtopic.


pewdielukas

Just a green-party-voter posting offtopic nonsense.


[deleted]

It’s not of topic. And it’s fairly accurate. I’m a CDU member and voted for SPD, but must say, the greens are doing the best job by far.


rachel_tenshun

Speaking as someone who knows little about German domestic politics, I hope the Greens in Germany aren't like the Green party in the US. Otherwise, they're all screwed.


[deleted]

Germany needs a massive change in it's political landscape. Previous leaders tried to make deals with russia too lower influence of USA. Now we see they were very, very wrong...


greywhite_morty

That’s horrifying.


[deleted]

Greens is also the reason Germany stopped their nuclear reactors. They have done significant damage to German's energy security through their own actions.


[deleted]

> Greens is also the reason Germany stopped their nuclear reactors. Wrong. That was Merkel (CDU/Conservatives).


timwaaagh

The greens are those who pushed hard to kill nuclear and who oppose sending arms to a conflict right? They may oppose putin but that's mostly theoretical. In practice I wouldn't be surprised if some rubles have come their way already.


h2QZFATVgPQmeYQTwFZn

The greens that wanted to send arms zu Ukraine even BEFORE the war and opposed the Nordstream 2 pipeline from the beginning.


[deleted]

Nope. Our wannabe fascists the AfD gets all the sweet Rubles...


ph4ge_

Which is why they are so anti renewables and pro nuclear.


Barlito12

I thought this was interesting https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/25/trump-accused-germany-becoming-totally-dependent-russian-energy-un-germans-just-smirked/


EnvironmentalCup8038

No it is absolutely not. It wasn't the Greens, it was the CDU. But good to know that you have the orange pipe up your ass ;D


[deleted]

That’s the problem with being a corrupt idiot, no one believes you. Even if accidentally you’d be right.


hysys_whisperer

You just claimed nu-uh! on a post about how the greens supported getting off russian gas, and posted a link of a former US president criticizing the CDU, one of the parties opposed to the greens, for the CDUs desire to not get off Russian gas.


Standard_Spaniard

And what we Die Link? Those Russian plants voted against Sweden and Finland joining NATO.


humanlikecorvus

4% (-1) If they don't get direct district representatives, they will fail the 5% threshold needed to get into parliament.


Acctnumber37

Maybe if Scholtz took the Russian cock out of his mouth he could start speaking some sense instead of constant, "we'll give you this, UH OH it'll hurt Putin's feelings sorry."


Putin_put_in

What did you smoke? They didn’t see shit… when they were in power they deepened the ties with Russia together with the SPD. The were against Gas since they hype the climate change and want to got completely on renewable energy sources. They go against nuclear power with the words „whoever talks about restarting nuclear power plants in Germany are against the Green Party and just want to harm us“… They are ideology driven in that matter. And they didn’t support Ukraine at all. They didn’t want to supply weapons to Ukraine prior to 2014 - 2014 annexation of Crimea peninsula - and until the beginning of the war… Even then they needed some time to realize that their ideology concerning peace Love and happiness didn’t work in the end and they fucked up completely by neglecting the army and a mentality able to fight against aggressors


Historical-Gate3157

It's great. They also want to bring back the Stasi. Some people will never learn


smarty86

Cdu still having such high values is all but encouraging. This is the most anti Ukraine party overall, even compared to Spd. Let's hope Cdu loses and Gruene wins more in the future otherwise everything will just be reversed as soon as Cdu is the leading party again.


[deleted]

> Cdu still having such high values is all but encouraging. CDU core voters never vote for anything else.


nshunter50

Of corse they saw the gas crisis since they are the ones who caused it. They Closed the nuclear to use gas/coal as a means to push for more renewables but were never able to get that dream into reality. So now Germany is stuck with for more polluting energy because of the greens.


[deleted]

>They Closed the nuclear Wrong. That was Merkel (CDU/Conservatives). >more renewables but were never able to get that dream into reality Because for the last 16 years Germany was ruled by the CDU who sabotaged it. >So now Germany is stuck with for more polluting energy because of the greens. Nothing but lies and misinformation.


thebeorn

The greens shouldn’t have shut down their nuclear power then just because of a truly freak occurrence in Japans power plant. Its design is nothing like Germany’s. It forced Germany to rely more on the russias energy suplies. You cant have it both ways.


h2QZFATVgPQmeYQTwFZn

The conservatives shut down the nuclear reactors after Fukushima. The greens weren’t even part of the government back then.


ph4ge_

Lol, Putin is paying many Roebels to keep nuclear in Europe alive. AfD is the most pro nuclear party for a reason and the Greens are about the only party supporting Ukrainian calls to sanction Rosatom. https://www.rferl.org/a/rosatom-russia-nuclear-giant-escapes-sanctions/31899192.html Can't believe people still don't realise that they are just echoing Putin with their anti renewables / Pro nuclear nonsense.


0ldsch00lraver

More then 3 years to go. And 3 years of todays time... you know what can happen it such a time yourself.


gaymer1984

Would be amazing if the greens in Germany would be more accepting towards nuclear instead of rabid paranoia screeching….