The energy thread [Archive] - Page 2 - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

Jimbuna

01-31-23, 06:52 AM

Oil tumbles 2% as Putin lets Russian energy companies decide pricing, exports

Investing.com -- The official stance of the Kremlin is that it will not adhere to the West’s price caps on Russian oil.

In reality though, President Vladimir Putin’s administration is allowing Russian oil companies to sell however many barrels at whatever price they can get.

This effectively means the companies can apply any discounts necessary to transact oil in their hold, with the G7’s price cap already setting a barrel of Russian Urals at between $25 or $35 below the global crude benchmark Brent.

Media headlines on Monday suggested disparities between Russian government policy and actual activity in the physical oil market. That drove crude prices lower again, after a dip on Friday that came on the back of a rally over two previous weeks.

New York-traded West Texas Intermediate, or WTI, crude for March settled down $1.78, or 2.2%, at $77.90 per barrel after a session low at $77.75.

London-traded Brent crude for March delivery was down $1.90, or 2.2%, to $84.50 per barrel by 14:36 ET (19:36 GMT). The session bottom was $84.33.

The slide came after the Russian government maintained that it “forbids oil exports that adhere to Western price caps,” according to a headline from Reuters.

That was, however, followed by two other news bulletins that said that “the Russian government has charged oil companies with overseeing contract wording” and that “the Russian government has not set a floor price for oil exports.”

“Decoded, the three messages mean the Russian government’s grandstanding against the West’s price caps remains, while it has opened the backdoor for its oil companies to do whatever is necessary to get their oil moving on the market,” said John Kilduff, partner at New York energy hedge fund Again Capital.

“This is a serious problem for the so-called cooperation within OPEC+, which is predicated on its principals Saudi Arabia and Russia keeping exports as low as possible and prices supported at the higher end.”

The headlines on Russia came ahead of Wednesday’s meeting of OPEC+, which groups the 13-member Saudi-led Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries with Russia and nine other oil producing allies.

OPEC+ is expected to leave its production targets unchanged from December levels at the meeting. Oil bulls typically look to OPEC+ to announce cuts when the group meets. Sans that, crude prices are likely to dip.

Since the G-7 price cap of $60 on a barrel of Russian oil came into force on Dec. 5, it has added to the woes of OPEC+ in trying to rally a market already depressed by mixed signals over demand from top importer China and fears of an impending recession in the United States and Europe.

While the Putin administration has publicly balked at the G7 price cap, it hasn’t really been able to fight it.

And because they’re getting less money for their oil now, the Russians are also shipping out more barrels these days than the Saudis wish them to. And those barrels are primarily going to two destinations — India and China, which are the only two nations the United States allows to buy sanctioned Russian oil without questions.

The increased exports from Russia are not only messing up OPEC+’s aim of keeping production tight but also hurting the Saudis as India and China were also the largest markets in Asia for Riyadh’s state oil company Saudi Aramco (TADAWUL:2222).

India bought an average of 1.2 million barrels of Russian Urals a day in December, which was 33 times more than a year earlier and 29% more than in November. Discounts for Urals at Russia's western ports for sale to India under some deals widened to $32-$35 per barrel when freight wasn’t included, according to a Reuters report from Dec. 14.

Another Reuters report said China paid the deepest discounts in months for Russian ESPO crude oil in December, amid weak demand and poor refining margins. ESPO is a grade exported from the Russian Far East port of Kozmino and Chinese refiners are dominant clients for this.

If that wasn’t enough, a Reuters report from last Friday said Russia’s oil loadings from its Baltic ports were set to rise by 50% in January from December levels. Russia loaded 4.7M tonnes of Urals and KEBCO from Baltic ports in December. The January surge comes as sellers try to meet strong demand in Asia and benefit from rising global energy prices, the report said.

The Saudis, on their part, have slashed pricing on their own Arab Light crude to Asia to try and stay competitive amid the ruthless undercutting by the Russians — who are supposed to be their closest ally within OPEC+.

Riyadh is also attempting to talk to Moscow, with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud telling a Bloomberg interview earlier this month that the kingdom was “engaging with Russia over keeping oil prices relatively stable.”

“We have a very important partnership with Russia on OPEC+…that has delivered stability [to] the oil market…we are gonna engage with Russia on that,” Al-Saud said.

But Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak has told state news agency Tass that Moscow “is not discussing with OPEC+ possibility of its oil production cuts”. He was responding to a question on whether the Kremlin will reduce oil output to demand a higher price for its Urals crude as the G7’s $60 cap allows buyers to lowball the Russian product versus rival crude benchmarks such as the U.K. Brent, U.S. West Texas Intermediate, the Arab Light and Dubai Light.

"No, we are not discussing such issues," Novak said.

His response basically showed the two nations having different ideas on what they need to do at this point: The Russians need to sell as much oil as possible and at whatever price they could. The Saudis want to keep Arab Light competitive against Urals but not flood the market; hence their plan for a rollover in December production targets.

The G7 will have two more price caps coming into force on Feb. 5 on refined oil products out of Russia. No one knows what effect those will have on the Kremlin.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/oil-tumbles-2-as-putin-lets-russian-energy-companies-decide-pricing-exports/ar-AA16V9AG?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=61d80508eaea459c884d14cc4ee41d2e

Jimbuna

02-02-23, 07:42 AM

Shell reports highest profits in 115 years

Oil and gas giant Shell has reported record annual profits after energy prices surged last year following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Profits hit $39.9bn (£32.2bn) in 2022, double last year's total and the highest in its 115-year history.

Energy firms have seen record earnings since oil and gas prices jumped following the invasion of Ukraine.

It has heaped pressure on firms to pay more tax as households struggle with rising bills.

Opposition parties said Shell's profits were "outrageous" and the government was letting energy firms "off the hook". They also called for the planned increase in the energy price cap due in April to be scrapped.

Energy prices had begun to climb after the end of Covid lockdowns but rose sharply in March last year after the events in Ukraine led to worries over supplies.

The price of Brent crude oil reached nearly $128 a barrel following the invasion, but has since fallen back to about $83. Gas prices also spiked but have come down from their highs.

It has led to bumper profits for energy companies, but also fuelled a rise in energy bills for households and businesses.

Last year, the UK government introduced a windfall tax - called the Energy Profits Levy - on the "extraordinary" earnings of firms to help fund its scheme to lower gas and electricity bills.

Despite the move, Shell had said it did not expect to pay any UK tax this year as it is allowed to offset decommissioning costs and investments in UK projects against any UK profits.

However, on Thursday it said was due to pay $134m in UK windfall tax for 2022, and expected to pay more than $500m in 2023.

This may look small compared to its profits but Shell only derives around 5% of its revenue from the UK - the rest is made and taxed in other jurisdictions.

However, critics point out that Shell is a UK-headquartered company and has been paying more to its shareholders that it spends on renewable investments.

The government is currently limiting gas and electricity bills so a household using a typical amount of energy will pay £2,500 a year.

However, that is still more than twice what it was before Russia's invasion, and the threshold is due to rise to £3,000 in April.

The government's windfall tax only applies to profits made from extracting UK oil and gas. The rate was originally set at 25%, but has now been increased to 35%.

Oil and gas firms also pay 30% corporation tax on their profits as well as a supplementary 10% rate. Along with the new windfall tax, that takes their total tax rate to 75%.

However, companies are able to reduce the amount of tax they pay by factoring in losses or spending on things like decommissioning North Sea oil platforms. It has meant that in recent years, energy giants such as BP and Shell have paid little or no tax in the UK.

The annual profit figure far surpassed Shell's previous record set in 2008. The company also said it had paid out $6.3bn to its shareholders in the final three months of 2022, and that it planned another $4bn share buyback.

Shell chief executive Wael Sawan said that these are "incredibly difficult times - we are seeing inflation rampant around the world" but that Shell was playing its part by investing in renewable technologies.

Its chief financial officer Sinead Gorman added that Shell had paid $13bn in taxes globally in 2022. It had also accounted for 11% of liquified natural gas shipments into the EU, easing pressure on supplies caused by sanctions on Russia.

Labour's shadow climate change secretary Ed Miliband said: "As the British people face an energy price hike of 40% in April, the government is letting the fossil fuel companies making bumper profits off the hook with their refusal to implement a proper windfall tax.

"Labour would stop the energy price cap going up in April, because it is only right that the companies making unexpected windfall profits from the proceeds of war pay their fair share."

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said: "No company should be making these kind of outrageous profits out of Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

"They must tax the oil and gas companies properly and at the very least ensure that energy bills don't rise yet again in April."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64489147

Jimbuna

02-06-23, 05:58 AM

UK forks out £60bn for gas imports in four months as ‘cheapest' energy source wasted

Britain spent £60billion on gas imports in just four months despite there being enough winds to power 1.2 million homes daily. This source, hailed as one of the 'cheapest' energy generators, was wasted due to a lack of storage sites. With energy prices surging to astronomical highs due to Russia's war in Ukraine and supply chain issues, the price of imports of foreign oil and gas soared over the last year. This has had a major knock-on impact on billpayers who are forking out more than ever before for energy costs.

And in 2021, the UK imported almost £20billion worth of gas, a 312 percent rise from 2020's £4.8billion, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics.

But Britain may not have needed to spend such a staggering amount of cash on these imports if it had built more renewable energy storage sites, analysis from global strategy consultancy Stonehaven has found.

At its current cost of £60 per MWh, renewables are the cheapest form of electricity. Meanwhile, the cost of importing gas for electricity peaked above £3,000/MWh last year.

Meanwhile, windy conditions between October 2022 and January 2023 resulted in a record 82.5 percent of Britain's electricity that was produced via low-carbon power from December 27 to January 9. However, the cheap power generation was not reflected on household bills.

This is partially because the UK also experienced a 'dunkelflaute', a German term used to refer to cold, still days when the country experienced little to no wind but still needed energy for heating.

When wind is generating vast amounts of excess energy, not all of it needs to be delivered to the grid immediately to power homes. Without somewhere to store that excess energy, it has nowhere to go and is instead wasted.

Meanwhile, wind energy is also intermittent, meaning turbines won't generate any electricity when the wind does not blow.

This is why energy storage is vital as it could save some of that excess energy produced on days with strong wind and send it back to the grid for use on days when the wind isn't blowing.

In fact, the lack of renewable energy storage meant as much as 1.35 TWh of wind during peak conditions was lost during the period with windy conditions, which could have helped to power around 1.2 million homes every day. Instead, the UK had to rely on £60billion-worth of foreign imports of gas, the analysis commissioned by Highview Power found.

Highview Power CEO, Rupert Pearce said: "Renewable energy storage is essential to powering a cleaner, cheaper, always-on Britain.

"By capturing and storing excess renewable energy, which is now the UK's cheapest, most secure and most abundant form of energy, we can power Britain's homes and businesses with renewable green energy, taking millions of tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere and ending a culture of reliance on expensive foreign imports.

"Long-duration energy storage can underpin the UK's world-leading position on renewables, accelerate the energy transition, create thousands of British clean energy jobs and skills, cut UK consumer bills and reduce our dependence on foreign gas.

"Building renewables storage infrastructure across the UK would also provide a welcome boost for clean growth in the near term, by positioning UK businesses to empower a renewables-led energy transition globally.'

Highview Power is planning to build at least 20 grid-scale renewable energy storage sites across the UK over the next decade in a £10 billion capital investment programme.

As Britain leads the charge internationally in the offshore wind energy sector, there is enormous potential to develop effective energy storage across the country to help drive down costs.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/uk-forks-out-60bn-for-gas-imports-in-four-months-as-cheapest-energy-source-wasted/ar-AA179PtX?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=d95b342d28b44ae4ba51fb29533184b5

Skybird

02-07-23, 12:37 PM

Die Welt:
-----------------------
One sentence turns the German energy transition narrative on its head

The British energy company BP is considered a pioneer in the oil industry when it comes to climate protection. But now, in a surprise move, CEO Looney is scaling back CO₂ targets. He then openly disputes an article of faith in the German ecoscene.

Money doesn't make you happy, but it does make you independent: With a fabulous annual profit of almost $28 billion behind him, the head of British energy giant BP apparently feels strong enough to announce unpleasant truths to the world.

"After the past three years, it's clearer than ever," Bernard Looney declared at the financial statement presentation: "The world wants and needs energy that is secure, affordable and also more climate-friendly - which together is known as the energy trilemma."

What's remarkable about this sentence is not just the order of attributes Looney chose: Safe, Affordable, and Climate Friendly. What is most remarkable is that Looney recognizes neither win-win-win nor consonance in these terms, but - on the contrary - a trilemma.

Its little brother, the dilemma, is, according to the Duden definition, a "predicament" and a situation in which one must or should choose between "two equally difficult or unpleasant things." According to this definition, a trilemma is a situation in which one has to choose between three difficult things.

Looney's phrase about the energy trilemma sounds harmless, but it turns the energy transition narrative commonly used in Germany on its head without further ado. This is because it is based on the assumption that the ecological transformation in no way leads to a predicament in which one has to choose between various disadvantages.

On the contrary, the narrative spread by influential non-governmental organizations in the media is that the green transformation of the energy system brings only advantages everywhere. Green energies are not only cheaper, but also safer and more climate-friendly. That's how Robert Habeck, Germany's green minister for economics and climate protection, tells it on his ministry's website: "Our energy transition: safe, clean, affordable."

Now the head of one of Europe's leading energy companies is saying the opposite: an equally affordable, clean, safe energy is an illusion for now. One would have to make up one's mind already. BP has made its decision: For safe and affordable energy. For the time being, the aspect of "clean" is being put on the back burner.

In a "strategy update," the BP CEO summarizes the planned braking maneuver in climate protection in figures: After previously targeting a CO₂ reduction of 35 to 40 percent by 2030, the company is now only aiming for a 20 to 30 percent drop in greenhouse gases.

At the same time, investment in new oil and gas projects will be increased by $1 billion per year. This is necessary to ensure security of supply, Looney stressed: "We need to continue to invest in today's energy system, based on oil and gas, in the short term to meet demand and to ensure that the transformation happens in an orderly fashion."

As a result, BP will exit fossil fuels much more slowly than previously planned: In 2030, oil and gas production will be only about 25 percent below 2019 levels, the new plan says. Previously, BP had held out the prospect of a 40 percent drop in fossil energy production.

With this announcement, BP is obviously breaking with the requirements arising from international climate targets: As early as May 2021, the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, had calculated that "with immediate effect" all new investments in oil, gas and coal would have to be halted if the goal of net zero emissions by 2050 was to be seriously achieved.

In its own "World Energy Outlook," an internationally recognized collection of data, BP itself had also stated that global oil demand would never fully recover after the end of the Corona pandemic. Even in the worst case, the pessimistic scenario for the global energy and transport turnaround, "peak oil," the global production peak of crude oil production, was already in the past.

However, almost all multinationals had significantly reduced investments in the discovery and development of new oil and gas fields in the past decade - often under pressure from ecologically oriented investors and funds. The resulting supply shortage had already led to sharp price increases before the outbreak of the war between Russia and Ukraine.

So by expanding fossil fuel production, BP is only making up for some of its earlier reluctance to invest in this area. Nevertheless, this is a sharp change of course.

For a long time, BP did not allow any competitor to pass it by when it came to environmental and climate protection. The company was one of the first oil multinationals to define a strategy for achieving net zero emissions by 2050. By the turn of the millennium, the company had even adopted a green flower as its corporate logo and become the world's second-largest solar cell manufacturer. The abbreviation BP suddenly no longer stood for "British Petroleum" but for "beyond petroleum" - in other words, for the green age "beyond oil."

But the profit of around $60 billion before taxes and depreciation (Ebitda) and a net income of around $28 billion now presented was generated for the most part with fossil energies. Investors, for whom the so-called ESG criteria for environmental, social and corporate sustainability were otherwise particularly important, are apparently becoming weak in the face of such sums - and resent BP's increase in fossil investments. On the stock market, BP's share price shot up by almost six percent during the course of the day.

Environmentalists are beside themselves: "BP is yet another fuel giant profiting from the suffering caused by environmental and energy crises," Greenpeace in the UK commented on the strategy shift: "What's worse: Their green plans appear to have been severely undermined by investors and governments to make more and more dirty money from oil and gas."

Lost in the environmental groups' criticism is the fact that BP nonetheless continues to invest substantially in renewable energy. For example, the company also plans to increase investment in its green transformation by $1 billion, to about $7 billion to $9 billion a year at that point. Between 2023 and 2030, the group would thus invest between $55 billion and $65 billion in its ecological transformation.

For example, BP expects revenues greater than 15 percent from its business with charging stations for e-mobility and also double-digit revenues from the sale of hydrogen. The production of biogas is to be increased six-fold, a goal the company has already come close to by acquiring Archaea Energy, the largest U.S. biogas company.

There are also plans to move into the production of climate-neutral kerosene at five refinery sites. Biofuel production is to be expanded to a volume of 100,000 barrels (159-liter barrel) per day.
------------------------

Jimbuna

02-07-23, 12:49 PM

BP scales back climate targets as profits hit record

Energy giant BP has reported record annual profits as it scaled back plans to reduce the amount of oil and gas it produces by 2030.

The company's profits more than doubled to $27.7bn (£23bn) in 2022, as energy prices soared after Russia invaded Ukraine.

Other energy firms have seen similar rises, with Shell reporting record earnings of nearly $40bn last week.

It has led to calls for energy firms to pay more tax as people's bills soar.

BP boss Bernard Looney said the British company was "helping provide the energy the world needs" while investing the transition to green energy.

But it came as the firm scaled back plans to cut carbon emissions by reducing its oil and gas output.

The company - which was one of the first oil and gas giants to announce an ambition to cut emissions to net zero by 2050 - had previously promised that emissions would be 35-40% lower by the end of this decade.

However, on Tuesday it said it was now targeting a 20-30% cut, saying it needed to keep investing in oil and gas to meet current demands.

Climate campaign group Greenpeace, whose voice the BBC has included because of the impact of oil and gas production on the environment, said BP's new strategy "seems to have been strongly undermined by pressure from investors and governments to make even more dirty money out of oil and gas".

Energy prices had begun to climb following the end of Covid lockdowns but rose sharply in March last year after Russia invaded Ukraine, sparking concerns about global supplies.

The price of Brent crude oil reached nearly $128 a barrel, but has since fallen back to about $80. Gas prices also spiked but have come down from their highs.

It has led to bumper profits for energy companies, but also fuelled a rise in energy bills for households and businesses.

Last year, the government introduced a windfall tax - called the Energy Profits Levy - on the "extraordinary" profits being made at energy companies.

The rate was originally set at 25%, but has now been increased to 35%, and only applies to profits made from extracting UK oil and gas. Oil and gas firms also pay 30% corporation tax on their profits as well as a supplementary 10% rate, taking their total tax rate to 75%.

However, they can reduce the amount of tax they pay by factoring in losses or spending on things like decommissioning North Sea oil platforms.

BP said its UK business, which accounts for less than 10% of its global profits, will pay $2.2bn in tax for 2022, including $700m due to the Energy Profits Levy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64544110

Torvald Von Mansee

02-08-23, 04:35 PM

Given my rampant paranoia, I'd gladly take on solar and wind if it keeps other people from bothering me in my shack somewhere in New Mexico.

Dargo

02-08-23, 04:45 PM

Shell sees record profits as encouragement to stay fossil for as long as possible

Shell is investing some three billion euros in green energy projects this year. At the same time, the energy company posted a record profit of almost 40 billion euros and claims to be embracing the energy transition. In its annual report, Shell reports that it puts only 14 per cent of its 23 billion euros of investments into the 'Renewable Energy and Energy Solutions' division. So Shell's policy seems to have changed little since then-Shell chief Ben van Beurden said in 2016, "I'll pump up everything I can to meet demand."

Jimbuna

02-09-23, 07:54 AM

UK's largest gas supplier warns output is at capacity

The boss of the UK's largest gas supplier, Norway's Equinor, has warned it will be difficult to further increase output after ramping up production last year to help fill the void in Europe's stocks amid Russia's war in Ukraine.

Anders Opedal said that natural gas demand will have to be lower across the continent to help compensate for the loss of Russian supplies while revealing annual profits that smashed the company's previous record.

While the UK is a net exporter of gas during the warmer months of the year, the country typically relies on Norway for 25% of its annual demand due to a lack of storage capacity.

Equinor, which was formerly known as Statoil and is majority-owned by the Norwegian state, ramped up production by 8% in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine when Russia cut gas flows to Europe in retaliation for Western sanctions.

Its efforts - coupled with energy-saving measures continent-wide - have helped contribute to the lights remaining on during the winter so far.

Challenges over the past few months have included a slow return to output at many French nuclear plants.

The UK has relied on gas flows from Norway during cold snaps when the wind has failed to blow, recently using the Demand Flexibility Service to ease pressure during peak hours.

Recent industry figures have shown that gas has accounted for more than 40% of power output over the past week.

The chief executive's remarks are important as Europe braces again to restock depleted supplies ahead of the next winter.

While wholesale costs have fallen across the continent from the peaks seen at the end of last summer, prices could yet rise again in the coming months.

The possibility of a cold end to the current winter, storage capacity and gas availability remain concerns despite further deals with the US to bolster liquefied natural gas volumes.

The record prices for natural gas helped Equinor post $74.9bn (£61.9bn) in adjusted operating profits for 2022, more than double its previous record, helping net profits to $28.7bn (£23.7bn).

It posted its earnings as oil and gas majors BP and Shell face a domestic backlash over their own profits, with government critics demanding a higher windfall tax to help compensate the public purse amid the energy-led cost of living crisis.

Tessa Khan, executive director of the Uplift environmental group, said: "While Equinor rakes in these shocking profits... pensioners in the UK are having their homes broken into by debt collectors or, worse, cut off because they can't afford their gas bill."

"Equinor has got rich on the back of the suffering of millions of people in the UK," she added.
https://news.sky.com/story/energy-crunch-uks-largest-gas-supplier-warns-output-is-at-capacity-12805846

Skybird

02-12-23, 07:50 AM

Hans Hofmann Reinicke, I qoted him before on some occasions, he is from the trade.

On wind - "renewable" energy?

----------------------------

THE ROAD TO HELL

As we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The government has made the resolution to convert the country completely to renewable energies. If that were realized, Germany would be paved with windmills and photovoltaics, and it would unquestionably be a road to hell - in many ways.

What is renewable?

There are forms of energy that consume natural resources to such an extent that they will be exhausted during the next few thousand years, or even sooner; for example, coal or oil. And there are forms of energy that do not - called "renewable." Wind energy is supposedly renewable - really? I suggest we take a look.

Let's imagine Germany as it is supposed to look in the future according to the plans of the current government: wind and PV would be expanded by a factor of three compared to today. Instead of 29,000 turbines with a total of 58 gigawatts (GW) of installed capacity, we would have 87,000 with 174 GW. That, then, would be the hoped-for backbone of sustainable and renewable power supply.

Now, there are two important empirical facts in this context that make the neat adjectives "sustainable" and "renewable" seem questionable: First, a wind turbine has a typical life of only 20 years, and second, it has a mass of 5000 tons.

14 million cars

In a typical year, then, you would have to replace one turbine in twenty on average, so you would have to scrap 87,000 / 20 = 4350 expired turbines and replace them with new ones. The elegant technical term for this process is "repowering." So you would replace a mass of 4350 x 5000 = 21,750,000 tons of material per year - that would be the mass of 14,500,000 typical cars. Again, in words, every year there is scrap metal weighing fourteen million cars, and every year new material has to be generated on that scale. And it's quite possible that certain raw materials for this will soon be exhausted if we keep this up. In particular, the so-called rare earths, which are needed for the strong permanent magnets in the generators, are not that abundant. They're called that for some reason.

Perhaps you, dear reader, have other numbers in mind, in which case just use those to do our simple estimation for you. Perhaps you say that the lion's share of the mass is the reinforced concrete foundations, and that these will continue to exist during repowering. Maybe you object that exactly said magnets will be saved and the steel components melted down and reused. Then the result might be half as bad, but still bad enough to realize that this strategy is disastrous for our energy supply and existence in every way; it is the exact opposite of renewable or sustainable.

And another thing: a turbine blade has a mass of, say, 15 tons. A turbine has three of them and so, according to Adam Riese, that makes 15 x 3 x 4350 ≈ 200,000 tons of waste per year. For the most part, this is carbon or fiberglass-reinforced plastic. Where to put it? It's pretty nasty stuff and hard to recycle, because the fragments of the fibers can allegedly harm the respiratory tract. And the plastic content isn't exactly environmentally friendly either - the planet is supposed to be made plastic-free, after all.

Conclusion

We noted at the beginning that there are forms of energy that consume natural resources, to such an extent that they will be used up during the next few thousand years. Our brief consideration leaves no doubt that wind energy falls into just that category.

And not only that; wind energy on a planned scale would not only be an irresponsible depletion of the planet's resources. It would cause even more damage to the habitat of humans and animals than has already been done, not to mention the catastrophic economic consequences.

Maybe our government really has the honest intention to save the planet. But beware: The road to hell could be paved with windmills.

https://think-again.org/der-weg-zur-holle/

----------------------------------

Skybird

02-12-23, 07:58 AM

And now the whole thing again, this time for photovoltaics, this author is also a specialist. Walter Rüegg worked at the ETH as a nuclear and particle physicist and subsequently worked at ABB in the field of energy technology. The article is from the Neue Zürcher Zeitung:
----------------------------------

The toxic side of solar panels - Solar energy is supposed to save the world, but it causes gigantic new problems

The energy turnaround must include all factors. This also includes the consumption of resources. If you include it, nuclear power suddenly looks much better.

In the last twenty years, the construction of wind and solar power plants has been subsidized to the tune of over a thousand billion dollars. Nevertheless, their contribution to total primary world energy consumption is still negligible, at about 2 percent.

Energy transitions have happened more quickly. In New York in 1900, more than 100,000 horses were needed to transport people and goods. Fifteen years later, there were practically none. Instead, there were 250,000 motor vehicles - without subsidies.

The laws of nature made it possible: an internal combustion engine has a power density over a hundred times greater than that of a horse, it operates 24 hours a day, and its primary energy requirement is much lower than that of the oat engine for the same transport performance. The cost advantages were resounding.

Clean at first glance

With photovoltaics, the laws of nature also appear very benevolent at first glance: electricity is generated without moving parts, silently, cleanly and with renewable primary energy. Fascinating. But nature has also put two obstacles in the way of photovoltaics: a low power density and erratic electricity production.

To generate the same amount of electricity as a nuclear power plant, we need to capture solar energy over an area of 50 to 100 million square meters. The result: a demand for raw materials that is up to a hundred times higher, depending on the material. In order to avoid the problem of "flutter power," substitute systems with additional costs, additional raw material requirements and additional CO2 emissions must step in when electricity production is insufficient.

A lot of material needed

The following comparison illustrates this: A typical 1.7 square meter solar panel weighs twenty kilograms and produces an annual average of just under 40 watts. Without a balancing system - a grid or a large battery - meaningful operation is not possible. This is because the module produces either too much, too little or no electricity at all.

A 2000-watt gasoline generator also weighs about twenty kilograms. But its construction material requirements are 50 times smaller for the same amount of power generation. Most importantly, the genset generates exactly the right amount of electricity at the right voltage at the right time. The downside: a fuel consumption of 100 liters per year at 40 watts of average power - and, worse, 240 kilograms of CO2. Nuclear would only have to "burn" a tiny 40 milligrams of uranium-235 for this annual output - CO2-free. Also fascinating.

Back to raw material consumption. One critical element is copper. Copper mining generates the largest amounts of toxic waste on the planet. Currently, the world's mineable copper reserves are estimated at 870 million tons. Annual copper demand is 28 million, and recycling today covers about 30 percent of that.

To produce the same amount of electricity as a 1-gigawatt power plant in our latitudes would require a million 50-square-meter PV roof systems, a million inverters and many millions of meters of power cables. All of this requires copper, a lot of copper - about fifty times more than a hydroelectric or nuclear power plant.

A single solar module accounts for a good 1 kilogram of copper - and about 200 kilograms of mining sludge. These slurries, called tailings, consist of finely ground ore dissolved in strong acids, bases or other solvents. This slurry contains high levels of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead and other heavy metals.

According to a study commissioned by the Federal Office for Environmental Protection, a lethal dose of arsenic is found in 700 grams of non-ferrous metal tailings on average, and in some cases in as little as 7 grams. Worldwide, PV causes about 100 million tons of copper tailings - per year. Since they are not radioactive, i.e. do not decay, they remain toxic until the end of time.

Radioactivity advantage

There is no even halfway reasonable solution in sight for the safe final disposal of billions of tons of these sludges. Compared to this, the final disposal of highly radioactive waste is downright easy. The quantities are comparatively tiny, about 1000 cubic meters net, per year, worldwide. Of course, uranium mining also generates tailings, but on a much smaller scale. Moreover, these are on average somewhat less hazardous, even when radioactivity is taken into account.

In any case, PV today fares worse than nuclear power in life cycle assessments. Particularly astonishing: If one compares the "solar" mining waste with the nuclear waste, a simple estimate shows that the amounts of toxins, converted to the electricity produced, are similarly large - about 50,000 lethal doses per gigawatt hour. The difference: after a few hundred years, only 5000 doses of poison remain in the radiating waste, and it continues to decay.

Storage issue

Even greater differences exist in the storage of the waste: The radioactive substances are in water-insoluble ceramics or glass, packed in thick-walled steel containers, strictly monitored. Later, we put them many hundreds of meters underground - in our own country. Or - better - we use them as fuel in suitable reactors, destroying them to a large extent in the process.

Mining sludge, on the other hand, is usually stored in huge open reservoirs, even in industrialized countries, and in some cases "disposed of" directly into rivers - mostly in distant countries. It's hard to believe: about 1 million square kilometers are now occupied by mining waste, an area 24 times the size of Switzerland.

Unrealistic conversion

Burning more than 15 billion tons of fossil fuels per year is at least as bad and ongoing a burden. In the next few decades, we will have to get rid of it. A Herculean task: 80 percent of the world's energy consumption today is based on fossil fuels (coal, gas and oil).

If we want to replace them with electricity from PV and wind power, we need to dramatically increase their contribution to world energy consumption, from 2 percent today to over 60 percent. This is completely illusory in the next twenty to thirty years. Costs and raw material requirements (copper, aluminum, steel, nickel, lithium and other materials) would be enormous. For in addition, one must also replace all fossil machines and equipment with electric ones. Most importantly, one would need a plethora of backup systems (controllable power plants and/or storage) to plug the many production gaps and winter holes.

To conserve resources and finances, we should build solar and wind plants not at home, but mainly where there is sun and wind in abundance. Large-scale photovoltaic plants in the desert belt require barely a third of the raw materials (for the same electricity generation) and cost only a fraction. Nevertheless, the laws of nature prevent photovoltaic and wind power generation from ever being as reliable and resource-efficient as nuclear or hydroelectric power.

Sleeping beauty of nuclear power

Since hydropower cannot be expanded indefinitely, nuclear power will dominate in the long term. But nuclear power is only slowly awakening from the politically imposed slumber of the last forty years. It needs twenty to thirty years to become available on a truly large scale. Today, there are over 400 nuclear power plants in operation, 55 under construction, and another 100 in planning.

To decarbonize the world, you would have to multiply the stock by a factor as large as solar and wind. Very difficult, even if the conditions (cost and raw material requirements) are better. Compared to modern nuclear power plants (such as AP1000, VVER-1200, APR1400, HPR1000), solar plants in Switzerland cost at least two to four times more, and that's without backup systems or storage.

Coal in Asia and Africa

Since we cannot rapidly expand either renewable energy or nuclear power, we must accept that fossil fuels will dominate for the next twenty to thirty years. Despite all 27 climate conferences to date and all the energy turnarounds.

Gas and coal consumption reached new record levels in 2022. A decline is not in sight, on the contrary. This is because 476 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants and 859 gigawatts of gas-fired power plants are under construction or in planning (according to the Global Energy Monitor, as of July 2022), most of them in Asia and Africa. This increase is enormous, equivalent to nearly half of today's global electricity demand. It means several billion tons of additional CO2 emissions per year - and a lot of particulate matter. Nevertheless, this expansion is urgently needed to lift one to two billion people out of poverty. This will also slow down population growth.

The huge expansion of fossil energies is based on the reliability of such plants, see the example with the gasoline generator. This expansion also shows that a power grid cannot be operated reliably and economically with mainly solar and wind power. And certainly not in our sun- and wind-deficient country with a big winter hole. The world will not get around a major expansion of nuclear power.
-----------------------------

Jimbuna

02-12-23, 08:20 AM

https://www.google.com/search?q=energy+latest&rlz=1C1PRFI_enGB770GB770&oq=&aqs=chrome.2.35i39i362l7j69i59i450.2666141997j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:0d0bf3c6,vid:FYQcqg3ugbk

Skybird

02-12-23, 08:35 AM

https://www.google.com/search?q=energy+latest&rlz=1C1PRFI_enGB770GB770&oq=&aqs=chrome.2.35i39i362l7j69i59i450.2666141997j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:0d0bf3c6,vid:FYQcqg3ugbk
Which one of these, Jim? Its the result list by Google, not the specific target text you intended.

Jimbuna

02-12-23, 11:49 AM

Which one of these, Jim? Its the result list by Google, not the specific target text you intended.

Put up the wrong link and now unable to find it again...sorry :oops:

Skybird

02-13-23, 04:53 PM

Germany wants to impose anti-atom-ideology onto all others. Thankfully it looks that it fails in that. That is relevant, very much so, since fusion energy, if it ever comes, still is many, many decades away.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
-----------------------------------------------

Paris threatens Berlin with pipeline blockade

The dispute over hydrogen from nuclear power is coming to a head: Just three weeks ago, the disagreements between Germany and France seemed to have been resolved. Now there is no sign of that.

Just three weeks ago, the differences between Berlin and Paris seemed to have been smoothed over. At the Franco-German Council of Ministers, President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) demonstrated unity after a series of disagreements. Harmony was exuded in particular by a compromise on the question of whether hydrogen, an energy carrier considered indispensable for decarbonization, should be classified as climate-friendly only on the basis of wind and solar power.

Paris has been pushing for months for hydrogen produced with nuclear power to be given such a rating - and believed it had convinced Berlin of this at the Council of Ministers. It would "ensure that both renewable and low-carbon hydrogen can be taken into account in the European decarbonization targets," was the wording in the Franco-German statement, whereby "low-carbon" should be translated as "of nuclear origin" and, according to reports, should only not be called that at the insistence of the Greens. In return for this concession from the German side, Paris gave its green light to the extension of the planned Spanish-French hydrogen pipeline H2Med to Germany.

Now, however, the Franco-German hydrogen compromise is wobbling. Berlin is not sticking to the negotiation result, Europe Secretary Laurence Boone said Monday, threatening to block the construction of H2Med. "France agreed to the H2Med project when it became clear that the pipeline could also be used to transport low-carbon hydrogen, not natural gas," she told the F.A.Z. newspaper. France had agreed to the project only after a long hesitation, because it does not want to be only a transit country.

Earlier, French Energy Minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher had already indirectly accused both Berlin and Madrid of breaking their word. Despite the latest agreements, Germany and Spain continue to oppose accepting hydrogen from nuclear power plants as "green". In doing so, they are targeting the ongoing discussion on the EU's "Red III" directive, which sets higher targets for the share of renewables in the energy mix. "These negotiations are not taking a satisfactory turn," Pannier-Runacher said in early February. She called it "incomprehensible if Spain and Germany would carry different positions to Brussels and not keep their commitments."

The German government sees no contradiction with the January statement. Renewable and "low-carbon" hydrogen had been explicitly distinguished from each other in the text. Therefore, the energy carrier derived from nuclear power can precisely not be considered renewable or "green," as France claims, it said in Berlin on Monday. The French nuclear energy, as mentioned in the text, at best serves the "European decarbonization goals," but not the expansion of renewable energies agreed upon in the EU. That's why the statement also says very clearly that they are sticking to the "general ambition level of renewable energy targets."

Government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit recalled that Germany and France "have set out their respective divergent or different positions on the use of nuclear energy." Both countries could pursue their own path "as far as climate-neutral economies are concerned," he said. It is in the interest of all EU governments to get the hydrogen economy up and running in general, he said. Only in the second step, he said, is it a matter of how it is produced. For Germany, renewable sources are crucial, "others have other priorities there."

The Franco-German dispute is breaking out at a time when Paris has won an important stage victory on hydrogen classification - which is of great importance to investors. In a so-called delegated act published Monday, the European Commission stipulates that in addition to hydrogen from renewable energy sources, those from nuclear energy will also be classified as "green."

Specifically, it says that countries with a low-carbon electricity mix (i.e., with a high proportion of nuclear power) will be exempt from the so-called "additionality rule" for a transitional period. This regulation states that green hydrogen will only come from "additional" sources of renewable electricity. It is intended to prevent hydrogen production from "eating up" the use of renewable sources for other purposes, thus promoting electricity generation from fossil fuel power plants.

The main beneficiaries of the new regulation are France and Sweden. Both derive a high proportion of their energy from nuclear power. Originally, the Commission had only wanted to classify hydrogen as sustainable if the electricity required for it consistently came from wind and solar parks that were additionally built. The European Parliament, on the other hand, had advocated a less restrictive regulation in order to accelerate the growth of the young industry.

Green MEP Michael Bloss called it a "scandal" that this should now also apply to hydrogen from nuclear power. "The label fraud continues," he said, referring to the fact that the Commission had already classified investments in gas and nuclear power as "green" in its "taxonomy" in January 2022. The EU needs hydrogen from renewables "and not incentives to keep outdated nuclear reactors online," Bloss said. The legislation published by the Commission can only enter into force if a majority of member states and the Parliament have not objected within two months.

According to reports, the French Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton in particular lobbied for the exemption. Accordingly, the legal act in the house of Energy Minister Pannier-Runacher on Monday in conversation with journalists as a "French victory". However, the discussion about the recognition of nuclear power in the Renewable Energy Directive has not become superfluous.

The French energy ministry is calling for the logic underlying the legal act to be applied to "Red III" as well - in other words, for hydrogen from nuclear power to be recognized in the renewables targets as well, instead of being blocked for ideological reasons. This is not an equation of renewables and nuclear energy, but is simply reasonable for decarbonization.
--------------------------------------

Jimbuna

02-16-23, 09:05 AM

British Gas owner Centrica has posted huge profits after oil and gas prices soared last year, sparking renewed calls for energy firms to pay more tax.

Its profits hit £3.3bn for 2022, more than triple the £948m it made in 2021.

Energy firms have seen record profits since oil and gas prices jumped following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The figures come after British Gas was criticised over its use of debt agents to force-fit prepayment meters in the homes of vulnerable customers.

Energy firms have faced huge pressure to pay more tax in the UK on their profits, as many households struggle with higher gas and electricity bills. Shell and BP have reported record profits this year.

The End Fuel Poverty Coalition campaign group said the energy market was "failing consumers and is in desperate need of reform".

But Centrica boss Chris O'Shea said the company last year invested £75m in supporting customers of British Gas, the UK's largest electricity and gas supplier, providing "much needed stability and support".

Most of Centrica's bumper profits came from its nuclear and oil and gas business, rather than from the British Gas energy supply business, which contributed just £72m of the £3.3bn profit. The sale of its Spirit Energy oil and gas business in May also boosted the figures.

Due to competition rules, Centrica cannot sell its own gas at a discount to British Gas customers.

In fact, it said British Gas's profits had decreased by 39% compared with 2021's levels, largely because of "voluntary donations" to support customers and the repayment of furlough funds from the pandemic.

In addition, Centrica said:

It paid £1bn in tax relating to its 2022 profits, the vast majority of which were paid in the UK.
Of that, about £54m was paid as result of the windfall tax - called the Energy Profits Levy - which was introduced by the government last year to recoup some of the "extraordinary" earnings made by firms, and to help fund lower gas and electricity bills for households.
Centrica also said it would increase the money it returned to its shareholders as it launched a £300m share buyback scheme.
Mr O'Shea refused to be drawn on whether he would waive his bonus for the past year, saying it was "too early to have a conversation". He turned down a £1.1m bonus for the previous financial year.

He is due to receive an annual salary of £794,375 for the past year and Centrica's annual incentive plan means he could also be eligible for an almost £1.6m bonus if targets are met.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64652142

Jimbuna

02-17-23, 06:17 AM

EDF's UK profits soar after electricity price hikes

French energy giant EDF's UK arm returned to profit in 2022, boosted by it being able to sell the electricity it generated for a higher price.

Underlying profit was £1.12bn, compared with a loss of £21m in 2021 mainly down to improved performance from its nuclear electricity generators.

But its UK consumer energy supplier lost more than £200m in the year.

EDF blamed the cost of buying energy for customers which was higher than the prices set under the energy price cap.

The Energy Price Guarantee caps the average household cost of electricity and gas at £2,500 annually.

EDF, which supplies gas and electricity to about five million UK households, is 84%-owned by the French state, but will soon be fully nationalised.

It operates five nuclear power stations in the UK as well as having a large number of wind farms.

Unlike generators who rely on gas to produce power, it benefited from higher electricity prices on wholesale markets in 2022 which brought it a big increase in revenues without an equivalent rise in costs.

Due to competition rules, companies cannot sell their own energy at a discount to their own customers.

The company said it invested more than £2.6bn in 2022 in its UK nuclear, renewables and customer businesses.

It said it planned to invest a further £13bn in the UK in the next three years, largely at Hinkley Point C, the new nuclear power station being built in Somerset that is due to open in 2027.

Some £2bn will be invested in its existing UK nuclear fleet and renewables projects.

The EDF Group posted an underlying loss for 2022 of €4.99bn (£4.44bn) blaming "the decline in nuclear output" and "the impact of the exceptional regulatory measures to limit price increases for consumers in 2022".

The latter refers to a cap on consumer prices imposed by the French government meaning EDF ended up selling the electricity at a lower price than it paid for it.

That cost the group €8.2bn (£7.3bn) in the year, it said, which effectively wiped out the €8.7bn (£7.8bn) it made from "market price rises passed on to customers".

The record loss of almost €5bn comes as the company gets close to becoming fully owned by the French government, with the takeover expected to be completed in May.

The figure prompted the firm's chairman and chief executive Luc Rémont, appointed in November, to focus on future prospects rather than past problems.

"Our priority right now is improving EDF's financial position, and I am confident that the benefits of the actions taken will begin to show in 2023," he said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64647854

Skybird

02-17-23, 09:55 AM

EDF: French energy giant posts worst-ever results. Energy prices may have jumped to unprecedented highs, but for France's state-controlled power company EDF 2022 was a miserable year with record annual losses of €17.9bn (£16bn).A price cap on energy for French consumers hit EDF profits hard but so did the enforced closure of many of its of nuclear power stations for repairs.The losses are the third biggest in French corporate history and the worst for more than 20 years.EDF's debts have spiralled to €64.5bn.

On an underlying basis, EDF's losses came in at €4.99bn. The figure was in marked contrast to EDF's UK-based business, which made an underlying profit of £1.12bn (€1.26bn) supplying electricity and gas to five million households.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64674131

They can cleverly juggle numbers and can play hide and seek with fiscal numbers as muchg as they want - at the end of the day, stuff costs money, there aint no such thing as a free lunch, and no aid package ever came for free. States give no presents: they steal the people's money and then redistribute it according to populistic interest of party fat cats.

Jimbuna

02-17-23, 03:34 PM

EDF is my energy supplier but only because they were offering the cheapest deal a few years ago.

Jimbuna

02-22-23, 02:26 PM

In February, Gazprom increased gas supply through Ukrainian gas pipelines by 72%

In February 2023, the supply of Russian gas through Ukraine increased by 72% compared to the figures at the end of January. At the same time, one of the two entry points to the GTS of Ukraine is still used for resource transit.

As Censor.NET informs, this was reported by the Russian publication "Interfax".

Russia's Gazprom on Wednesday, February 22, increased the transit of "blue fuel" through the gas transport system of Ukraine to European countries, updating the maximum since the beginning of January 2023.

Thus, Ukraine accepted an application from the Russian side for gas transit for Wednesday in the amount of 42.2 million cubic meters. The day before, the volumes amounted to 40.3 million cubic meters, the day before that - 39.2 million cubic meters. As a result, in February, the supply of Russian gas through Ukraine increased by 72% compared to the end of January. Thus, the Russian gas monopolist is restoring the figures for 2022, which were fixed back in March.

It is also noted that the volumes of gas transit have even approached the technical maximum of pumping. However, for the transportation of "blue fuel", as before, only one of the two entry points to the GTS of Ukraine is used — the Suja station, through which Russia supplies gas to China.

"Gazprom is supplying Russian gas for transit through the territory of Ukraine in the amount confirmed by the Ukrainian side through the Suja hydroelectric power plant - 42.1 million cubic meters as of February 22. The application for the Sokhranivka GTS was rejected," the publication said.

At the same time, according to the current contract between Naftogaz and Gazprom, the "pump or pay" formula operates, according to which the Russian company must pump 40 billion cubic meters of gas per year, or approximately 109 million cubic meters per day, through Ukraine's GTS. Source: https://censor.net/en/n3401509

Jimbuna

02-23-23, 10:05 AM

Drax: Subsidies for power giant questioned as annual profits soar

Soaring earnings sparked questions about the value for money of government subsidies for Drax, which provides 7% of British electricity and receives around £800m in subsidies a year.

A British company that burns wood to create electricity is the latest power giant to post soaring annual profits amid the energy crisis of 2022.

Gas prices reached record highs last year as Russia squeezed supplies to Europe in response to sanctions for its invasion of Ukraine, accelerating the shift away from fossil fuels and driving demand for renewables.

But as earnings soared for Drax Group, which provides 7% of Britain's electricity, critics questioned whether it should continue to receive around £2.4m a day in public subsidies.

The company, which provides renewable power from biomass, hydro and pumped storage, posted annual adjusted core profit of £731m for 2022, up 83% from £398m in 2021.

Drax "played a significant role in ensuring security of supply during a challenging year for the UK's energy system," said CEO Will Gardiner.

During periods of peak demand and low wind and solar power supply, its renewable stations collectively supplied up to 70% of the UK's renewable power in certain periods.

On Thursday Drax increased its total dividend by 11.7% to 21 pence per share. It added its net debt rose from £1.1 to £1.2 billion pounds in 2022.

Drax burns wood pellets to generate electricity that the UK classes as renewable because new trees are planted to soak up the carbon dioxide released by the burned pellets.

Some scientists back bioenergy as a credible way to mitigate climate change, while others argue it's impossible to guarantee the emissions are reabsorbed, or negate the other pollution.

Drax's bioenergy operations makes it eligible for government subsidies, receiving £893m in 2021, according to energy think tank Ember.

"These results show that Drax would not be profitable without public support," said Phil MacDonald, chief operating officer at Ember.

"The scale of these subsidies just don't add up," he said, urging the government to reconsider the funding.

Conservative MP Sally-Ann Hart said: "Burning imported wood pellets for electricity is not cheap for billpayers. Given the growing environmental concerns, ministers shouldn't commit to new subsidies for this energy source."

The government is working on a delayed Biomass Strategy, due to be published in the second quarter of 2023.
https://news.sky.com/story/drax-subsidies-for-power-giant-questioned-as-annual-profits-soar-12817690

Skybird

02-23-23, 03:17 PM

Frankfurter Allgemeine:
-------------------------------
France says "no thanks" to German energy transition

The French government under President Emmanuel Macron has embarked on an open confrontation course with the German government on the issue of nuclear energy. In the background, deepened nuclear cooperation with the United States is also playing a role. Macron sees himself vindicated by Biden's climate agenda, which also envisions the expansion of nuclear power. Macron had already presented an Agenda 2030 for the "renaissance of nuclear power" with the simultaneous expansion of renewables before the cessation of Russian gas supplies to Europe, in October 2021.

During the Frenchman's state visit to Washington last December, a permanent bilateral working group on civil nuclear power was established. The explicit goal is "to promote state-of-the-art nuclear energy worldwide, given its important role in reducing global CO2 emissions," according to the joint statement. Washington and Paris are jointly seeking ways to reduce dependence on Russia's Rosatom, particularly for fuel enrichment. In terms of uranium supply, both countries already have alternatives. France also sees itself in line with the International Energy Agency (IEA). Its president, Fatih Birol, has identified a "global comeback of nuclear energy."

The French government feels supported by a renewed domestic consensus in Brussels in its brash approach, for example in the dispute over the recognition of nuclear-generated hydrogen. A parliamentary commission of inquiry chaired by the conservative Republicans (LR) has been investigating "the reasons for France's loss of sovereignty and independence in the energy sector" since last November. The hearings, which are taking place in the National Assembly, come close to a reckoning with a failed European energy policy under German leadership.

On March 16, the two former presidents Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande will be heard. Already testifying have been their appointed heads of Electricité de France (EDF), the energy company that operates the 56 nuclear reactors. On December 13, former EDF CEO (2009-2014) Henri Proglio was questioned for two hours. EDF, he said, had been an energy exporter with the cheapest electricity in Europe (two and a half times cheaper than in Germany), which gave France an advantage in greenhouse gas emissions. But then the European electricity market was developed in such a way that the market price was linked to the gas price, Proglio criticized. The whole approach was "German," he said. "European regulation is German," he said. The climate balance had played a secondary role, he said. At a dinner on the sidelines of the 2012 Hannover Messe, then-Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly confided in the EDF chief that as a physicist she could not endorse the nuclear phase-out. She had decided to do so for political reasons, she said.

According to Proglio, changing German governments had deliberately tried to weaken EDF, a French competitive tool, in order to favor German industry. "They succeeded," he concluded. Proglio is controversial in France. But his criticism of Germany has been unfolding for weeks, showing how negative the perception of the energy transition has become. Proglio's predecessors and successors have made similar, if more diplomatic, statements before the investigative committee. Long known as "Atomic Anne," manager Anne Lauvergeon, who headed the Areva Group between 1999 and 2011, described a public debate that had been all about the "German model."

Nuclear phase-out finds fewer and fewer supporters

Germany had been developed into Russia's main gas hub, while nuclear energy had been stigmatized as no longer in keeping with the times. France had joined in, announcing in 2012 that it wanted to reduce the share of nuclear power to 50 percent. Former Prime Minister Manuel Valls confirmed to the committee that the "50 percent" mark had been a political symbol, not based on any feasibility studies. The figure had been the Greens' condition for an electoral pact with the Socialists. The commission of inquiry testifies to the strengthened French will to emancipate itself from German requirements. The commission is headed by LR deputy Raphael Schellenberger, who believes the shutdown of the reactors at Fessenheim under German pressure was a cardinal mistake. The final report is expected in April.

The idea of phasing out nuclear power is receiving less and less support even in the left-wing party spectrum. Olivier Faure, the Socialist party leader who has just been confirmed in office, wants a referendum on nuclear power. He has not adopted the demand of failed Socialist presidential candidate Anne Hidalgo (1.75 percent of the vote) to phase out nuclear power as soon as possible. Communist presidential candidate Fabien Roussel (2.3 percent of the vote) is pursuing a clearly pronuclear course. Republicans and Rassemblement National also support the construction of new nuclear power plants in the name of national sovereignty. This changed political context explains why the government in Paris is willing to use any means of pressure to assert itself against the anti-nuclear course of the federal government.
-------------------------

Everything and everyone that helps to brign down the German energy-polticla amdness has my support for this task, leftor right, round or squared, big or small. The Germans must be stopped on this topic. The germans know only sun and wind now, and they only know "electric". There are several other options that are more reliable, from nuclear to geothermal energy. Suin and wind are not capoable tom provide rleiable base supply, and too inpredictable, and demand way too much surrounding preparatory and mainteannce measurements. Imposted two topics separately that showed that none oif them are truly "renewable". Not if you look beyind the final power prouction, but also at ecological building costs, maitetance costs, rebuilding industrial infrastructure that enables the use of these, and business-political dependencies from China - like Germany did with gas from Russia. The germans are completely out fo their mind. Nuts. Hopelessly so. They can only be dealt with on basis of a thinking in terms of "lets contain them".

Jimbuna

02-27-23, 05:52 AM

Ofgem sets new price cap prompting calls for energy bill help

By Kevin Peachey
Cost of living correspondent

The amount suppliers can charge households for energy has been cut by regulator Ofgem but bills will still rise in April as government help eases.

Ofgem's announcement does not directly affect what customers pay for each unit of gas and electricity but it reduces the costs faced by government.

The typical household bill will rise to £3,000 a year in April.

Campaigners say ministers should stop the increase because Ofgem's new cap reduces the cost of support.

The typical annual household bill is set to rise from £2,100 to £3,000 in April because government help - known as the Energy Price Guarantee (EPG) - will become less generous and a £400 winter discount on all bills ends.

The government currently compensates energy suppliers with the difference between the guarantee and Ofgem's cap.

The energy price cap was £4,279 in January but on Monday, Ofgem announced that the cap would drop to £3,280 in April because of falling wholesale prices.

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said: "Energy bills are out of control. The government must cancel April's hike. With the cost of wholesale gas plummeting ministers have no excuse for not stepping in."

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt previously told the BBC that although the policy remained under review, he did not think the government had the "headroom to make a major new initiative to help people". Ministers also point out wider support, such as rising benefit payments in April, will help people.

Under the government guarantee, a household using a typical amount of gas and electricity in England, Wales and Scotland is currently paying £2,500 a year for energy.

Without state support, that annual bill would have been £4,279 since January.

The chancellor has already announced that the EPG will become less generous in April, which means the typical household will be paying £3,000 a year.

Ofgem has now announced what that bill would otherwise have been £3,280 from April to July, without the guarantee.

Ofgem's chief executive, Jonathan Brearley, said that April's rise in bills was "deeply concerning" for many people, but there was some hope ahead.

"Today's announcement reflects the fundamental shift in the cost of wholesale energy for the first time since the gas crisis began, and while it won't make an immediate difference to consumers, it's a sign that some of the immense pressure we've seen in the energy markets over the last 18 months may be starting to ease," he said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64748135

Jimbuna

02-27-23, 05:56 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3rH6xDTEbw

Skybird

02-27-23, 10:02 AM

You just can't please her, no matter what you do. Saint Greta protests against wind turbines being erected on Sámi land in Norway as well.

If solar panels and solar storage were sufficient to generate and store enough electricity, then she would also protest against solar energy. Because what would she do all day long if there was nothing left to demonize? Truning irrelevant? Unthinkable?

This is not emant to express that she is relevant, or ever were.

Skybird

02-27-23, 10:22 AM

A set of interactive maps showing pipelines and net exports and imports regarding oil and gas. The site is in German, but the maps should be usable and understandable nevertheless.

https://interaktiv.tagesspiegel.de/lab/globaler-pipeline-atlas-das-unsichtbare-netz-der-weltweiten-energieversorgungs/

Dargo

02-27-23, 01:59 PM

The impact on Russian industrial production and government oil revenues.

https://i.postimg.cc/Hk19Rzyj/Fp-OZ5-XWIAE1bol.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/4N6WJjZp/Fp-OZ5-LWAAAuc-QT.jpg

Jimbuna

02-27-23, 02:16 PM

Spain, Netherlands back quick deal on EU power market reform

STOCKHOLM, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Spain and the Netherlands have backed a rapid deal on an upcoming revamp of Europe's electricity market, as countries seek to reduce power costs and help their industries compete in global markets.

European Union countries' energy ministers are meeting in Stockholm on Monday to debate the upcoming plans, which aim to tweak the market to stop short-term swings in fossil fuel prices from wreaking havoc on European consumers' energy bills.

However, the plans have already stirred disagreement among EU countries on how far to reform the market - with Spain among those calling for substantial changes to align the system with Europe's shift to green energy, and the Netherlands in the camp of countries wary that major upheaval could deter much-needed investment in the energy sector.

"Timing is key. And sometimes, not being in time is a disaster," Spain's Energy Minister Teresa Ribera told Reuters on the sidelines of the EU meeting, adding reforms should be agreed before European Parliament elections in mid-2024.

Ribera said the reform could form part of Europe's response to the United States' huge Inflation Reduction Act package of subsidies for green industries.

"For the time being, the single element that makes the highest difference in terms of competitiveness between the US and Europe is the cost of energy," she said.

Negotiations on major EU legislation, which require approval from EU countries and the EU Parliament, can take two years - sometimes, more. The European Commission will propose the reforms next month.

The Netherlands, although wary on the depth of reform, agrees on the need for speed.

"I'm very much in favour of a strong and fast process to make sure that this reform is delivered this year," Dutch energy minister Rob Jetten told Reuters.

In the EU's current electricity market, gas plants often set the overall power price. Soaring gas prices last year pushed up European power prices to record highs.

Spain and France want the reforms to help countries sign more long-term fixed-price contracts with low-carbon power plants, creating a more stable price that would feed into consumer bills.

Jetten said countries agree on the overall aim to shift to a low-carbon power sector but he warned against rules that would force states to structure their power markets in the same way, for example by obliging them to impose fixed-price "contracts for difference" schemes on power plants.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/spain-netherlands-back-quick-deal-eu-power-market-reform-2023-02-27/

Jimbuna

03-03-23, 08:30 AM

Energy Price Guarantee expected to continue at same level in April

The chancellor is expected to extend the Energy Price Guarantee at current levels for a further three months, the BBC understands.

Typical household energy bills were scheduled to rise to £3,000 a year from April, but calls have been made for the government to retain its current level of support so they stay at £2,500.

The level of help is now expected to be maintained, but energy firms have been asked to prepare for both scenarios.

The Treasury declined to comment.

At the moment, the government is limiting the typical household bill to £2,500 a year, plus a £400 winter discount.

From 1 April the help is scheduled to be scaled back, and the £400 discount will come to an end, which could push people's bills up despite the weather getting warmer.

Fuel poverty campaigners have said the number of households struggling to afford bills could rise from 6.7 million to 8.4 million as a result of the April rise.

However, industry sources told the BBC that some energy companies have already started amending future bills to reflect that energy help will continue at or very near to current levels beyond 1 April.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to date has declined to extend the support at the current rate, but experts have suggested it is increasingly likely he will change course, probably at the Budget on 15 March.

Mr Hunt told the BBC last month that the policy was "under review".

The Treasury was understood to be concerned that an open-ended commitment would leave British public finances significantly exposed to any further unexpected rise in global gas prices.

Instead the decrease in support will kick in in the summer, when it will not be needed, because the separate energy price cap is already anticipated to be lower as a result of declining market gas prices.

However, the £400 winter payment that has led to a £66 per month reduction in monthly payments on many bills does look likely to end next month.

There have been no talks about extending this element of support.

The Resolution Foundation think tank, which aims to improve living standards for people on low to middle incomes, and consumer rights champion Martin Lewis have both called on Mr Hunt to cancel the bills rise, as have opposition parties.

Labour's shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said: "Families are really worried about prices soaring in April and so it's urgent the government gives them reassurance now, and extends the windfall tax on oil and gas giants to give them support for their energy bills as Labour would."

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), an economics research institute, has forecast that the Treasury could afford to keep support at current levels until the summer due to wholesale energy prices falling sharply, meaning the cost of the scheme had been cut.

Energy UK, which represents suppliers, urged the government earlier this week to hold the level of support at £2,500 for a typical household and to "announce that quickly" so firms could price it into bills from April.

Energy Secretary Grant Shapps previously said he is "very sympathetic" to suggestions that the planned £500 rise in bills should be stopped.

However, there is an alternative view that money would be better spent by the government by targeting support for those on the lowest incomes - as is the case for cost-of-living payments - and in the winter.

"Vulnerable groups could benefit substantially from this extra funding if it was used in a more targeted way. And should those groups take precedence over universal payments to multiple homeowners and billionaires?" said Joe Malinowski, founder of comparison site Energyscanner.

There has been a drop in wholesale gas and electricity prices in recent weeks that has raised hopes that the worst of the energy crisis could be easing.

Bills began rising as Covid lockdowns ended but the war in Ukraine saw them surge further.

Without the government's Energy Price Guarantee to limit prices, a typical household's gas and electricity bill would have hit £4,279 a year from January under the energy price cap set by Ofgem, the industry regulator.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64830701

Skybird

03-06-23, 07:06 PM

:up: Plain reason. What cannot work, will not work. Laws of physics and nature cannot be altered by a legal amendement.

"It looks as if its structurally not possible to make the energy transition in the way imagined."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgOEGKDVvsg

Jimbuna

03-07-23, 09:04 AM

European gas storage levels at record highs - and it suggests good news for supplies

Record gas storage levels this year are unlikely to mean prices drop to levels seen before the pandemic and the Ukraine war, but energy security has improved after months when the UK worried about keeping the lights on.

Energy costs could come down as European gas storage facilities are expected to end the winter season at a record of more than 50% full.

Modelling done by energy consultancy Cornwall Insight suggests gas supplies are secure after concerns of shortages following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Fuller storage units mean less future demand for gas, which can bring down prices.

Storage facilities across Europe will end winter between 45% and 61% full - an average of 55% capacity - bypassing the previous end of winter record of 54% in 2020.

Following the start of the conflict in Ukraine, European countries raced to reduce their reliance on Russian gas, which pushed up prices and led to concerns about energy supplies in winter 2022 to 2023.

Having a greater amount of gas in storage means more is ready for winter 2023-2024 and less needs to be bought, leaving supplies more secure than in 2022.

It is a doubling from last year.

On 31 March 2022 just 26% of European storage facilities were filled, according to data from Gas Infrastructure Europe.

There was concern that the lights could not be kept on amid gas shortages. In the UK the National Grid's Electricity System Operator had warned in October that planned three-hour power blackouts could be imposed in the event of gas supplies falling short of demand.

To reduce energy demand and cope with potential shortages, EU countries formally agreed a voluntary 10% cut in gross electricity consumption and a mandatory reduction of 5% during peak use hours.

But high gas storage levels this year do not mean prices will drop to lows seen at the end of previous high storage-level winters.

Despite the "considerably more positive" forecasts, the lead research analyst at Cornwall Insight said he was cautious about saying Europe is over the worst of the energy crisis.

"Any single factor can influence the pace and pattern of storage refill, and perhaps more pertinently, change the cost paid to achieve it," Dr Matthew Chadwick said.

"We are certainly not out of the woods yet."

Factors that could bring up energy costs include weather, US exports, Chinese demand and Russian supplies.

While a mild winter helped preserve gas stocks, a summer with heatwaves would bring energy demand for air-conditioning and fans.

Imports of US liquified natural gas in the second half of last year rose significantly as reliance on Russian gas waned. Going forward, however, the US is under domestic pressure to protect consumers from price rises, which could mean less exported to Europe.

Russian gas is still relied on by Europe and will continue to be needed.

The reopening of China, following nearly three years of lockdown restrictions, and the associated economic growth will impact energy markets, the Cornwall Insight report said, though the impact is uncertain.

For those looking to hear good news about bills, Dr Chadwick is not the barer.

"Whatever the outlook for storage levels, the need to compensate for Russian pipeline volumes with expensive and volatile liquified natural gas will keep gas bills higher," he said.

"This, at least for now, is the "new normal", and consumers and economies should prepare for energy costs to remain higher than before the pandemic, and the Ukraine war, for some time to come."

Households can expect prices to be "more muted" than last year, Dr Chadwick said, as the panic from the Ukraine war outbreak subsides.

"What may ease this year is the heightened level of understandable panic that led to hectic energy-buying practices during the autumn of 2022.

"As a result, we can probably expect prices to be much more muted than 2022, despite any uncertainties that may come into play."

Gas storage facilities in the UK include Rough, a facility reopened this year off the Yorkshire coast, and the Stublach onshore facility in Cheshire.
https://news.sky.com/story/energy-crisis-european-gas-storage-levels-at-record-highs-and-it-suggests-good-news-for-supplies-12827479

Skybird

03-09-23, 07:50 AM

Frotz Vahrenholt writes for the Achse:
-----------------------------------
Despite looming electricity shortage, government relies on more consumption

Electricity prices will remain four times as high as before 2021. In April, three additional nuclear power plants will go offline, and a year later, coal-fired power plants with 7,000 megawatts of capacity are to cease operations. Electric heat pumps and cars, however, require even more electricity. It is completely unclear how this bottleneck can be overcome.

Gas prices have fallen significantly in recent months and are "only" about twice what they were in 2021. But electricity prices remain about four times as high as they were before the energy crisis at the beginning of 2021. While electricity traded at €4.5 ct/kwh on the stock exchange at the beginning of 2021, the price is currently hovering around €15 ct/kwh. There is no relief in sight, as three nuclear power plants will go offline on April 15, and 7,000 MW of coal-fired power plants are scheduled to cease operations in April 2024.

It is a complete mystery how this bottleneck can be overcome. Of the 3,200 megawatts (MW) of wind energy put out to tender for February 1, only 1,441 MW were approved, even though the feed-in tariff had been increased by 25 percent to 7.35 €ct/kwh. MW of wind cannot be compared with MW of coal or nuclear power. Over the course of a year, one MW of wind only provides about a quarter of the electricity generated by one MW of coal or nuclear power. On about 140 days, wind power plants in Germany fail completely as electricity suppliers. Their electricity generation is then between zero and 10 percent. The 30,000 MW of gas-fired power plants needed for these lulls - this is also demanded by Stefan Kapferer, Chairman of the Board of the grid operator 50 Hertz - is wishful thinking on the part of a government that has shown in recent months, with its gas levy, gas price brake and profit skimming in power generation, that it is incapable of creating reliable framework conditions for investors.

So while the federal government wants to build 40 new gas-fired power plants, it is turning off the gas tap for citizens. It is impossible to be more anti-citizen than Economics Minister Habeck. He announced his intention to ban new gas and oil-fired heating systems as early as 2024 and to limit the maximum age of gas-fired heating systems to 30 years. When he then noticed the ****storm of indignant citizens, he conceded that a broken heating system could still be replaced by a gas heating system for three years, but then it would have to be replaced by a heat pump, electricity heating or pellet heating at the latest. To replace a heating system that breaks down in 2024 or 2025 with a gas heating system for three years is quite unrealistic.

Citizens already have enough to contend with in terms of increased electricity prices, and here the Minister of Economics is calling for the gas/oil heating system to be converted to electricity, of all things. At the same time, the green head of the Federal Network Agency, Klaus Müller, declares that because of impending electricity shortages, the power connections for e-cars and for heat pumps are to be made disconnectable, so that for three hours the power for e-cars or heat pumps can be cut off.

What do Pakistani coal-fired power plants have to do with Germany?

Everyone knows that gas heating can be replaced relatively easily by low-temperature heating from a heat pump if underfloor heating is available. Where this is not the case, there is a huge need for investment. We also know that a heat pump is 2.5 times more energy efficient than a natural gas heating system. But what does the bill look like when electricity is three times more expensive than natural gas? And if electricity is generated by natural gas or coal during dark periods, the positive eco-balance is gone.

In the summer of 2022, the German Economics Minister delayed the decision to reactivate coal-fired power plants until the fall. While it was obvious that it was imperative to replace gas-fired power plants with coal-fired power plants as early as possible, he allowed the gas-fired power plants to continue running and bought gas on the world markets at peak prices, causing gas prices to skyrocket on the world markets. This price pressure will arise again when Germany implements its planned massive gas-fired power plant program. Other countries have drawn consequences from this. Pakistan has scrapped its gas-fired power plant program and has decided to build 10,000 MW of coal-fired power plants. China recently announced that it is building an additional 106,000 MW of coal plants and has slowed its planned replacement of coal plants with gas plants. Germany and Europe are replacing coal plants with gas plants - and Pakistan and China are building coal plants instead of gas plants. A very "successful" transformation policy !

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (http://www.DeepL.com/Translator) (free version)
-------------------------------------

In addition, the media announce today that the Central Committee of the EU Bureaucrateska has presented a previously threatened list of demands, in which the compulsory renovation of the complete, entire building stock in continental Europe is to be ordered. Again for the record: the complete building stock on the ground of the European continent.

Wouldn't it be simpler to organize a third world war and to rebuild afterwards in the so created continental wasteland?

Recommended read:
https://poestories.com/read/systemoftarr

Jimbuna

03-09-23, 08:05 AM

Windfall tax has 'all but wiped out our profit for the year', biggest North Sea oil producer says

The Aberdeen-based firm reveals a string of awards for shareholders despite its objections to the energy profits levy which, it said, had helped it focus on growth opportunities away from UK waters.

The biggest producer of oil and gas in the North Sea has reported that the government's energy profits levy (EPL) has "all but wiped out our profit for the year".

Harbour Energy said it had "reduced our UK investment and staffing levels" and bolstered its aim to expand elsewhere as a result of the hit from the windfall tax.

It has become something of a political football during the cost of living crisis to date, with opposition parties accusing the government of not going far enough in its efforts to recover costs of its energy bill support for households and businesses from extraction companies' UK operations.

The likes of Shell and BP have revealed record profits on the back of elevated oil and gas prices due to the war in Ukraine, though their respective upstream activities expand far beyond the boundaries of the North Sea.

UK-focused Harbour had warned in January that it was to make head office workers in Aberdeen redundant in direct reaction to the hike in the levy, announced by Chancellor Jeremy Hunt in November last year.

It took the EPL rate to 35% from 25% but the decision took the effective tax rate on North Sea profits to 75% because of the 40% corporation tax charge already applied.

However, some investment relief is granted under the levy.

Harbour's chief executive said the job losses, yet to be completed, would be "significant" and it was looking to cut costs by $40m this year.

Its profits after tax for 2022 came in at $8m (£6.7m) due to a "$1.5bn one off non-cash deferred tax charge associated with the EPL", the company said.

But shareholder distributions of $553m were made during the year and it proposed a $100m final dividend which marked a 9% increase in awards during the year.

A new share buyback plan worth $200m was also revealed.

Shares fell 2% at the open.

Chief executive Linda Cook said: "The UK Energy Profits Levy, which applies irrespective of actual or realised commodity prices, has disproportionately impacted the UK-focused independent oil and gas companies that are critical for domestic energy security.

"For Harbour, the UK's largest oil and gas producer, it has all but wiped out our profit for the year.

"This has driven us to reduce our UK investment and staffing levels.

"Given the fiscal instability and outlook for investment in the country, it has also reinforced our strategic goal to grow and diversify internationally."

Labour is among government critics urging that the EPL is more punitive given that households and businesses are suffering from record energy bills.

The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, seized on revelations on Thursday, that now-departed Shell boss Ben van Beurden had received a 53% rise in awards last year to £9.7m, as evidence that a higher tax rate should be applied.

Mr Hunt is widely expected to maintain the energy price guarantee at its current level of £2,500 in his budget next week rather than cut the level of support from April as had been planned.

This is due to a fall in wholesale gas costs which has reduced the expected cost of the financial aid package.
https://news.sky.com/story/windfall-tax-has-all-but-wiped-out-our-profit-for-the-year-biggest-north-sea-oil-producer-says-12829230

Skybird

03-14-23, 07:03 AM

The interviewed engineer is no nobody, but a famous expert with plenty of credenmtials from practical development work. Amongst others he is the father of the Audi Turbo engine.

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:
------------------------------

"The electric car is a deceptive package"

Friedrich Indra doesn't like the electric car, saying it doesn't protect the climate. Instead, the 82-year-old engine expert is backing more advanced internal combustion engines and synthetic fuels.

You are one of the most ardent advocates of the internal combustion engine. Politicians have decided otherwise, and the course has been set. Isn't it time to abandon opposition to the electric car?

Nothing has been decided yet. Since the diesel scandal, the EU Parliament has wanted to ban the internal combustion engine and tell people what technology they have to drive with in the future. But that won't just be the electric car. Today's e-car product is simply not good enough to overtake the internal combustion engine on a broad scale. Without all the money that car companies earn from combustion cars today, they wouldn't be able to develop e-cars at all.

But the EU directive on fleet emissions stipulates that not a single molecule of CO2 may leave the exhaust of a new car after 2035.

The CO2 directive is due to be updated in 2026. We will see how the registration figures develop by then. At present, e-cars account for 15 percent of new registrations in Germany, or around 400,000 cars per year. This means that in 2030 we will not have 15 million electric cars on the roads as planned, but only about four million.

Do you not see any acceptance of electric cars in society?

It's becoming less and less. Customers cannot be manipulated in the way that politicians believe. It's not democratic for an EU government to tell people: You can only drive electric cars. Even the Chinese allow all technologies. Soon, even the government will have to realize that e-cars cannot be sold at all without massive subsidies.

If you were still in charge of drive development for a major automaker in this situation, what would you do?

The terrible thing is that almost all manufacturers are going along with the electric car; they're only doing it for the shareholders and the politicians. And that's despite the fact that the electric car makes no contribution whatsoever to climate protection. It is a deceptive package. If I were still in charge as a developer, I would go to my boss and say: We need a plan B. And that plan is clear. And this plan is clear: the further development of the combustion engine.

So how do we get away from oil in the transport sector?

The only solution is new fuels and improved combustion engines. The electric car, on the other hand, doesn't help the climate.

Why is that?

The CO2 backpack from battery production is huge.
We have elegantly outsourced this to China. That's where most of the batteries come from, and they're produced with dirty coal-fired electricity. If these batteries are then installed in a European car, the government says that this is a clean drive. Also, of course, the electric car needs electricity, so electricity consumption goes up. There is clean electricity, but it is already completely consumed.

In the long term, however, electricity should become completely green.

An illusion. That will never be the case, certainly not around the world, because you can't store and regulate green electricity. The additional electricity that the electric car needs can only come from calorific power plants. So the electric car runs on coal-fired power. And that's where the government takes it upon itself to claim that it's a clean form of transportation.

But if we in Europe want to stop using fossil fuels by 2045, we need an alternative to oil.

Then the Saudis will produce e-fuels or biofuels for us. E-fuels are now being badmouthed by wishful thinkers because they are supposedly far too expensive. But if they are produced in the right places, things look very different. E-fuels are also energy storage devices, and we absolutely need them when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow for weeks or months at a time.

There are also customers who buy an electric car because it offers direct advantages, for example because it is quiet and produces no emissions locally.

I certainly recognize that. But that's a maximum of 15 percent of the population. These are people who have a garage, mainly the wealthy. For them, the electric car can be a useful addition in the city. But there aren't any number of rich people who can buy a Tesla, and most of them already have one.

As a motor developer, you've always promoted "intelligent simplicity." Wouldn't that fit the electric car exactly?

That's wrong. First of all, I'm glad that people are moving away from the plug-in hybrid. That stands for "stupid complexity," because these cars have everything: combustion engine, electric drive, battery and a lot of weight. The success so far is mainly due to massive promotion. And if you think an electric car consists of just a few components, take a closer look at a battery. It's an incredibly complicated thing, with all the cooling channels. And Tesla, for example, has more than 7,000 of these cells in it. We have to think holistically, and that includes the recycling process, which has not worked so far. An electric car is broken after eight years because the battery is then worn out.

But there are Teslas that last longer than eight years.

But there are also some that are broken after five years.
That depends on how often you charge quickly, for example. The worst thing for the battery is high temperatures. Manufacturers recommend that electric cars not be parked in the blazing sun for long periods of time because the battery then ages more quickly.

Who's to say that technological progress won't lead to much better batteries by 2035?

There is nothing in sight for the next ten years that could replace today's lithium-ion technology. Everything that is being communicated about alternatives is marketing.

Let's talk about hydrogen. It could even be used in the internal combustion engine.

Hydrogen won't work in passenger cars either. Of course it works technically, but it's not practical. Let's also think holistically here, please, and then the filling station is part of it. For the hydrogen to fit into the tank, it has to be compressed to 800 bar. In the process, it heats up and has to be cooled continuously, down to minus 40 degrees Celsius.

What's the difference between an internal combustion engine powered by e-fuels and today's?

Externally, nothing. Formula 1, which will switch to synthetic fuels from 2026, provides a clue. High compression, innovative ignition processes and lean combustion will be used. All of this will also be used in production engines. Unfortunately, such engines are already being developed in China today. It's unbelievable that a country as technologically advanced as Germany is saying: We don't need all that anymore. We must once again achieve technological openness and fight against a planned economy.

We can agree on technological openness right away. But e-fuels are obviously not a solution either because of their inefficient production.

Efficiency depends on where they manufacture these fuels. Of course, it is illusory to produce e-fuels in Europe. You have to get them from the desert or from places like Chile where the wind is always blowing. I'm convinced that major oil companies in Saudi Arabia are already working on these technologies today, partly because they enable energy storage.

So you don't think the electric car will catch on by 2035? The electric car will remain a niche product. Most customers want a car that is fully suitable for everyday use and can be used day and night, even with a surfboard on the roof or a trailer in the back. And it should be able to be sold after ten years. But I don't want to ban anyone from electric cars. I'm technology-neutral, it's just politics that isn't. That's against all common sense.

When you brought the first turbocharged gasoline engine into series production almost 50 years ago, you had many critics who said, "This will never work. Why are you so critical of progress today?

I'm not. It's just a matter of pushing progress in the right direction and not into a dead end. It doesn't just drive me crazy that a single technology is to be prescribed for us. It must be obvious that this is nonsense. It's indefensible, not from the point of view of the climate and not from the point of view of the economy.
-------------------------------

Skybird

04-11-23, 02:21 PM

You damn god, don't you finally want to plant a brain in the German part of your creation...? :arrgh!:

https://think--again-org.translate.goog/kanonenboot-diplomatie/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp (https://think--again-org.translate.goog/kanonenboot-diplomatie/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp)

Jimbuna

04-12-23, 08:53 AM

Centrica Business Solutions is expanding its energy assets with the construction of a 20MW hydrogen-ready gas-fired peaking plant in Worcestershire.

The company has acquired a decommissioned power plant in Redditch and plans to install eight UK-manufactured containerised engines, capable of burning natural gas.

The plant is expected to be operational later this year and will be used to meet high or peak electricity demands or to supplement low renewable energy generation.

The Redditch plant will be able to power 2,000 homes for a full day when necessary, contributing to grid stability and reliability.

The engines used in the plant will also be capable of burning a mix of natural gas and hydrogen, making the Redditch plant future-proof and assisting the UK’s shift to a decarbonised energy system.

According to Gregory McKenna, Managing Director at Centrica Business Solutions, “As we transition to a renewable led grid, gas-fired power plants like the one at Redditch will help meet the UK’s fluctuating energy demands.”

Rockstar

04-14-23, 06:59 AM

Catfish

04-14-23, 08:00 AM

Skybird

04-14-23, 10:59 AM

For you, Catfish. ;) Breath calm and steady, always calm and steady. :D

https://www.nzz.ch/international/atomausstieg-in-deutschland-die-oekonomin-im-dienst-der-gruenen-ld.1733802

BTW, there is research done on kind of reactivating nuclear waste and turn it into an energy source, some month ago I red about it randomly, but I forgot the details.

mapuc

04-14-23, 11:12 AM

Made some search

https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html

https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-used-fuel-processing-and-recycling

Markus

Skybird

04-14-23, 11:18 AM

Isn’t this the weekend Germany shuts down its last Nuclear Power Plant? I don’t understand how a decision was made to exit nuclear before coal. Especially after reading party concerns in the previous post stating no co2 emissions after 2035 from fleet autos.
You are not the only one not understanding that, even a majority of Germans do not want to switch the last three reactors off right now.

The answer is: in the past it was Merkel's opportunism, today its the Greens. The Greens were founded 1980 on grounds of the Anti-Atom movement. Being against nuclear energy is at the heart and core of green activists, ideolgosts, most voters. And the greens are, despite opposite claims, no big "Volkspartei", they have no wider, diverse voter base that can be appeased in several various ways and with different topics, like the big CDU or SPD could do in the past, the clients of the Greens are kind of extremist and cannot be appeased and made voting Green by tricks and workarounds, they only accept the hardcore goal that is the heart and core of the Greens: anti-atom, that is, no matter the cost, at any cost, no matter what. It is the extreme of possible patronage politics that drives the Greens.

Or in short: its ideological fanatism.

Also, they are driven by a deep conviction of being on a mission to enlighten all manklind. Its a missonary spirit second to none in Europe, that is extremely intolerant to diverting views and opinions, is very authoritarian and think that self responsibility and liberalism are utmost dubious and suspicious and must be controlled by total state planning and planned way of lives and planned economy. The greens are hardcore collectivists and absolutely mistrust individual strength. The sociological orientation is Marxist-Maoist. From the founding days on they also were home to sexual "rebels" that lobbied for legalising pedophilia and sexual contacts of adults with small children, some of those now old bastards still have a certain incluence in the party, from the shadows of backstage.

The Greens and Merkel'S merciless opportunism are the two biggest desasters that have hit Germany since WW2. The other desasters fade to grey in comparison.

I dispise the Greens to maximum degrees. I always did, already as a teen at school. The whole scene that over here is called "Altenative", disgusts me, and always has. I dont believe them a single word.

Catfish

04-14-23, 12:03 PM

For you, Catfish. ;) Breath calm and steady, always calm and steady. :D [...]
:haha: ja, Schnappatmung. Dasselbe wie mit Herrn Indra, gibts die YouTube-Reihe "Alte Schule" mit ihm. Die Leute mit know-how werden nicht gehört.

Rockstar

04-14-23, 04:50 PM

I remember when I first started hearing about the Greens here on the subsim network opposing NordStreeam 2. Though serious, I jokingly brought up the idea the U.S. was probably assisting them and their rise in political power.

Seems the U.S. and the Greens have a lot in common. :D

I knew there was a reason I usually like what Annalena has to say.

Below is from Wikipedia. However I would never doubt or argue against the views of those who actually live in Germany and have to deal with them.

The Greens are regarded as taking a Atlanticist line on defense and pushing for a stronger common EU foreign policy, especially against Russia and China. Green Party co-leader Annalena Baerbock has proposed a post-pacifist foreign policy. She supports eastward expansion of NATO and has considered the number of UN resolutions critical of Israel as "absurd compared to resolutions against other states." The party's program included references to NATO as an "indispensable" part of European security. The Greens have promised to abolish the contested Nord Stream 2 pipeline to ship Russian natural gas to Germany. The party criticized the EU's investment deal with China. In 2016, the Greens criticised Germany's defense plan with Saudi Arabia, which has been waging war in Yemen and has been accused of massive human rights violations.

Skybird

04-14-23, 05:49 PM

Its true, some Greens in the current situation are fundamental moralist and want to put that into political acting as well. But:

you know, there are two wings in the Green party, we call them the "Realos" and the "Fundis".

The Realos cover everythign from pragmatics (they were the coalition Greens in Schroeders government during the Iraq war) to prohibition of everything that opposes Green ideals in Germany while opportunistically playing ball in foreign politics where things are beyond their reach and power to influence them. The Fundis are the fanatical fundamentalists, formed by ultra pacifists, Maoists, Marxists, former peace movement activists, fundamental anti-atom believers, radical environmentalists, uncompromised suppporters of Friday for Future and parasyting idiots glueing themselves to the street tarmac.

Both have in common that they do not trust people'S self responsibility and do not trust liberty and libertarianism/liberalism, they want to order from top to bottom and control that people obey the state blindly or even better are unconditionaly subjugated into complianc,e like we currently see with the Green war against house and property owners. Both are very anti-capitalistic, and anti-market. Both want planned economy. Both are therefore in strict support of the EU regime.

Baerbock's problem is she wants more than Germany can deliver, and acts as if she or Germany had the power to make others comply with German moral demands. But this obviously is not so, practically all foreign diplomatic initiatives of the Green ministers to form new economic and political alliance have terribly failed, at best they got smiles in return for stupid German money being thrown away, recently at Brazil's Lula - that is the Lula who took that money and then started a charm offensive to get closer to China. The germans are still in Mali, can anyone tell me what the hell they have to do there anymore? What they ever were capabloe to do there...? It was Baerbock demanding that they stayed beyond last year, her only reason was reference to moral motives again. Baerbock also wants development aid being counted as military spending, and she torpedoed Scholz' attempt to form a german equivalent to the American government's security council or cabinet or how you call that in the US. If she could not get that under her control, so her reasoning, then it should not be allowed to exist, because she wanted it to use as a tool for what she calls femioniost foreign policy. She also has commanded her ministry to deeply submit to total feminist and gender ideological rules, language, and massive anti-male discrimination.

So, before you start to admire her for her verbal volleys behnd which you will find nothing but hot air, consider all this. She is, like all the Greens, very authoritarian in her ways to enforce her ideological goals, and she took it very angry that she did not became chancellor, had to give way to Habeck getting the more powerful Green ministry as well. She is dangerous for Germany, she ignores the tight limits of German power and influence, and she is a fanatical moral apostle, and she is consumed by ambition. She also sacrifices German interests to this, as the matter of the failed national security council shows. Like Habeck, she is a skilled rethorical speaker. But do not get fooled by that, its all just sound and verbal cosmetics to mislead the masses. Both habeck and Baerbock are extremeley dangerous while at the same time not knowing their stuff, being ideologically dogmatized, ignporing realty where iot doe snot meet their expectatiosn and demands how reality should be, and not hesitating to lie blatantly whenever it serves their purposes, especially Habeck.

So let Baerbock's position on supporting military aid for Ukraine not deceive you. Taken for itself, on that she is right. But there is much more to her, and the seat of foreign minister consists of more than just the Ukraine issue, and she has quite extreme personal ambitions. In America you maybe do not know what they have come up with here in Germany in enforcing hilarious financial burdens on house owners to force them to quickly switch to heat pumps and isolate their houses, in ignorrance for that reality prevents this for many pragmatic reasons, from lacking workers and material to financial overklill demands for house owners. Its a huge, well-deceived expropriation program they have intiated there, because if this gets pushed through as planned, many people will need to emergency-sell their houses, because they cannot pay the enormous burdens this enforced "renovation" means. It slike ater WW2 many property owners were given a state-enforced penalty mortgage of 50% on their houses and land that they then had to pay back. This plot now strongly reminds me of that. In case of the house I live in, with six appartements, the costs for replacing the heating system will explode from "just" around 20-25 thousand for this damn heat pump we do not want at all, to probably far beyond 300 thousand, because the heat pump only make sense if we practically tear down the house and rebuild it from scratch. Windows, walls, roof, pipes, all needs to be done new. The base temperature we cna reahc pobnbaply nevertheless will likely drop, and in winter the electricity bill will kill us further. Legislation is pushed through currentl ythat allowed the government to brownout households and wallboxes over night or for up to 4 hours over ther day, because we may not have enough electrical energy for all that electrification madness we now get drowned in.

The Greens are dreamers, and idiots. They lack simple mathematical skills, they lie and cheat whenever it serves them, and they think they have the right to do like they do because they are convinced they are on a holy mission to have Germany all alone save the rest of the world, even if this means the destruction of Germany civil society, and economy anyway. The deindustrialization was a central wish of the Greens since the late 70s when the movements got founded from which the Greens later recruited their founding generation's personell.

Dumm, dümmer, grün. I hate this breed already since my schooldays. I was already disgusted by them when they were still Berlin rabble and called themselves "Alternative Liste". When I was young, I was disgiusted, when I turned more adult and mature, I weas furious and angry. But now i really feel only hate for this brutal, uneducated primitive rat-pack. :arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!:

Very, very angry I now am. :mad::mad::mad:

Skybird

04-14-23, 07:21 PM

To balance my emotional rant before:
https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/der-atomausstieg-triumph-der-gegenaufklaerung_id_190918680.html

How Greens and opponents of nuclear power make politics with lies and fear

Anna Veronika Wendland is a German historian of technology and Eastern Europe. She works at the Herder Institute for Historical Research on East Central Europe in Marburg and completed her habilitation at the University of Marburg with a thesis on reactor safety in Eastern Europe and Germany.
Wendland is a member of the German-Ukrainian Historical Commission (DUHK). In July 2020, she and Rainer Moormann published a memorandum attributing a crucial role to nuclear power in the energy transition. She is also the author of the book "Nuclear Power? Yes Please!".
---------------
The German nuclear phase-out is a decision against better judgment - and a triumph of counter-enlightenment. So there are plenty of reasons for a left-wing critique of the nuclear phase-out.

The other day, a Swiss journalist asked me almost incredulously how it could have happened that the plug was pulled on a high-tech industry in, of all places, the world's fourth-largest economy. The reason is three German special paths in the political, cultural and industrial-structural spheres.

The green counter-modernism

First, we have a weighty bloc of anti-nuclear parties on the center left because the German left, in the course of its bourgeoisification, has thrown nuclear energy, in Marxist terms the most progressive productive force, at the feet of the right.

This, in turn, was only possible because, secondly, an ecological style of thinking was able to establish itself that had always existed in the German bourgeoisie and which the bourgeois children's revolt of 1968 did not shatter but reinforced. The anti-modern, technology- and industry-critical, eco-romantic thinking traditions of the German bourgeoisie go back to the counter-revolutionary 19th century. The Greens, contrary to what their opponents claim, are not a socialist party in this sense, but a conservative one.

The left-wing Green K-group descendants of Trittin's ilk, who attacked the nuclear power plant as the incarnation of Rhenish capitalism, were interested in the anti-nuclear issue only insofar as it did not win them the working class, but at least the imitation of participation in a mass movement.

Messages of fear

But no matter where they came from, the Greens shared a set of unquestioned statements that - in the wake of their successful march into discourse-determining positions in schools, churches, the media, academia - increasingly dominated the discourse on nuclear energy.
At the center was the message of fear: fear of the threat posed by nuclear fission to "holistic" contexts of matter, life and meaning; fear of the decomposing, omnipresent radiation; fear of cancer; fear of the complexity of nuclear plants, whose procedures were perceived as alchemical sorcerer's apprenticeship; fear of the engineering hubris as an offense against higher, natural orders.

To the fear belonged, like a twin sister, the deification of the small, decentralized and therefore supposedly democratic as an end in itself, from Demeter farms to wind turbines. And this also included the demonization of the nuclear power plant as an authoritarian structure while at the same time evading criticism of the capital relationship, which would be the true reason to fear.

A successful project

But the reactionary root of the criticism of nuclear power is ultimately also the cultural secret of the German nuclear phase-out: the anti-modernism elevated to party status by the Greens, which was not compensated for by their progressive trend-setting in terms of civil and gender rights, was precisely connectable deep into the bourgeois political camp, especially its Christian-influenced part. This made it possible for Angela Merkel in 2011 to dupe the technocratic, entrepreneurial wing of the CDU/CSU without a party revolt and to push through the nuclear phase-out.

In short, nuclear power had to go not because it failed technically, but because it failed discursively: because talking about it was at some point only done by people who thought such thoughts about it as described above, while our engineering class knew nothing to counter this narrative except the message of technical perfection - and the false hope that a CDU booked for eternity as the chancellor's party would already hold a protective hand over the German nuclear industry.

The comprehensible, winning, people-oriented communication of a progressive counter-narrative, openness and curiosity in the face of well-founded criticism - unfortunately, this was not learned in the study of nuclear process engineering.

The renewable-fossil energy transition

But it only succeeded in turning the fear message into a phase-out program because it succeeded in portraying nuclear energy as superfluous and replaceable.

And this brings us to the third part of our triad . Fear alone is not enough to not want to use a technology - otherwise a great many people who fly would not get on a plane. They may be afraid of flying, but they also don't want to cross the Atlantic by ship. What breaks a technology is the combination of a message of fear and a message of joy that you have an alternative, a much better, safer, cheaper substitute.

And this is exactly what the Greens and the SPD were able to do, because they actually had a substitute: namely, in addition to renewables, which were euphorically welcomed and perceived as unproblematic, above all coal-fired power and gas, which provided them with the security that volatile renewables alone could never have guaranteed. They benefited from the dual structure of the German electricity industry, in which coal interests were so strong alongside the nuclear interests that companies like RWE had to be carried by the state to the nuclear hunt as late as the 1960s.

In this sense, there was never a German nucléocratie or a systemic dependence on nuclear energy as in France, for example, quite apart from the lack of a military nuclear program as a motivator.

The life lie of the energy turnaround

The idea that with good German coal and "clean" German coal-fired power plant technology as a bridging technology for the energy turnaround, one would have a harmless alternative to nuclear energy, was the life lie of the energy turnaround, if one looks at the environmental and sacrifice balance of the electricity producers in comparison.

However, this idea was compatible with all milieus and actors, from the Greens and the unions to the CDU/CSU and the "ethics commission" that had to legitimize Merkel's decision to phase out nuclear power after Fukushima in 2011. This connectivity also extends into the here and now to Robert Habeck, who would rather give RWE permission to mine the coal under Lützerath than extend the operating life of RWE's Emsland NPP. Emsland could produce the electricity equivalent of this coal within 16 months - to the climate balance of wind power, of course.

The energy transition state and its conventions

The fact that it has come to this is also the result of language conventions in the energy debate that have been established by the state, the media and academia. What the nuclear state, which the opponents of nuclear power always painted on the wall, never achieved, the real existing energy transition state is now achieving: the domestication of criticism in the form of the media and the environmental movement. The latter has degenerated into the legitimizing authority of the renewable energy industry, which also waves through the most brazen undermining of planning law, nature conservation and species protection.

For many years, there was no statement about nuclear energy in the German media without a preamble of reprehensibility, no visualization of a nuclear power plant without threatening music underneath. Hardly an article about nuclear waste gets by without a picture of rusty, yellow, but fake barrels, and not a week goes by without an ÖRR blog or talk show appearance by economist Claudia Kemfert, who preaches to us that nuclear power is expensive, dangerous, inflexible, and at best militarily motivated. All four statements are demonstrably false . Kemfert defames criticism as a conspiracy of an overpowering fossil fuel lobby. This Manichean worldview is the death of any differentiated and fair debate.

This is the reason why the pro-nuclear voices in the FDP and CDU/CDU, which have recently become audible again, are so depressed and conceptless - because they no longer dare to speak about this topic with an audible, self-confident voice and to present a bold, powerful climate strategy for nuclear power and renewables.

German nuclear power: a victim of atonement

We saw virtually no arguments against German nuclear power plants in the past debate that were based on the concrete technical realities of these plants. Rather, it was experience from French, Soviet or Japanese nuclear plants that was projected onto our plants.

Germany's nuclear power plants are sacrificed vicariously in a kind of atonement ritual: we give Brokdorf for Three Mile Island, Neckarwestheim for Chernobyl and Isar-2 for Fukushima, Emsland for too warm cooling water in France, Grohnde for the Russian tanks in front of the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhya.

Change life? Without the Greens

If one had given up this belief, one might have realized that the abolition of the last six nuclear power plants alone means the same in terms of climate and electricity balance as if Habeck had 15,000 wind turbines blown up. Recognizing this, one could have paused and turned back. In this way, they could have regained credibility and respect, especially among those who are indifferent to climate protection and wait and see, because in their eyes it is unaffordable.

But the Greens did not want to give this signal. While they demand that everyone else change their lives for the sake of the climate, they are holding on to their old lives. And that will not work in the long run.

Skybird

04-15-23, 07:30 AM

The last three reactors are off. And yesterday Habeck has moved the respnsibility for n uclear research from the economic ministry (his) to the climate ministry (also his). The funding gets culled, and it is clear that all nuclear research in Germany now is to be axed next. The next battlefield is also clearly defined, the anti-atom movent wants a ban on nuclear energy in all EU. Since our neighbouring states mostly are pro nuclear, there is hope this fight gets lost.

Note the very last sentence in the following interview (which I could not get into Google site translator). Nomen est omen.

"We Germans are climate policy ghost drivers".

Nuclear physicisst and enterpreneur Getz Rubrecht considers power outages more threatening than reactor risks.

Mr. Ruprecht, this Saturday the last three German nuclear power plants will go off the grid. A great victory for the environment and safety, right?

On the contrary, the decision is irresponsible. Security of supply will suffer, energy prices will rise, and we're also doing a disservice to the climate. We can build as many wind farms and solar parks as we want, which will theoretically generate all the electricity we need. However, it cannot be stored sufficiently. When there are dark periods, we need controllable capacities, preferably low-cost and low-emission nuclear energy. The German government is also aware of this dilemma, which is why it wants to reactivate old coal-fired power plants and build new gas-fired power plants at great expense. So the traffic lights coalition partners, of all things, are backing fossil fuels. That's completely absurd when you have a safe, long-depreciated, well-established clean technology, nuclear power. Instead of shutting down the last three reactors tomorrow, the three that were shut down at the end of 2021 should be brought back online, i.e. six plants should continue to operate.

What about the nuclear risks?

They are calculable and in any case smaller than if there were load shedding and widespread power outages. Nothing is more detrimental to safety than volatile power grids in which fluctuations can no longer be balanced at some point. We must not forget that electricity demand will increase enormously as oil and gas products are replaced by electricity in heating, industry and transport. We must do everything we can to ensure stable generation and stable grids. In theory, this can be done with domestic lignite or fracked liquefied gas, but nuclear power is much more sustainable. Incidentally, more and more countries and environmentalists see it the same way, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Finnish Greens, and Greta Thunberg, founder of Fridays for Future. It's not everyone else who is the energy and climate policy ghost driver; it's us Germans.
Does the Fukushima accident leave you cold?
Of course not, the earthquake was a terrible disaster with many deaths. But the radioactivity released was minimal, no one died from the radiation. Today we know that the hasty evacuations of houses, old people's homes or clinics, where there were many victims, were unnecessary. Earthquakes and tsunamis are highly unlikely in our country. Even the Japanese, who suffered two atomic bombings, are again relying on nuclear technology because they know that nuclear power is controllable and has many advantages.

You are a nuclear physicist yourself. Where does German nuclear research stand?

German nuclear power plants and German research were at the top for a long time; after all, nuclear fission was discovered in Berlin by Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner. There are still great scientists, engineers, practitioners, but many are drawn abroad.

Your company Dual Fluid is also based in Vancouver in Canada.

Yes, I worked there myself at the Triumf particle physics research center. But we are also based and do research in Germany. It's clear that anti-nuclear sentiment has scared off bright minds and led to institutional clear-cutting. Many research institutions have disappeared or been hidden away as sub-departments. Some have renamed themselves so as not to have "nuclear energy" in the title at all. One prefers to speak of "subatomic physics" or the like. There are still small nests, but no more nuclear research worth mentioning in Germany. Why should there be, if nobody wants us? There were cases where the authorities took forever, checked and constantly found something new. In the worst case, such a delay leads to running out of money. Possibly that is exactly what is intended.

How modern is today's nuclear technology?

Not particularly; one could work much more efficiently. The pressurized water reactors still prevalent today are based on old military technology, basically small units for submarines and aircraft carriers. Most of the so-called Small Modular Reactors or SMRs, which are now much reported, are also based on this technology. Pressurized water reactors are well established, but they must be actively cooled and controlled with neutron absorbers, or control rods. The use of the fuel elements is an insane waste because only one percent of the natural uranium, or 5 percent of the fuel, can be used for energy. The rest goes into the nuclear waste repository and continues to radiate there forever because the yield is so low. The military introduced this overpriced technology because the fuel rods can be delivered anywhere like ammunition, and it can afford it. For civilian purposes, the process is not ideal.

What is the alternative?

Interestingly, the inventor of the pressurized water reactor, Alvin Weinberg, already realized that there are better ways. Instead of solid fuel elements in magazines that have to be replaced, he experimented with liquid salts. In this case, the heat is generated in a circuit. This can be controlled much better, and the burn-off runs optimally. There are also other developments with special advantages. These include, for example, high-temperature or sodium-cooled reactors. Six of these types have been grouped together as the "fourth generation," but ultimately they are based on processes that have long been known. They are not yet ready for series production, but many startups are trying their hand at fourth-generation SMRs.

Are you heading in that direction, too?

We see ourselves as a fifth generation. The idea is to expand Weinberg's liquid salt reactor to two cycles. That's why the company is called "Dual Fluid." In our case, one fluid carries the fuel, the other dissipates the heat. This allows us to heat the nuclear fuel to 1000 degrees, which is extremely powerful and economical. This has many advantages, for example, the reactor is ten times smaller than conventional plants, and it can be completely hidden underground. In addition, the system regulates itself: When the fuel heats up in the chain reaction, the liquid expands, which automatically decreases the fission reactivity and the temperature drops again. So we don't need any control rods. In addition, there is a fuse that melts if the liquid does get too hot. Then all the fuel flows safely by gravity into drain tanks, and the chain reaction stops immediately.

What about the dreaded waste?

We achieve almost 100 percent burnup, not just 5 percent as in the pressurized water reactor. Therefore, 90 percent of the radioactivity has decayed after 100 years, and it is complete after 300. So we no longer have to think in terms of millennia. Efficiency is also reflected in the price. We calculate with production costs, the so-called LCOE including investments, of 24 euros per megawatt hour. That is unbeatably low. In addition, we could also produce hydrogen cheaply, which everyone is now counting on. We calculate that the costs are a factor of 4 to 6 lower than for electrolysis with the much-celebrated wind power.

But that's just pie in the sky, isn't it?

We are already quite far along. The company has been around for two years, and 4.5 million euros have been invested. The most important backers are medium-sized companies from German-speaking countries. They remain loyal to us because they don't believe in the current form of energy transition, but are building on openness to technology, including nuclear energy. We are testing the components this year, and the first demonstration plant should be ready in 2026. In 2029 we want to have the prototype ready and go into pilot production. In 2034, series production could be ramped up. By the beginning of next year, we want to raise the necessary funding in the high double-digit millions. We can build the demonstrator within two years, then run it for a year and a half. So in four or five years, the experiment would be complete. It all looks very good.

Where will the plant be built?

Certainly not in Germany! If you are honest, the conditions in all G7 and all OECD countries are not favorable. The sector is completely overregulated, even if the population and politicians are open-minded. This makes it particularly difficult to promote nuclear technology. We have partnerships with Poland, Switzerland and, of course, Canada. But we will not build the demonstrator there. Many emerging countries want to achieve rapid industrial progress. I can reveal this much: We are about to sign a contract with an African country.

-----------------------------

Thats what is being systematically ignored in German discussions: that the deaths in Fukushima did not come from radiation, but were the direct and imminent effects of the tsunami and earthquake themselves. But the Germans atribute all the deaths to radiation. Lies and deception of the public, that is and always was the business model of the Green discussion of nuclear energy. Lies and deception. And defamation of opponents of their views.

Skybird

04-16-23, 07:08 AM

The antithesis to Germany: while Germany has shut down its last three nuclear power plants, a new nuclear reactor has come online in Finland, albeit 12 years late. All tests have been completed and regular electricity production has begun. It is the third reactor at the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant in southwestern Finland and is expected to cover 14 percent of the country's electricity production, according to TVO.

The Olkiluoto 3 reactor was built by the German-French consortium Areva-Siemens, and construction began in 2005. At 1600 megawatts, it is the most powerful nuclear reactor in Europe. Together with the two older reactors, the Olkiluoto NPP now produces "about 30 percent of Finland's electricity," according to the operator.

Cry, Germany, cry.

Jimbuna

04-16-23, 01:57 PM

Crazy and avoidable situation.

Jimbuna

04-17-23, 01:02 PM

According to Reuters, the coalition of the "Big Seven" countries (G7) will keep the price limit for Russian oil delivered by sea at the level of 60 dollars per barrel.

The G7 and Australia decided to keep the cap in place in the past few weeks after reviewing the $60 price set in December. This comes after four weeks of rising oil prices, helped by production cuts announced by OPEC+ and a recovery in Chinese consumption.

On Monday, the market consolidated, Brent crude oil futures and US crude oil remained above 80 dollars per barrel. Russian oil is sold at a discount of about $30 to Brent. Coalition officials concluded that the price cap works to limit Russian revenues while maintaining energy market stability, but said they would continue to coordinate to ensure effective monitoring and enforcement, the Reuters source added.

The coalition is also stepping up efforts to combat evasion of the price ceiling and sanctions imposed on Russia, including the use of deceptive practices to gain access to insurance and other coalition services for oil sold above the ceiling. Coalition members plan to develop guidelines to help service providers spot signs of evasion, such as manipulating vessel tracking or failing to itemize shipping, freight, customs and insurance costs separately from the oil itself, the agency spokeswoman said.

The oil price cap prohibits G7 and European Union companies from providing transport, insurance and financing services for Russian oil and petroleum products if they are sold at a price higher than the cap.

A Reuters source noted that a recent International Energy Administration (IEA) report concluded that the G7 sanctions regime had been effective, "not restricting global supplies of oil and petroleum products, but at the same time limiting Russia's ability to generate export revenues." The IEA said on Friday that Russia's March revenues from oil sales rose by $1 billion month-on-month to $12.7 billion, but were still 43% lower than a year earlier.

Earlier, the European Commission informed EU member states that limiting the price of Russian oil at $60 per barrel is proving effective in limiting the Kremlin's access to petrodollars without disrupting the market, and will remain unchanged for the time being.

Jimbuna

04-19-23, 05:17 AM

Russia has warned Europe that it faces a fresh gas crisis next winter as it scrambles to restock reserves as Vladimir Putin launches a new attempt to weaponise energy.

Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned gas supplier, said Europe had made it through winter despite cuts in Russian gas supplies owing to mild temperatures but warned there “is no guarantee that nature will make such a gift” again.

In a statement on Twitter, it said restocking for next winter would not be easy, blaming “politically motivated decisions aimed at halting the imports of Russian pipeline gas”.

Russia curbed pipeline gas supplies to Europe last year in retaliation for sanctions issued in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine.

The scramble to replace Russian gas with imports from around the world triggered a surge in prices and a major cost of living crisis that has cost Europe’s governments billions of euros.

However, Europe is now emerging from winter with gas stocks more than half full, close to record highs for the time of year.

That puts the continent in a stronger position to manage with less Russian gas, while it can also lean on imports of liquified natural gas (LNG) from elsewhere.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/putin-threatens-europe-with-fresh-gas-crisis/ar-AA1a1mXB?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=32332cd0c74e410f8a6cd9828a3c8d70&ei=18

mapuc

04-19-23, 10:20 AM

Here's another threat to todays and coming wind power

Several EU countries are implementing ambitious plans to turn the North Sea into a green energy powerhouse. But what will happen if global warming causes wind speeds to drop?

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/04/17/are-wind-droughts-a-threat-to-the-booming-north-sea-wind-power-industry

Markus

Skybird

04-19-23, 11:38 AM

Here's another threat to todays and coming wind power

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/04/17/are-wind-droughts-a-threat-to-the-booming-north-sea-wind-power-industry

Markus
Yeah, that one I asked several times! And that could very well be, we already have indices that the changing temperature patterns change the dynamics of atmosheric movement which keeps the global deep-sea currents going, by thawing ice into fresh water, which then races at high speed through the saltwater layers of the deep sea to the bottom, and causing kinetic energy. The level of activity in the water, in turn, also affects the motion in the atmospheric air temperature layers above it: it decreases, the wind blows weaker, weather zones move slower or stay completely in one place, warm air from the gulf does not come, cold air from the polar region flows further and further (a typical pattern in Europe at winter time if not coutnered by opposing warm air streams) - and Boom!, due to climate warming, paradoxically, climate freezes and cools down (when in 2014 my town flooded, it was because three supercells arrived at the same time over Münster and then moved for hours no more from the place, for lack of wind), which should please climate skeptics, they can then claim that there is no global warming. But, there was/is warming then already, without it we would not have these new problems and cooling effects. This is apparently paradox, but only at first sight. It will be great! The wind doesn't blow when the cloud cover is thick, aint that a stupid thing! Then, in addition to the failing photovoltaics, the wind milling also fails, that will then result in very, very many romantic candlelight dinner!

Skybird

04-23-23, 04:16 PM

I posted this in the Germany thread before, but it belongs into this energy thread as well.

https://think--again-org.translate.g..._x_tr_pto=wapp (https://think--again-org.translate.goog/nicht-in-meinem-haus/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp)

Jimbuna

04-27-23, 01:32 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFvo55S0SmQ

Skybird

04-28-23, 08:52 AM

^ Quite some Western and German companies deliberately refuse to cancel their profitable business in Russia, or feigned social responsibility for their Russian workers as an excuse to stay. Others simply waited and waited and waited too long while indulging in delicious hopes of the magic fairy who would make the world whole and good overnight.

My sympathy is kept within extremely narrow limits.

Jimbuna

04-28-23, 10:27 AM

^ Me too :yep:

Jimbuna

04-30-23, 07:28 AM

Meanwhile.....

Oil giant ExxonMobil's profits more than doubled in the first three months of this year, helped by the increased demand for oil and gas.

The US energy firm said cost-cutting measures also contributed to its record $11.4bn (£9.1bn) first-quarter profits, up from $5.5bn a year earlier.

The jump came despite falling oil prices and a $200m hit from windfall taxes the company paid in Europe.

Rival US oil firm Chevron also reported an increase in its profits.

It made nearly $6.6bn between January and March, up 5% from the same time a year ago. It also paid a $130m "energy profits levy" or windfall tax in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65427372

Jimbuna

05-02-23, 06:21 AM

Absolutely ludicrous when so many are struggling to stay warm.

Oil and gas giant BP has reported strong profits for the beginning of the year as energy prices remain high.

Profits hit $5bn (£4bn) in the first three months of the year, although this was down from $6.2bn last year with oil prices having fallen from the peak seen after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Bumper profits from energy firms have led to calls for them to pay more tax with households facing high bills.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats called for changes to the windfall tax.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer called for a "proper" windfall tax on energy profits.

"Of course we want BP and others to make profits so they can invest but these are profits that they didn't expect to make, these are profits that are over and above because the world price of energy is so high," he told BBC Breakfast.

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said: "These eye-watering profits are a kick in the teeth for all those struggling to pay their energy bills."

He added that the government had "let oil and gas giants off the hook for billions of pounds while people and businesses struggle to pay for their gas and electricity".'

The BBC has contacted the government for comment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65453952

Skybird

05-02-23, 07:33 AM

Got my latest electricity bill update. I consumed 25% less in past 12 months (i altered nothing in my household habits, I have no clue how that drop comes, we heat with oil in thios house, not electrical), but I pay 50% more.

Simultaneously the government promises to see electricity prices drop
while the electricity supply is being further reduced :doh: and hydroelectric power is now being demonized and is to be shut down at all costs. :dead:

A left-green party propagandist (in the rank of a state secretary...) has also blabbed on state TV at prime time and implied that the Greens are not so much concerned with the climate as with the socio-political equalization of households - everyone should have the same much or little, in plain language.

I have always said it, for years. The Greens are not about eco, but about Marxist-Maoist social revolution. The Greens are merely Reds painted green. They have copied their tactics from the Greeks' wooden horse at Troy. Germany, this biggest free air mental asylum in Europe, falls for it since decades.

Rockstar

05-04-23, 05:12 PM

So, is it true Germany has dismantled a wind farm in order to expand a coal mine?

That’s probably why your electric bill went up, at least until they can get the coal plant fired up, maybe. :)

Jimbuna

05-08-23, 08:04 AM

Moscow was hit in its oil exports by sanctions following President Vladimir Putin's decision to invade neighbouring Ukraine in February 2022. But the Russian oil still needs to flow, albeit in much-reduced quantity, to avoid a disastrous crash in the market, an expert said.

Samir Dani, author and professor at Keele University, explained why G7 countries have decided to put a cap on the cost of Russian oil per barrel rather than completely ban it from the market.

He told Express.co.uk: "It is not a complete ban on the Russian export of oil, but the cap aims at reducing the revenues that Russia gets through the sale of the oil.

"In terms of the G7 countries, they're doing this so that it does not cause an oil crisis and it does not cause further inflation.

"So the G7 countries are keeping the oil flowing through the world, but trying to reduce the revenue that Russia gets for its economy."

Jimbuna

05-12-23, 06:16 AM

India's imports of Russian oil rose tenfold last year, according to Indian state-controlled lender Bank of Baroda.

The figures show Asia's third largest economy saved around $5bn (£4bn) as it ramped up crude purchases from Moscow.

It comes as Western countries have been cutting their imports of energy from Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia has been selling energy at a discount to countries like China and India, which is the world's third largest importer of oil.

In 2021 Russian oil accounted for just 2% of India's annual crude imports. That figure now stands at almost 20%, Bank of Baroda said.

India's purchases of oil from Russia during the last financial year, saved it around $89 per tonne of crude, the figures show.

Despite pressure from the US and Europe, India has refused to adhere to Western sanctions on Russian imports. New Delhi has also not explicitly condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

India has defended its oil purchases, saying that as a country reliant on energy imports and with millions living in poverty, it was not in a position to pay higher prices.

Since the Ukraine war began, Europe had imported six times more energy from Russia than India, the country's External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said in a TV interview last year.

"Europe has managed to reduce its imports while doing it in a manner that is comfortable," he said.

Mr Jaishankar added: "If it is a matter of principle why did Europe not cut on the first day?"

With no end in sight to the conflict, some analysts expect Russia to continue to offer cheap oil to Asia's biggest energy importers.

"We expect Russian crude intake to remain limited to these two countries [India and China], sustaining the steep discounts," Vandana Hari, from energy analysis firm Vanda Insights told the BBC.

India's oil refiners will continue to maximise their profit margins for as long as they can, but will simply "go back to their usual crude diet" if the sanctions were to be lifted, she added.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65553920

Skybird

05-16-23, 06:11 PM

The heat pump craze is not only raging in Germany:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/12/the-heat-pump-farce-has-finally-been-exposed/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/03/the-heat-pump-rollout-is-an-entirely-predictable-fiasco/

Meanwhile, economic experts of the German FDP (a member of the coalition government!) recently calculated the real full costs for the Green-wanted enforced exchange of all heating for heatpumps alone: with all the addon costs, their calculaiton shows, the costs are not 150 billion, as the Greens claim, but 6.5 trillion - Factor 43. And that are costs that for the very most are to be shouldered by property owners. Consequently, prices for houses have gone into a steep dive. Peopel have started emergency-sellings, because they fear the money avalanche aiming at them. While the law has not even been passed, it is clear that the fincail, fiasco will remain to be an existential threat for many, even if they water it down in the process.

Add to this the costs of the exploding electricity demand in winter.

The German annual GDP btw. is 3.8 trillion.

Well, math has never been the strength of the Greens. And with the rule of three they are already completely overstrained.

They all seem to have declared the population fair game. The economic war against their own citizens has begun. No prisoners are being taken.

Find the end of a rainbow
Fly wherever the winds blow
Laugh at life like a sideshow
Just what you need to make you feel better
Satisfaction altogether
Guaranteed by Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether
(Alan Parsons Project, Edgar Allan Poe)

That story by Poe is so very true today.

Skybird

05-18-23, 03:49 PM

As a result of the Ukraine war, the gas price rose to over 300 euros per megawatt hour last August. In the meantime, the trend is moving in the opposite direction: on Thursday, the price fell to below 30 euros for the first time since June 2021. Gas prices are thus continuing their downward trend, which has been ongoing for months.

CO2 certificate trading will put an end to this over the years, however, and is expected to make fossil energy ultimately unaffordable.

Jimbuna

05-19-23, 05:24 AM

European natural gas prices have fallen back to normal trading levels for the first time since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, delivering a blow to Vladimir Putin in his energy war.

Dutch front-month futures, the continent's pricing benchmark, slipped below €30 per megawatt hour on Thursday and again briefly today to reach the lowest level since June 2021.

Europe's energy market is finding a lower limit after a seven-week streak of declines, the longest in six years driven by stable supply, mild weather and stronger renewable generation.

Europe began the refilling season for gas storage with already high storage levels after the mild winter which has helped to keep a lid on prices.

Energy Aspects analysts said that recent injections mean Europe is on track to fill sites by early summer, which is a significant downward risk to late-third quarter prices.

Skybird

05-21-23, 01:33 PM

Germany is pouting! Alliance of 16 EU states want to raise nuclear energy from currently 100 GW to 150 GW in 2050, and signed according papers already in March.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/nuclear-alliance-aims-for-150-gw-of-nuclear-power-in-eu-by-2050/#-1

This chart shows net power exports and imports in Europe in May so far (source: eneryg-charts.info). Germany, Britain. Italy. LOL Mind you, this is May, not really deep winter when no sun shines and no wind blows.

https://www.tichyseinblick.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Bildschirmfoto-2023-05-21-um-12.22.38.png

Nuclear weapons are only held by France in the EU, and nuclear power also sees a strong French dominance. Both is not good. Not because I fear war with France, but because I do not believe one minute that France would risk the pulverization of Paris and Marseille because Russia decides to nuke say Latvia. Or Germany. The Brits would also not do it. And the Yanks not as well.

Jimbuna

05-22-23, 06:13 AM

I think the bottom line in any eventuality would be each country doing what best helps themselves.

Jimbuna

05-25-23, 09:56 AM

Ine small step but a step in the right direction.

This will mean a decrease of approximately £10 per week on my energy bill.

Energy bills set to stay high despite price cap cut
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65695752

Skybird

05-27-23, 03:06 PM

I put this in here. Could also be the economy thread.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/phasing-out-petrol-and-diesel-cars-is-just-pie-in-the-sky/

They are not about different (electric) car traffic. They are about NO CAR TRAFFIC.

Skybird

06-06-23, 05:49 AM

How Italy drove the heating transition against the wall: warning for Germany, which German politics studiously ignores.

https://www-focus-de.translate.goog/finanzen/news/italien-erlebt-waermpumpen-desaster-der-markt-ist-tot_id_195652208.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Jimbuna

06-09-23, 06:48 AM

The windfall tax on oil and gas firms will be suspended if prices fall to normal levels for a sustained period, the UK government has announced.

Halting the windfall tax would cut the overall tax rate on energy firms from 75% to 40%.

It was introduced last year to help fund a scheme to lower energy bills for households and businesses.

Energy firm profits have soared recently, initially due to rising demand after Covid restrictions were lifted, and then because Russia's invasion of Ukraine raised energy prices.

But oil and gas prices have now come down from their highs.

In a statement, the Treasury said the windfall tax would remain until March 2028 but that the tax rate would fall if the average oil and gas prices fall to, or below, a set level for two consecutive three-month periods.

The level has been set at $71.40 per barrel for oil and £0.54 per therm for gas.

Brent crude oil was trading at $75 per barrel on Friday morning, with gas prices at around £0.62.

Skybird

06-13-23, 05:35 AM

I just red an economic report on Chile (in the NZZ-LINK) (https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/chile-riskiert-seine-zukunft-als-globaler-lieferant-von-gruenem-wasserstoff-ld.1742189). For various reasons, the solar and wind energy industry there currently is completely collapsing, the financial fundament is going down the drains, the windparks and solar farms die like the flies. Without green electricity there will be no green hydrogen.

"Hey Europe: Guck-guck...!" :D

Jimbuna

06-13-23, 08:10 AM

BUCHAREST (Reuters) -Romanian oil and gas group OMV Petrom, majority-controlled by Austria's OMV, said on Tuesday it discovered new crude oil and natural gas deposits equal to about three quarters of its overall 2022 production.

The deposits are the largest crude oil discovery OMV Petrom has made in decades, it said, and were found in southern Romania holding over 30 million barrerls of oil equivalent (boe) of recoverable resources.

"The new discoveries will contribute to reducing the decline of our production and to the continuity of the supply of essential products for the economy," said Cristian Hubati, a company board member responsible for exploration and production.

The discoveries were in three areas, with the largest in the Verguleasa area that is near existing production, part of a strategy of exploring near infrastructure already present.

The find comes as the company gears up for a final investment decision on a large Black Sea offshore gas project together with state owned gas producer Romgaz.

OMV Petrom has said it expected a decision around the middle of this year for the Neptun Deep gas project, estimated to cost around 4 billion euros ($4.32 billion). Plans to develop the project were previously delayed by taxes and regulations introduced without notice.

In May, Romanian lawmakers changed the law to enforce an additional tax on refined crude oil which applies to OMV Petrom.

OMV Petrom shares were up 0.65% on the day on the Bucharest Stock Exchange by 1135 GMT.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/omv-petrom-makes-largest-crude-oil-discovery-in-decades/ar-AA1cur9V?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7411c05f394c473c839e4537014985a9&ei=8

Skybird

06-18-23, 02:25 PM

When it comes to solar energy expansion, the EU is more dependent on China than it used to be on Russia for gas supplies - and wants a renaissance for the domestic solar module industry. The chance? Rather bad.
(...)
The annual production capacity of the European solar industry currently amounts to modules with a total output of a good 8 gigawatts. The Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems estimates the European share of global production at one percent and the Chinese at 75 percent.

The aim of the EU as part of its Green Deal is for the domestic solar industry to produce modules with an output of 30 gigawatts again by 2030. But according to an analysis by management consultancy PWC, the largest Chinese manufacturer Jinko alone is currently producing 45 gigawatts. According to the Jinko website, the capacity at the end of 2022 was already much higher at 70 gigawatts. By the end of this year it should be 90 gigawatts. The group has made provisions for the rapid growth it is hoping for in the coming years and is apparently increasing its capacity faster than the entire European industry.
(...)

https://www-focus-de.translate.goog/klima/analyse/energiewende-hoffnungslos-schlechte-chancen-fuer-europas-solarindustrie_id_196719919.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Catfish

06-18-23, 03:22 PM

I just read China is building more than 300 new coal power plants.
Also this.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2317274-china-is-building-more-than-half-of-the-worlds-new-coal-power-plants/

Skybird

06-18-23, 06:12 PM

I would not mind seeing Germany's energy policy blowing up in flames soon (it will, just later), unfortunately that will not happen before I have been forced to waste an awful lot of money and throw it uselessly out of the window, due to "rules" and "regulations". For the house I live in I expect total costs in the range of 300,000 to 350,000, 15% of that will be my share.

And thebest of it: the whole energy-political nonsense will not create less but more CO2.

If the Greens were about climate, they would not have killed nuclear energy, and would not reducing electric power availability by increasing the demand without servicing it. They say poriuces will drop over thge years. The whole system is designed to push prices upowards even if there would be oversupply. Prices will not drop.

We are the laughing stock of the Western world, in pretty much all respects.

Jimbuna

06-19-23, 06:04 AM

*On a personal note* I was informed this morning that my duel fuel (gas and electric) monthly payments will be decreasing from £188 per month to £!19 from July.

Skybird

06-21-23, 05:50 AM

https://www-focus-de.translate.goog/finanzen/news/nach-deutschem-ausstieg-frankreich-schafft-atom-ziele-ab-und-nimmt-nun-deutsche-als-kunden-ins-visier_id_196950238.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

I say nothing. Anyone can guess what I would want to say.

Jimbuna

06-21-23, 08:04 AM

France out for revenge for previous wrongdoing :)

Jimbuna

06-23-23, 06:32 AM

Ofgem is lowering its energy price cap from the current £3,280 per year to £2,074 for the average household in England, Wales and Scotland, effective from July 1, it has announced.

Ofgem said the £1,206 reduction to the cap reflected recent falls in wholesale energy prices.

The lower cap will replace the Government’s Energy Price Guarantee (EPG), which currently limits the typical household energy bill to around £2,500.

The cut to the cap marks the first time consumers on default tariffs have seen their prices fall since the global gas crisis took hold more than 18 months ago, Ofgem said.

At its peak, the price cap reached £4,279 and, “whilst today’s level is lower than last quarter, it is still above the levels it was before the energy crisis took hold, meaning many households could still struggle to pay bills”, the regulator added.
https://www.independent.co.uk/business/household-energy-bills-to-fall-from-july-after-cut-to-ofgem-s-price-cap-b2345482.html

Rockstar

06-26-23, 09:45 AM

Sweden once again displays reason in a world of insanity.

Sweden abandons 100% renewable energy goal as EU reconsiders climate policies

By Shaun Polczer Jun 24, 2023 23

https://www.westernstandard.news/business/sweden-abandons-100-renewable-energy-goal-as-eu-reconsiders-climate-policies/article_c74a30be-11fd-11ee-a507-4b098c97c6f5.html

They’re baaack!

More than 40 years after the country voted to phase out nuclear power, Sweden is now looking to build more nuclear reactors after its parliament formally abandoned its 100% renewable energy target to meet net-zero by 2045.

On Tuesday the country modified its net zero targets to 100% “fossil-free” which its right-leaning government creates the conditions for the return of nuclear power to the country’s energy mix.

“We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system,” Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson said in parliament.

Observers said the decision implicitly acknowledges the low quality of unstable wind and solar, and is part of a general collapse of confidence in the renewable energy agenda pioneered in the Nordic countries and in Germany.

British lobby group Net Zero Watch, which describes the net zero roadmaps of Western nations as ‘utopian and unsustainable,’ welcomed the move. In recent weeks it blasted the Bank of England for spending £150,000 to measure the carbon footprint of plastic bank notes.

It says the net zero plans envisioned by the International Energy Agency (IEA) — which are the basis of Canada’s own net zero efforts — “are dangerously expensive and will result in painful reductions in living standards for all but the richest, as well as national weakness, societal instability and the eventual failure of the decarbonization effort.”

In that regard, Sweden came to the only logical conclusion, it said.

"Living close to Russia focuses the mind, and the Swedish people not only wish to join NATO, but also to ground their economy in an energy source, nuclear, that is physically sound and secure, unlike renewables which are neither,” said Dr. John Constable, NZW’s energy director.

“For the time being the UK government continues to live in a fantasy of their own making, but we are coming to the end of the green dream."

The UK has every reason to follow Sweden’s lead, but should go even further by increasing the use of natural gas, he added.

“Current UK climate policies are ill-informed and utopian and will almost certainly fail to deliver Net Zero emissions by 2050, or ever. It also runs a high risk of deep and irreversible societal damage,” he wrote.

Constable’s proposal envisages a gas to gas-nuclear system, unwinding the extreme costs of the failing renewables fleets, delivering immediate consumer relief and a rapid program of low-carbon combined cycle gas turbine construction on existing sites, leading to a new generation of nuclear employing small modular reactors in the UK.

It offers valuable lessons for Canada which released its own net zero roadmap based on IEA numbers this week, translating them into a 75% reduction in fossil fuels, including a 60% cut in natural gas and 83% less oil sands production.

“A small population in a large country such as Sweden can afford to reject fossil fuels, relying on nuclear and hydro and biomass, but the United Kingdom, and other substantial industrialized economies need to face the facts, and understand that only a gas to nuclear pathway is viable to remain industrialized and competitive,” NZW said.

Around 98% of electricity in Sweden is already generated from hydro, nuclear and wind.

Rockstar

06-29-23, 06:45 PM

14,000 panel, 5.2 MW community solar array in Nebraska destroyed by hail storm last night.

https://i.postimg.cc/bvRgzGVN/IMG-1850.jpg

em2nought

06-29-23, 10:37 PM

14,000 panel, 5.2 MW community solar array in Nebraska destroyed by hail storm last night.

https://i.postimg.cc/bvRgzGVN/IMG-1850.jpg

My entire condominium complex had to replace the almost new metal roof about a year ago now due to a hail storm.

I bet those panels don't do too well in tornadoes or hurricanes either. :hmmm:

I'm hoping that trying to take NYCs pizza ovens leads to open revolt. :har:

Jimbuna

06-30-23, 07:02 AM

Energy bills are likely to stay high for the foreseeable future, according to the boss of the company that owns British Gas.

Centrica chief executive Chris O'Shea said while he believes the worst of the energy crisis is over, risks remain.

A new price cap comes into effect this weekend which will see households with typical energy usage pay £2,074.

Mr O'Shea said prices have fallen from the rise caused by the Russian war, but are higher than the long-term average.

"I think the first act of the crisis is over," he said. "I think what we've got to remember is the energy prices had more than doubled before Russia invaded Ukraine.

"Now, prices are back down to pre-invasion levels but they're still two and a half times the long run average."

Gas and electricity bills will fall below the £2,500 level that was subsidised by the government under its Energy Price Guarantee scheme.

However, under the new price cap, which is set by the regulator Ofgem, households bills will remain £800 more expensive than two years ago.

Meanwhile, Cornwall Insight, a consultancy firm, estimates that changes in the price cap - which limits what companies can charge per unit of gas and electricity - will take energy bills for a typical consumer to £1,871 per year from October.

That is then forecast to rise to £1,900 from January.

Jimbuna

07-02-23, 10:35 AM

Just one word....'Disgusting'

Shell is still trading Russian gas more than a year after pledging to withdraw from the Russian energy market.

The company was involved in nearly an eighth of Russia's shipborne gas exports in 2022, according to analysis from campaign group Global Witness.

Oleg Ustenko, an adviser to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, accused Shell of accepting "blood money".

Shell said the trades were the result of "long-term contractual commitments" and do not violate laws or sanctions.

As recently as 9 May, a vast tanker capable of carrying more than 160,000 cubic metres of gas compressed into liquid form - liquefied natural gas or LNG - pulled out of the port of Sabetta, on the Yamal peninsula in Russia's far north.

That cargo was purchased by Shell before heading onwards to its ultimate destination, Hong Kong.

It is one of eight LNG cargoes that Shell has bought from Yamal this year, according to data from the Kpler database analysed by Global Witness.

Last year Shell accounted for 12% of Russia's seaborne LNG trade, Global Witness calculates, and was among the top five traders of Russian-originated LNG that year.

In March 2022, in the weeks following the invasion of Ukraine, Shell apologised for buying a cargo of Russian oil, and said it intended to withdraw from Russian oil and gas.

It said that it would stop buying Russian oil, sell its service stations and other businesses in Russia,which it has done. It has also ended its joint ventures with the state energy giant Gazprom.

And it said it would start a "phased withdrawal from Russian petroleum products, pipeline gas and LNG". But it warned that it would be a "complex challenge".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66021325

Skybird

07-03-23, 04:48 AM

This June (which is a sunny summer month, just saying) Germany has imported more electrical power than ever before in its whole existence since WW2.

Well.

Jimbuna

07-03-23, 05:10 AM

One small step but nevertheless a step in the right direction.

Putin is hoping for a very cold winter.

Skybird

07-03-23, 05:48 AM

One small step but nevertheless a step in the right direction.

...??? You kidding me?

We run a hilariously expensive energy transition that in the end will not work without modernising the laws of physics, we get lied to about how sufficient renewables are and how many ways to store energy we already have, we switch off nuclear energy and have 2.5 higher CO2 emissions per head than the Swedes who like the French increase the number of nuclear powerplants and recently did an almost 180° on the Green Deal doctrine of the EU - so what do you mean that Germany did a step in the right direction? If anythig, the news shows that the German special way is increasingly leading into existentially dangerous troubles, and does not work as proclaimed. Our industry increasingly flees the country. And Scholz does not care and praises his miraculous economic.

Nothing to celebrate. Its June, sdolar panels prime month beside July and August. We should not import more power thna ever, but we should have imported less power than ever before if our scheme would be working.

Jimbuna

07-03-23, 06:45 AM

Best hope that the French will export you energy from their nuclear stations then :)

mapuc

07-03-23, 08:03 AM

A couple of hours yesterday I was paid for using electricity.
Denmark produced a lot more energy than we consumed, that's why the prize per kw/h was negative. this was only for about 3-4 hours or so.

Secondly The Danish government has increased the VAT tax on electricity so it now cost 87 Danish øre(Similar to cent)per kw/h.

Markus

Skybird

07-03-23, 09:35 AM

Best hope that the French will export you energy from their nuclear stations then :)
In fact they have just decided to build even more new powerplants than additonally was planned for - with a sharp eye on the German energy policy.

The latter is such that obviously all others around us do not think that we can become self-sufficient with our stupid ideas.:haha: They are right.

Jimbuna

07-03-23, 10:18 AM

I find it pitiful (if you understand the context I'm implying) that Germany, the major nation in the EU of recent decades is literally plummeting in stature at the present time.

Skybird

07-03-23, 02:47 PM

I find it pitiful (if you understand the context I'm implying) that Germany, the major nation in the EU of recent decades is literally plummeting in stature at the present time.
The glory is the past. The present and future is decline (except in bigmouthness). It will not change again. It started under Merkel, who was, not forget that, socialsied in the GDSr and was under the imrpoesison of GDR-German understanding of politics, government, and democracy. There is a reason why the CDU was hollowed out in the years of Merkel, and all conservative value and competence in it was exorcised, and her democratic understanding left a lot to be desired.

You read me complaining a lot about what goes on in Germany. But believe me, the reasons are real. And I will never forgive the left-woke-green scum the assassination of what was good and bright and great in Germany and especially Germany's past relevance as a cultural global power like only few others. All that is lost, was intentionally destroyed and gotten rid of. I will never forgive that, never. For my parents its even worse, culture and beauty was their life and profession. And now it gets mocked, ridiculed, and dirt being thrown at it all.

No, nobody shall ever ask me for forgiveness. My anger and rage at the Germans are irreconcilable. And I just cannto stand left ideology, it makes me vomitting in no time.

Jimbuna

07-04-23, 05:09 AM

So why exactly in your opinion have matters deteriorated thus?

Skybird

07-04-23, 11:10 AM

So why exactly in your opinion have matters deteriorated thus?

The student revolts of the late 60s have infested universities, later public schools, the whole educational sector even down to the kindergardens, and the media with extreme left-leaning thinking. Today, a recent research showed, over 90% of the volunteers and trainees at German newspapers and GermanTV channels vote green or left!

Since the 70s, this anchored a strong left-leaning bias in public opinion forming.

While this was a revolt, originally, against the burgeoise conservative and petrified post-war society, it met another strong trend in German society. Since the Prussians, Germans had gotten a strong and unshakable belief in the state and state authority implemented into them. This helped to direct more and more demands at the state how he should care for people's needs, since he was omnipotent and was given card blanche, while the people became more and more freed from responsibility. In the years when Merkel appeared, this turned into extremes, the state became the typical socialist nanny-state while Merkel spent her time with opportunistically doing just what secured her the good vibes and applaus of the masses. And so the social state grew and grew further, while needed reforms and investments that would have been detrimental to the socialist nanny state's conquest , were not done - until today. The German Railroad is a good example.

All this is more and more difficult to finance. Germany is the most tax-heavy state worldwide - and the SPD ministers and Greens in the current government already call for even higher taxes, not to mention the SED in the opposition. Add to this 2.4 trillion Euros in national debts end of Q1 2023 (60% of GDP), and another over 2 trillion in foreign state's liabilities that we guarantee for in the Euro-Zone (TARGET-2 saldi). With GDP falling. Inflation stubbornly persisting. Economy shrinking. Recession. It will not be over soon, I tell you. Its all here to stay. And I predicted that already years ago. Meanwhile, our infrastructure around us is collapsing in slow motion. But ever new regulations are ctreated by what I undersgtand the dicatorship of the bureaucrats! Construction of houses must take into account over 3700 different regulations! And the number is growing, the EU wants it so!

Germany has included in its Basic Law to - if thinking it to the logical end - unconditionally support and press for the great European unification behind which the national state, Germany, must step back and be deconstructed. Problem is, Germany is, to my best knowledge, the only nation in Europe having done so. The others all refuse to go this far. Nobody else is so dumb.

Here the German guilt complex after Hitler comes into play. It was the drive and motivation to uncritically throw one's own assets into the fire in support of the idea of the EU (to in the end become a super state that just is not - not yet - allowed to be called so). However, the older ones are dying out, the younger ones as well as the many offsprings with migrant background (one quarter of total families are mixed or pure migrant families) and the next generaiton in general seem to increasingly refuses to accept the burden of the Holocaust as a moral obligation they must share (to which I am even sympathetic, I do not identify with that, too). Instead, the former consensus on norms and morals as well as the state and its organs get challenged by that of non-integrating migrant cultures, and Islam.

But now comes two things that exploit this:

First, Germany is in the crosshairs of many international NGOs, capitalism critics, enemies of free market, ecological and pro-miorgant lobbies, socialist planned economy theoreticists, putting the German politicians under enormous pressure to comply with their left-leaning and woke ideology. And many politicians, since most of them indeed already are left-leaning, even in the CDU (if for no other reason than opportunism), even support the idea that NGOs increasingly should not only define but also execute politics of the democratically legitimised government and state offices - although NGOs have no democratic legitimation in themselves to execute governmetal powers or to have access to tax money: heck, thats why they are called NGO! Germany posed as prey, and so it was turned into prey, like the peace movement and anti-atom-movement were turned into prey for the Sovjet and Eastgerman KGB and Stasi to influence the political discourse in Germany and destabilise the social integrity of the Westgerman society. I have said it many times: the Greens are, before anything else, about social regime change, climate only is a fig leaf they hide behind. I claim it has been like this since they formed up as the party of this name in 1980.

Second, and ironically I just sent Catfish a video link on this, we see a massive decline of the relevance of institutionalised religion, means: the churches. Last year more peope fled from them than ever before (around 900,000 for both churches). The time of the churches is over. As the man in the video, Broder, explained, and I fully agree with him on that: when you are about the four-days working week and work-life balance, you do not need the churches anymore to add meaning to your life, for you think you already are focussed on it. The green ideology has become a surrogate religion, or a new religion, and that religion follows the classical mechanics of religious dogmatics: there is purgatory (improper heating or showering for too long has dire consequences), there are high priests or saints (Greta and Al Gore, for example). ), there are many commandments (Greens' most favourite hobby: issuing new commandments), there is am indulgence trade (tricks of the climate politics to bypass climate obligations), and in general it is true that one is not too close with intellectual knowledge, rather one concentrates on believing something intensely and living the life pleasing to religion as a vegan or vegetarian, as a migrant rescuer on the high seas and ecologically conscious alternative consumer, so one does one's part, so that in the end all reach the ecological heavenly kingdom called climate salvation. Since it is about nothing less than this belief in the ecological kingdom of heaven, this then also justifies an increasing militancy, an increasing totalitarian attitude, in order to force even the "unbelievers" onto the right path. One does not have to prove that one's own arguments are valid, because one knows that one believes the right thing. Religion is always about faith, believing, not knowledge. Believing is even declared to be a cardinal virtue (proof of the fervour of the religious mind), scepticism or even just wanting to check for oneself is considered an unforgivable outrage that justifies any persecution.

This intellectual clusterbombing by international groups and NGOs, and this messianic, increasingly hysterical fanatism of the eco-religious, now slam into a softened, weakened Germany that

- has been prepared since decades by left ideologists,

- has deconstructed the quality of its educational system and media in the name of "social" left thinking norms,

- chases its qualified and performance willing elites away with insane tax and other payment loads

- is, like I say since years, economically WEAK, not strong, due to its suicidal dependence from exporting - and thus from markets and factors beyonmd its control (read the press carefully, German exports are dramatically declining since two quarters at least, and there is a long term trend established, many experts fear: this will disastrously erode German financial income basis)

- and the systematic reduction of the availability of electrical power while forcing people to accept growing demand for it.

I do not even list the migration dilemma and the problem of challenges of the state due to failed integration of Muslim sub cultures, and the dramatic demographic decline, the overaging of society.

Do you then still ask why matters detoriate over here? If so, my attempt to explain has failed, I'm sorry. :) The problems with and for Germany are much, much deeper and dangerous than most people seem to see. Including our carricature of a government, diese Trottel. TBH, I have given up Germany. It falls. The golden times are over. The best we can hope for is to slow down the decline. Thats is true for most if not all of central and western and southern Europe. I only have some cautious hope for eastern Europe - but that is under threat by Russia now.

Edit:
Catfish knows it already, this is the video I mentioned, in German. Maybe English translated subtitles will do the trick for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pds4d-W143o

Jimbuna

07-04-23, 01:13 PM

Hmm interesting :hmmm:

Skybird

07-04-23, 04:18 PM

I apologize for the many typos making the read difficult. I had corrected it all afterwards, but it seems that I switched pages too fast after hitting the Enter button, and it got not transmitted. I thought the corections were up.

I have just redone it.

Jimbuna

07-05-23, 06:56 AM

Not a problem and cheers.

Jimbuna

07-09-23, 08:11 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl9yuB0uP00

Skybird

07-10-23, 09:56 AM

https://think--again-org.translate.goog/energiewende-2023-die-logik-des-misslingens/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

The logic of failure. The law of unintended consequences.

Rockstar

07-27-23, 08:01 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/zB3gYfRL/IMG-2074.jpg

Oubaas

07-27-23, 09:01 PM

If the military personnel of the world would snap out of the brainless reverie in which they're lost, and stop fighting each other at the behest of corrupt, brainless, morally bankrupt, evil civilians, we could band together, seize the world at gunpoint, and implement a samurai-style government in every country on Earth, with all nations working together to maintain good order and discipline throughout the world.

We would walk as kings. All who opposed us would fall. Those who were not warriors would be required to genuflect as we passed. Each of us would be answerable only to our respective warlords and the Shogun of our particular nation. Those without honor would be required to commit seppuku. Warriors with no warlord would become ronin.

That would fix things. The crap would stop in short order.

:Kaleun_Salute:

Jimbuna

07-28-23, 07:56 AM

Meanwhile, British Gas Energy profits soar by 889%

Skybird

07-28-23, 02:06 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/zB3gYfRL/IMG-2074.jpg
:har: :yeah:

mapuc

07-28-23, 02:41 PM

Today our windmills produced 55 % of our daily consumption of electricity. Rest has been imported from Norway and Sweden and a few percentage came from Poland.

Makes one wonder who would be without electricity if there only was windmills and not coal, oil or nuclear powerplants in Europe ?

Renewable energi can't stand by itself. Not yet.

Can't remember what it is called but around 14-16 % is turn from sunshine into electricity. The newest type has a 20 or so percentage.

Markus

Jimbuna

07-29-23, 08:51 AM

^ Solar energy.

mapuc

07-29-23, 11:38 AM

^ Solar energy.

No the words I was looking for was "degree of effectiveness"

Like an engine P1 in and P2 out where N(Eta) is the difference between P1 and P2.
(If I remember correctly from my education)

Markus

Gorpet

07-29-23, 07:43 PM

Jimbuna

07-30-23, 07:36 AM

Shell has revealed a big fall in the second quarter of its financial year, largely due to energy prices plunging from their Russia-Ukraine war peak.

The oil and gas major reported net profits of just over $5bn (£3.9bn) for the three months to the end of June.

The figure represents a drop of more than 50% on the $11.5bn achieved in the same period last year and fell short of analysts' estimates.

It was also well down on the $9.65bn sum the company raked in during the first three months of the year.

Shell said it was, nevertheless, rewarding shareholders with a further share buyback and hike to its dividend.

Dargo

08-02-23, 12:56 PM

Researchers have found a way to turn cement into a supercapacitor. This would make it possible to store electricity in it and could, in theory, turn housing foundations and roads into relatively cheap batteries. The research, conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been published in the scientific journal PNAS (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2304318120). In addition to cement powder, water and black carbon were used to create the supercapacitor. This is because cement by itself does not conduct very well, but black carbon does. Moreover, the latter material is relatively cheap.

When these materials are combined in a specific way, a conductive nanocomposite is created. This is because water easily combines with the cement powder, but the particles of black carbon actually repel water and then clump together. This creates 'rank-like' shapes in the hardening cement that can act as a network of wires. The cement is then cut into thin sheets. If a membrane and electrolyte are then added, such as potassium chloride, the capacitor should be able to store and release energy. This does require a lot of cement. 10kWh, enough to power an average household for a day, is expected to require 45 cubic metres. That is about as much as is used for the foundation of a standard residential house. The cement capacitors the researchers created, measuring 1mm thick and 1cm wide, had enough power to run a few LED lights. The research team believes that if the same method is used to build roads and car parks, the electric concrete could theoretically store renewable energy and deliver it to electric cars via induction charging. As the materials are relatively cheap compared to other home batteries, this is also potentially a way for third-world countries to store green energy.

The group has patented the technology and is now trying to scale it up. This is no easy task, the team argues. As supercapacitors increase in size, their electrical conductivity typically decreases. The next goal is to make the cement capacitor as powerful as a 12V car battery.

Skybird

08-04-23, 05:58 AM

It must be frustrating for them, they try so hard to make the addition of 2 and 2 appear as 5, but they just dont get there. Tichy's Einblicke - https://www.tichyseinblick.de/kolumnen/klima-durchblick/erneuerbare-energie-wind-solar-energiewende/ - writes:

----------------

Hectic expansion is of no use: Solar and wind in the red in 2023

In the first half of the year, renewable energy plants produced less than in the same period last year - despite the construction of more than 500 new wind turbines, for which Robert Habeck praises himself. Other data also show the absurdity of his energy transition.

When an ARD journalist recently asked him on Tagesthemen where the electricity for the planned production of green hydrogen would actually come from, Economics Minister Robert Habeck answered confidently: The expansion of renewable energies is now really making rapid progress. So there is no reason to worry. The Green politician likes to be filmed in videos of the ministry in front of wind farms that have just been inaugurated. The message is that more and more electricity is coming from wind and solar parks. And the minister is personally pushing this development.

However, the reality - and here the Tagesschau editor didn't bother to check - looks somewhat different. Although, according to the statistics of Deutsche WindGuard, 551 new wind power plants with a total capacity of 2.403 gigawatts and photovoltaic plants with a capacity of 7.5 gigawatts were added across Germany in 2022, the generation of wind and solar power did not increase in the first half of 2023 compared to the same period of the previous year - but rather decreased. And by two terawatt hours. The Federal Environment Agency states: "In the first half of 2023, despite the increased addition of new photovoltaic and wind energy plants, about one percent less electricity was generated from renewable energies (just under 136 terawatt hours (TWh)) than in the first six months of the previous year (just under 138 TWh)."

This does not come as a surprise: installed capacity does not have all that much to do with actual generation. In weather-dependent electricity production, it is the wind and sun situation that decides, not what the plants could theoretically deliver. Although this should also be known in the Federal Ministry of Economics, Robert Habeck repeatedly operates with misleading capacity or percentage figures. In fact, the share of renewable energies in electricity generation increased in 2023 compared to the previous year. But this is simply because total electricity consumption declined in the first six months of this year due to the poor economic situation. So if you look at the absolute figures here and there, you get a very different picture than what the federal government wants to publicly disseminate.

Since large-scale industrial storage facilities are lacking for the foreseeable future, Habeck plans to build a gas-fired power plant capacity totalling 30 gigawatts by 2030 in order to secure the electricity supply despite fluctuating feed-in from renewables on the one hand and the planned shutdown of coal-fired power plants on the other.

The catch is that so far there are not even rough plans for these power plants, which in the ministry's imagination will serve as gap fillers from time to time in the future. That, in turn, is because it is completely unclear who is to operate them. Gas-fired power plants, which are only allowed to run for 1500 or 2000 hours a year on an auxiliary basis, cannot finance themselves by selling electricity. They would therefore need massive state subsidies. How this is to be done, how much it will cost - all this is so far in the typical Habeck fog.

Paradoxically, the German energy transition system also runs into serious problems when the summer sun is shining and the wind is blowing well. Then electricity from wind and solar plants often cover demand alone on days when consumption is low, such as on Sundays in July. On 2, 16 and 23 July, renewables each generated up to 49 gigawatt hours during the day. And on the last Sunday of the month, the 30th, they managed it almost without conventional power plants.

The problem is the lack of storage capacity. On all Sundays in July, the supply of electricity therefore exceeded the demand, and the price of electricity on the exchange tipped into negative territory. Particularly drastic on 2 July: on that day, someone who bought a megawatt hour from Germany abroad got an extra 500 euros at certain hours.

For operators of pumped-storage plants in Austria, for example, this has been opening up a splendid business field for quite some time: if Germany doesn't know what to do with its solar and wind power, they take it plus a disposal premium - in order to sell the energy back to Germany at a high price when the electricity price turns positive again. The disposal fee of 500 euros per megawatt hour ends up in the grid fee bill - and thus with every German electricity customer. In some regions, grid fees already account for up to a third of the electricity price.

So the hectic expansion of wind and solar energy not only does not bring a plannable increase in generation - it also makes electrical energy drastically more expensive. Even if the promised hydrogen storage facilities do eventually come, they will not ease the cost situation. This is because a good 60 percent of the energy is lost between the storage and withdrawal of electricity surpluses. Although this energy is occasionally available for zero or negative prices on the stock exchange, it must first be paid for with fixed feed-in tariffs. These rates are currently around 4 cents for wind power and up to 7.8 cents per kilowatt hour for solar plants.

Conclusion: In all likelihood, coal-fired power plants will have to step in in the coming years when the sun and wind supply little. They therefore keep German CO2 emissions high. And: the price of electrical energy is likely to rise even further in the future, if only because of the grid fees.

https://www.tichyseinblick.de/kolumnen/klima-durchblick/erneuerbare-energie-wind-solar-energiewende/

Jimbuna

08-04-23, 06:22 AM

The quicker these idiots are locked up the better.

Greenpeace activists who scaled Rishi Sunak's North Yorkshire home in protest against the government's decision to expand North Sea oil drilling have been released on police bail.

Four people were arrested after they used ladders and ropes to climb on the grade II-listed manor house in Kirby Sigston and drape oil-black fabric over the property.

A fifth activist was later arrested on suspicion of causing a public nuisance in connection with the stunt.

In an update this morning, North Yorkshire Police said: "All five suspects who were arrested following the protest in Kirby Sigston on 3 August, have been released on conditional police bail to allow for further enquiries to be carried out.

"The investigation remains ongoing."
https://news.sky.com/story/greenpeace-activists-released-on-bail-after-scaling-roof-of-rishi-sunaks-north-yorkshire-home-12932858

em2nought

08-04-23, 07:00 AM

Researchers have found a way to turn cement into a supercapacitor.

I think they mention the problem might be that doing this effects the strength of the concrete? Maybe they could do it to Roman concrete? I think somebody found the secret to Roman concrete recently didn't they? Heat during the process, and chunks of soft lime in the mix that fill any capillaries created by water getting in the concrete over time?

Skybird

09-29-23, 02:31 PM

This could become a very big problem, not just for France but for most of Europe and especially Germany as well.

https://www-dw-com.translate.goog/de/uran-f%C3%BCr-europa-niger-diskutiert-den-lieferstopp/a-66695891?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

The German power imports have grown by a factor equal to the loss of the nuzclear power reatcor sin Germany. Without the French power imports - for high price - the situation in Germany will first become interesting and then soon afterwards: dangerous.

Catfish

09-29-23, 02:57 PM

I think they mention the problem might be that doing this effects the strength of the concrete? Maybe they could do it to Roman concrete? I think somebody found the secret to Roman concrete recently didn't they? Heat during the process, and chunks of soft lime in the mix that fill any capillaries created by water getting in the concrete over time?
Yes there are different methods, one is using the original roman opus caementicum with puzzolanes and a lot of other stuff, some only in traces.
You will not want to pay for this today! Maybe some plastics can be used but anyway this has not be researched in a way to practically use it :hmmm:

Skybird

10-27-23, 05:56 PM

I just read that somewhere in rural Bavaria a small community has built itself a so-called "super battery". These are six above-ground larger buildings in small house format, with the capacity to supply 10,000 households with electricity for one (1) hour in the event of a dark period, when neither the sun is shining nor the wind is blowing.

Ten thousand households. One hour.

The day has 24 hours. Germany has 41 million households. And industry. And hospitals. Airports. Railroads. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And dark periods can last not just for an hour, but for several days. A week. Ten days. Occurs every winter on average, depending on the year, 1-3 times.

So, to supply 10,000 households not for one hour, but for ten days, we multiply these six battery houses by 240. Projected to 41 million households, we multiply again by 4100. So 6x240x4100. Then we are with over 5.9 million such battery houses, which would have to stand around in Germany. Additonally to the other buildings, and 75,000 windmill towers. The industrial and economic supply and infrastructure we ignore once, those come otherwise on top of the total count.

At the moment there are about 19.5 million residential buildings in Germany.

:/\\!! Germany.

In the 2023 World Competitive Ranking, Germany just has dropped from rank 15 to 22. I predict that is far from being the end of the downward journey. Add other problems like demographics, inadequate school education, desintegration of infrastructure systems...

Dargo

11-03-23, 01:39 PM

Ukraine has the largest underground gas storage in Europe with capacity to accommodate 31 billion cubic meters of gas, according to Naftogaz CEO Chernyshov. With EU gas storage nearly full, some companies are turning to Ukraine to store excess gas. War notwithstanding, European companies parked $1 billion worth of gas in Ukraine. Chernyshov noted that Russian gas transit via Ukraine will end in 2024. It could surprise many here, but Russian gas continues to transit Ukraine irrespective of war. In January-October 2023, Russian forces damaged 128 gas infrastructure facilities across Ukraine, according to Naftogaz, but industry insiders say that no underground storage has been hit. Ukraine's underground storage is concentrated in west.

em2nought

11-03-23, 10:40 PM

Maybe all our empty shopping malls will become great big batteries. Maybe our malls will be the equivalent of the pyramids if we're still around in 3000 years. They'll be debating what the malls might have been before they became batteries. :hmmm:

mapuc

11-04-23, 09:47 AM

The long trek toward practical fusion energy passed a milestone last week when the world’s newest and largest fusion reactor fired up. Japan’s JT-60SA uses magnetic fields from superconducting coils to contain a blazingly hot cloud of ionized gas, or plasma, within a doughnut-shaped vacuum vessel, in hope of coaxing hydrogen nuclei to fuse and release energy.

https://www.science.org/content/article/first-plasma-fired-world-s-largest-fusion-reactor

Markus

Skybird

01-14-24, 05:46 PM

What battery shall it be for you? Alkaline? Metal Hydrid? Litium? Nuclear...? :D
I really wish this to become true, if only for havign Greens all over the place falling into deep depression and laughing about their mimimi.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Westinghouse-designs-eVinci-microreactor-to-last-8-years-before-refueling.787535.0.html

Mind you, small reactors are in use since decades on SSN and SSBN submarines and Russian ice breakers.

Dargo

01-22-24, 01:37 PM

Gas prices in Europe fell by almost 60% in 2023 from their peak in 2022, and they continue to decline mainly due to record gas reserves and renewable energy sources, Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-21/europe-moves-into-a-new-world-after-a-crippling-energy-crisis) reported.

Despite the escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in October last year, and the associated disruptions to international supply via the Red Sea, LNG prices in Europe continue to fall. Bloomberg attributed the occurrence to record gas reserves, broad investment in renewable energy, and slow economic growth, which limits energy demand in large industrialized countries.

However, there is a risk that the decrease will end and European countries, as well as Japan, the United States, and China, may face another crisis.

"Just by looking at prices, it seems that the crisis is over," Bloomberg quoted Balint Koncz, head of gas trading at MET International in Switzerland. "However, we are now reliant on global factors, which can change rapidly."

Despite large international investments in the creation of LNG transits, most of the new capacity will not appear until 2025 and 2026. And the agreement on the transit line supplying gas from Russia through Ukraine to the countries of Western and Central Europe expires at the end of 2024, with no information on its extension. Closing the transit line will reduce gas supplies. In addition, increasing extreme weather events are straining energy systems and could increase demand for LNG.

Jimbuna

01-22-24, 02:05 PM

Here in the UK the energy price cap as set by Ofgem is currently £1928 but is due to be reduced to £1628 in April.

Dargo

01-22-24, 02:37 PM

In the Netherlands, our energy price cap stopped only the poor get it

Ostfriese

01-22-24, 02:50 PM

Mind you, small reactors are in use since decades on SSN and SSBN submarines and Russian ice breakers.

Yep, and they are incredibly inefficient and have no chance of being profitable.

Skybird

01-22-24, 05:15 PM

Yep, and they are incredibly inefficient and have no chance of being profitable.
They had not been optimized for civilian/commercial use, since they were not intended for that, but for a different purpose: to fit into a limited space, and that's it.

Anyway, the point regarding these new small reactors as designed and planned for commercial use now is that their existence in shiops and submarines proves the principle safety of these. That is a major point in Germany, because as you know as good as I do many Germans turn immediately hysteric over the " high!-risk!-TECHNOLOGY!!!-ATOMKRAFT:eek::timeout:...!!! "

Germans...:yawn: :zzz: Next.

Ostfriese

01-23-24, 12:27 AM

They had not been optimized for civilian/commercial use, since they were not intended for that, but for a different purpose: to fit into a limited space, and that's it.

Anyway, the point regarding these new small reactors as designed and planned for commercial use now is that their existence in shiops and submarines proves the principle safety of these.

It's been tried before several times and in several versions, and the results have always been the same. With existing technology small reactors are way too expensive both in terms of constructing and in terms of maintaining to make them viable for commercial use, and there's absolutely no technology on the horizon (not even in the hypothetical state) that is going to change anything about that.

Skybird

01-23-24, 03:41 AM

Westinghouse seem to disagree. And eVinci is real. Note that the cooling is passive. It needs no active maintenance. 8 years long, then the whole reactor gets replaced, like a battery.

Jimbuna

01-23-24, 09:53 AM

In the Netherlands, our energy price cap stopped only the poor get it

Well admittedly and thankfully I'm not poor but the price cap is applicable to everyone here in the UK.

mapuc

02-06-24, 06:42 PM

We are getting close to harvest clean energy in neverending flow

On December 5, 2022, the system released 3.1 MegaJoules of fusion yield. Given that the laser pulse required 2.05 MegaJoules, the system produced more than 150 percent of the energy needed to start it.

https://www.iflscience.com/breakthrough-nuclear-fusion-experiment-confirmed-to-have-produced-more-energy-than-was-put-in-72792

Markus

Jimbuna

02-07-24, 08:28 AM

As of yesterday my duel fuel payments have been reduced from £119 to £98 per month.

Gorpet

02-11-24, 01:42 AM

Well, friends and neighbors it's 2024. And things are going good for Planet Earth.The War in Ukraine is on target.We need to send more migrants to the battlefield after all when they came to our country, Who told them Freedom was free? Housing,Food,Clothing,Medical,Jobs and young women.You don't speak our language. Oh damn,Life is good. But you have a purpose.

All you have to do is fill the empty trenches on the frontline in Ukraine You don't have to speak any language, if you want to be free move forward. Look Democracy requires sacrifice.

So ,young migrant man if you don't have an IQ that we can use. And you want Freedom you will have to find your way through the Tombstones. And if you get back you will know what the price of Life is. Politicians sell Freedom,They and their families never sacrifice for it... Our Politicians are very smart. So I have a Question. For all immigrants why do you seek to live in the lands of the people you hate? Why don't you create a better land and country where you live? Are you afraid to die ? Or is it easier to walk over the backs and the graves of the people who have died to make their countries better than yours ?

Reece

02-11-24, 02:29 AM

They had not been optimized for civilian/commercial use, since they were not intended for that, but for a different purpose: to fit into a limited space, and that's it.

Anyway, the point regarding these new small reactors as designed and planned for commercial use now is that their existence in shiops and submarines proves the principle safety of these. That is a major point in Germany, because as you know as good as I do many Germans turn immediately hysteric over the " high!-risk!-TECHNOLOGY!!!-ATOMKRAFT:eek::timeout:...!!! "

Germans...:yawn: :zzz: Next.
Same here in Australia, the mere mention of the word Nuclear has everyone in panic mode, current Labour government has seen to that!!:timeout: Makes my blood boil. :damn: :mad:
So now we have to stare at thousands of ugly wind turbines defacing the countryside! :doh::wah:

Skybird

02-11-24, 05:06 AM

Same here in Australia, the mere mention of the word Nuclear has everyone in panic mode, current Labour government has seen to that!!:timeout: Makes my blood boil. :damn: :mad:
So now we have to stare at thousands of ugly wind turbines defacing the countryside! :doh::wah:
Yes. As Bloomberg recently wrote: You have to question the wisdom of a country that closed perfectly good nuclear power stations. These once were seen as the global gold standard in reactor safety. But not good enough for hysteric Germans. Instead Germany now places a risky bet on hydrogen and LNG. The LNG bubble already has scared Germany to death two weeks ago when Biden suddenly stopped the - from the German side taken for granted - further widening and future expansion of LNG deliveries, due to concerns over the climate consequences of increased fracking and gas production.
And hydrogen? Have the Germans never cared to check out the physics and energy balance when you run the needed and highly energy-consuming processes to create hydrogen, make it transportable, and then reversing it att he destination? Its comparably problematic like the liquification of gas, and, if I recall correctly, as energy-intensive, if not more so, than the handling of LNG. I have linked the physics and chemistry behind it in some post some months ago. It kills the argument why one should want to go with hydrogen, especially when the hydrogen is not created right in the place where it is needed. The energy balance is a desaster. And nobody speaks about it. We are using more brown coal, and black coal too. We produce more CO2, because we wanted to take CO2-free nuclear out of the equation.

And the energy costs will grow steeply, and faster than before. Reasons is the taxes on energy and secondary costs added by the state and the grid comnoanies. Its absurd, at the international energy market prices drop - which means in Germany the private and industrial consumer has to pay more. - Last week I got mail form ym supplier, he is again raising the prices for electric power, 2.7 cents more per kWh.

Irrationality has gone pandemic in Germany. And its a hopeless fight against it. I think this country must crash down and get destroyed once again before the German people wake up. In this regard, impressive progress is being made. The industry for sure gives a vote of confidence on the German energy plans - it leaves the country in increasing speed and numbers. Last famous name reported on is Miele, a German top kitchen equipment producer, they will shift production from Germany to Poland. They are just the last in a long line. At the same time, it dawns on the German car makers that with their radical move to electric-only they will end with in a deluxe belly landing, while the Chinese ecar invasion has begun over here (which creates its own follow-on problems).

Vergesst Deutschland. Germany is done.

Reece

02-11-24, 06:35 AM

Electric cars over here are being scrapped because of the cost of battery manufacturing and disposal, now they are going to try hydrogen fueled cars!! :doh::oops:

Jimbuna

02-11-24, 09:27 AM

Electric cars over here are being scrapped because of the cost of battery manufacturing and disposal, now they are going to try hydrogen fueled cars!! :doh::oops:

A lot cheaper and climate-friendly if you simply manufacture kangaroo saddles and ride around on the buggas :)

Skybird

02-26-24, 07:06 AM

https://www-achgut-com.translate.goog/artikel/netzbetreiber_warnen_stromnetz_kollapsgefaehrdet_w ie_nie?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

"The large rotating generators of the power plants are "grid-forming" machines; due to their large mass, they keep the frequency of 50 Hz constant in the range of seconds. For our colleagues at the BMWI and BNA, inertia is a physical property that ensures that power fluctuations are cushioned in a range in which the time for human intervention is too short. Wind turbines have only small masses and solar panels have no rotating parts at all, they are "grid-following" with their inverters; this means that they are connected to the grid of the "grid-forming machines" and do not have a stabilizing effect. Incidentally, gas-fired power plants tend to be "grid-following machines". The large power plant generators have also been responsible for maintaining the voltage in the grid through reactive power control.

"The electricity of tomorrow, which will be generated almost exclusively from renewable energies (RE), should not only be integrated into the electricity grid, but also be able to keep the grid stable at all times. However, renewable energy plants still lack the grid-forming properties that would enable them to ensure stable grid operation, especially in the event of a fault."
-----------------------

Sidenote: the number of microblackouts me and my parents and friends in other cities experienced over the past 10-15 years, has multiplied by factors. Before that timeframe, i did not know such things, not in the 70s, not in the 80s, not in the 90s. Reaction and adaptation times in the grid have been slowed down that much that now the existence of such malfunction events has become perceivable for the common man. We may talk about split seconds only - and yet, in this field of technology and physics-based events that is eternities.

What it means is that the wanted detoriation of the energy supply stability has become perceivable even for the layman. It will grow much worse.

Murphy's law is neither pessimistic nor optimistic, it simply states that everything that theoretically is possible to happen, sooner or later will happen if only you give it enough time. Well...

mapuc

02-27-24, 05:37 AM

Like any AI model, it doesn’t really understand what it’s doing on a deep level – but it doesn’t need to. The team fed the program data about real-time plasma characteristics from previous experiments and set it the challenge of predicting – and, crucially, avoiding – tearing instabilities.

https://www.iflscience.com/ai-just-cleared-a-big-hurdle-on-the-road-to-nuclear-fusion-energy-73107

Markus

Skybird

04-25-24, 04:25 PM

[Neue Zürcher Zeitung]

It has now been proven that Germany’s nuclear phase-out was ideology

Internal correspondence shows that at the height of the energy crisis, the Green ministries ignored warnings from their experts. They pushed through the nuclear phase-out, whatever the cost. The result is an energy policy tragedy.

Even at the height of the energy crisis, it was remarkable how stubbornly the Greens stuck to the shutdown of the last German nuclear power plants. Not even a geopolitical earthquake of the greatest magnitude could dissuade them. Everything had to be subordinated to the nuclear phase-out: energy security, electricity prices, even the climate.

Other countries decided to keep their nuclear power plants running for years after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In Germany, it took a decisive statement from German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to keep them on the grid for a few months.

At the time, there was a suspicion that the Greens were arguing primarily on ideological grounds. But there was no definitive proof of this. There was no evidence that the Green-led federal ministries knowingly ignored facts or reinterpreted them to suit their own purposes. This evidence now seems to have been provided.

The magazine "Cicero" and its editor Daniel Gräber have meticulously traced how the Green-led Federal Ministry of Economics and the Federal Ministry of the Environment behaved in the dispute over the operating time extension. To do this, they sued the internal correspondence of all parties in court and then evaluated it. The result is devastating.

High-ranking Green ministry officials ignored their own experts. In some cases they twisted their arguments into the exact opposite. Suddenly it was no longer justifiable for safety reasons to continue operating the reactors. The experts had previously had no concerns about keeping nuclear power plants on the grid for years longer. And in one case the information is said not to have even reached Federal Minister Habeck. If that's true, then he was being kept in the dark.

You have to be clear about the situation Germany was in at the time: the whole country was discussing how to replace Russian gas. The Prime Minister of Baden-Württemberg, Winfried Kretschmann, recommended that citizens wash themselves with a rag instead of taking a shower.

Apparently, "every kilowatt hour" of electricity counted, at least according to Habeck. But at the same time, the ministry was pushing through the nuclear phase-out, whatever the cost, and jeopardizing the country's supply situation. This proves that it was very much about ideology.

Strictly speaking, this is hardly surprising. Few Germans are aware of it, but the real goal of the energy transition was never climate protection. It was about getting rid of nuclear energy. You only have to look at the genesis of the term.

It first became known to a wider public through a 1980 publication by the Öko-Institut, today one of the most powerful green environmental research institutes in the country. It was entitled: "Energy transition. Growth and prosperity without oil and uranium". The authors argued that Germany could be completely self-sufficient, half with renewable energies - and the other half with coal.

Climate protection was not yet an issue at the time, even if oil was abandoned. The authors were more concerned that petrol could become scarce at some point. But the most important thing for them was the nuclear phase-out. They spent pages and pages on the technology, which they considered expensive and dangerous. They were only happy if Germany burned domestic coal instead.

The same people who had been involved with the Öko-Institut in the 1980s founded the Green Party a little later. The nuclear phase-out remained their most important project over the years. That is why they erected barricades, why they allowed themselves to be beaten by police officers, why they later began the march through the institutions.

Today we can say that the pioneers of the energy transition have achieved their goals. Germany uses coal and gas power plants to generate electricity on cloudy and windless days. And the hated nuclear power plants have finally been shut down.

The result is an energy policy tragedy. It takes years to build nuclear power plants, and it is expensive. That is why it would have been so important to keep as many of them as possible. It is difficult to say whether that is still possible today. The dismantling has begun, and in some cases it could be irreversible. And whether it will be possible to build new nuclear power plants in Germany in the future is at least questionable.

In February, the former president of the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management, Wolfram König, made a suggestion. The Green and staunch opponent of nuclear power recommended in the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" that nuclear power plants should be turned into monuments.
Ostensibly to honor the engineers and workers who worked there. But subconsciously, the text was also about reminding Germans of their supposed misguided path. The nuclear ruins were meant to show them the futile hopes that were once associated with this high technology.

Well, the nuclear power plants have become monuments. However, they remind us of a completely different misguided path. That of an energy supply that relies exclusively on renewables, and which no other major industrial nation other than Germany follows. They remind us of who first took this misguided path, the Greens, and who prevented the Germans from leaving it even during the energy crisis. The decommissioned nuclear power plants are memorials to a green misguided path.

https://www.nzz.ch/der-andere-blick/robert-habeck-unter-druck-beim-deutschen-atomausstieg-ging-es-um-ideologie-ld.1827929

Skybird

04-25-24, 04:34 PM

Adding to the above ^:

Exit from nuclear power: Internal papers put Robert Habeck's ministry in a difficult position to explain

According to a media report, experts from the German Energy Ministry are said to have spoken out early in favor of extending the operating life of the nuclear power plants. But the information apparently did not reach the Green politician.

Senior employees of the German federal government apparently ignored and suppressed concerns from their own experts in the spring of 2022 in order not to jeopardize the politically desired and planned exit from nuclear energy. This is evident from internal memos and correspondence between ministry employees, which the magazine "Cicero" reports on in its new issue.

Central to the affair is the role of Federal Minister of Economics Robert Habeck, whose department is also responsible for energy. In spring 2022, the management of his ministry commissioned a specialist department in the house to examine the extent to which a three-month extension of the operating life of nuclear power plants could help to secure the country's energy supply.

Because Germany's gas supply was in danger because of Russia's attack on Ukraine, the ministry's experts came to a clear vote. Ultimately, it is unclear whether sufficient natural gas can be stored for next winter to enable gas-fired power plants to operate in addition to consumption in industry and for heat supply, the "Cicero" quotes from the note. "An extension of the operating life of the nuclear power plants until March 31 can help to defuse this situation," the ministry employees wrote.

Continuing to operate the reactors could also help to reduce the high electricity prices. The ministry officials referred to the so-called merit order principle. This is a mechanism whereby the price formation on the major energy exchanges is always based on the most recently connected, most expensive power plant on the market. "This could cause electricity prices to fall in many hours," Cicero quotes from the ministry's memo.

The Green politician Habeck is said to have not received the assessment of his own experts. At management level, it was only available to his then state secretary and party colleague Patrick Graichen, the ministry told Cicero upon request. Graichen, for his part, had to vacate his office a year later, in May 2023, following allegations of nepotism.

But Graichen is said to have not only withheld important information from his minister, but also provided him with false facts. This is what "Cicero" reports on the basis of its access to the files, which was only granted to the magazine after a lawsuit that lasted two years.

In March 2022, Graichen, together with his counterpart in the Federal Environment Ministry, Stefan Tidow, also run by the Greens, wrote his own additional memo on "examining the continued operation of nuclear power plants due to the war in Ukraine". The result: After "weighing up the benefits and risks", an extension of the operating period is not recommended.

Although Tidow's employees identified serious legal errors in the document and demanded corrections, this did not stop Graichen from forwarding his memo (uncorrected) to Minister Habeck. The Green politician subsequently used the document for his official communication, and it was also published in a revised form on the ministry's website.

The ministerial officials from the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of the Environment were ultimately unable to prevent a three-month extension of the operating period with their maneuvers - Chancellor Olaf Scholz gave binding instructions for the so-called stretch operation in October. In April 2023, however, the last three remaining German nuclear power plants were taken off the grid.

And this was probably due to false assumptions and misleading facts, as the "Cicero" research now shows. The publication is therefore causing displeasure among the liberal coalition partner. "The Habeck papers show that Germany was knowingly led astray when it came to phasing out nuclear power," said Michael Kruse, energy policy spokesman for the FDP in the Bundestag, on Thursday. "I am disappointed in Robert Habeck because the citizens of this country and his coalition partners were kept from the truth."

The opposition even sees the events as a reason for the Green politician to resign. "Robert Habeck deceived the country when it came to shutting down the nuclear power plant. Either he lied or he doesn't have his own energy ministry under control," said CSU Secretary General Martin Huber to "Focus Online." A minister whose department, against his better judgment, causes such great damage to the German economy and energy supply is no longer acceptable.

https://www.nzz.ch/international/so-hat-robert-habeck-beim-atomausstieg-getrickst-ld.1827925

----------------

Immediately after the shutdown, there was already evidence, over one hundred documents, that the internal motto in the ministry was that any supposedly open-ended examination of the nuclear issue must necessarily lead to the desired result of rejecting a nuclear extension. This was also reported at the time, albeit only briefly, before the government exerted massive pressure to prevent further reporting. I posted about it back then. I therefore consider the current claim that Habeck was deceived by his own people to be completely implausible. In addition, he has personally installed the ideological clique from which this action stems in the ministry, more than doubling the ministry's staff for that and recruiting from his close social circle. These are leading names in the international anti-capitalism movement and avowed friends of the destruction of the market economy.

It is also remarkable that the two main German news programs "Heute" and "Tagesschau" on the two state propaganda channels ARD and ZDF did not mention this criminal, conspiratorial scandal, which is of the most serious, destructive significance for Germany, with not a single word.

Skybird

05-11-24, 03:05 AM

[Die Welt] 70 percent of companies affected by power outages

According to a new survey, many companies in Germany are dealing with power outages. For some of them, the cost is in the hundreds of thousands. Many companies never find out the true causes of the shortage.

According to a survey last year, short-term power outages frequently led to production downtimes and machine damage at German companies. This is shown by a random survey conducted by the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DIHK) among 1,000 companies from various industries and regions. The results of the survey are available exclusively to WELT AM SONNTAG.

Accordingly, 28 percent of the responding companies stated that they had been affected by power outages that lasted longer than three minutes. 42 percent confirmed power outages lasting less than three minutes. Power outages of less than three minutes are not recorded by the Federal Network Agency and are not included in the so-called SAIDI value, which is an internationally recognized measure of the voltage quality in the power grid.

However, power interruptions lasting just a few seconds can cause damage to precision industrial machines. “The problems extend across all voltage levels and inevitably lead to economic damage,” is the result of the DIHK survey: For a third (32 percent), the power outages caused additional costs of up to 10,000 euros. For 15 percent of those surveyed, the costs of power outages amounted to 10,000 to 100,000 euros. A small proportion (2 percent) even had costs of more than 100,000 euros.

In response to power fluctuations, seven percent of companies set up emergency generators last year to cover peak loads and eleven percent set up energy storage systems. “Concern about power outages is often the reason for one’s own safety measures,” commented the DIHK. According to the survey, the exact cause of the power outages is mostly unclear. Two thirds of companies do not know the reason for the difficulties in their own operations. “As long as companies do not know the causes of the majority of power outages, doubts about the reliability of the networks will grow,” warned DIHK deputy general manager Achim Dercks.

The IHK organization therefore proposes a right to information about the causes of power outages and revising the compensation regulations. “It would also be important,” says Dercks, “that the Federal Network Agency conduct random monitoring of power outages lasting less than 3 minutes.”
----------------
Mängelmanagement it is called: defect management.

What they dont say is that just a few years ago such interruptions were practially unknown as long as not being the result of thunderstorm damages or accidents.
And as I have wirtten in the aostm, over the past ten years or so micro blackouts are becoming more and more th enorm in this private household and in my street as well. Lets say around 15 years ago this was too absolutely unknown.

Two reasons: the increasing deregulation of the powergrid over the past two decades, and of course the irraitonal Germ,an "Energiewende" that has switched off power production capacities without having replaced them with other sources first.

mapuc

05-11-24, 01:05 PM

Haven't heard anything on the power outages here in Denmark or in Sweden.

What they have been talking about is which company and who among the civilians should be without electricity for hours the day the government decide that Denmark shall live on renewable energy.

Sweden on the other hand have seen where it was heading and are now, once again, back on the nuclear power track.

Markus

Exocet25fr

05-15-24, 01:09 PM

OUPS ! I mistook !

JU_88

05-18-24, 09:04 AM

The EU: "No nuclear needed, Its gonna be fine by 2030,

.....with just solar and wind farms.

.....and nice clean Turkish gas which they assured us totally Isn't from Russia...

.... even though we dont have the funding for it... YET

(fine print)

.... oh and maybe like a 70% reduction in your carbon use."

Skybird

08-21-24, 11:46 AM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ff5I17QXwAEcxVr?format=jpg&name=small

Skybird

11-06-24, 11:20 AM

What a day: First, Trump wins the US election and will soon back out of the green climate rescue policy. And then a dark doldrums makes it clear at what cost Germany is restructuring its energy production.

Misfortune rarely comes alone. The long faces in the public and private midstream media when the election results were announced in the USA were worth seeing this morning. The editor-in-chief of FOCUS called Trump the “most honest liar in the world”, and an absolute top expert on everything in America analyzed razor-sharp on ARD that Trump had been elected by a majority of white men, who are known to be among the “most uninformed people ever” - probably because they don't watch ARD every day.

With so many overseas misadventures, the media is failing to notice that Germany's electricity supply is currently languishing under the influence of a cold dark doldrums and astronomical electricity costs are being incurred.

Dark doldrums [="Dunkelflaute", Skybird] mean that there is no wind and no sunshine. The 31,000 wind turbines delivered just one (1) GW today at 10 a.m. - practically nothing. The installed wind capacity in Germany is around 70 gigawatts, 70 times the capacity delivered today. In the cloudy fog, the sun managed just over six (6.6) gigawatts. Around 93 gigawatts have been installed, meaning that only around six percent of the planned output has been generated. But solar energy can only be used from time to time anyway and naturally only at midday.

The coal-fired power plants were ramped up and supplied around 41 gigawatts at this time. A few gigawatts also came from the expensive gas-fired power plants. Unfortunately, the data was not fully available, but there was certainly a lot of importing going on throughout the day.

As a result of this dependence on the weather, Robert Habeck became European CO2 champion again today. The CO2 emission factor in the German electricity mix rose to more than 500 g CO2/kWh at 10:00 a.m., believe it or not. By way of comparison, the nuclear energy country France was at around 56 g CO2/kWh at this time, i.e. one tenth of Germany. Wasn't the energy transition once intended to cut down on the nasty carbon dioxide?

But it gets even better. Today between 17:00 and 18:00, electricity on the electricity exchange costs Germans 820 euros per megawatt hour - excluding taxes. By comparison, the average electricity price on the European electricity spot market is around 67 euros per kilowatt hour. But Germany is undergoing an energy transition, so it's easy to pay more than ten times as much. It has always been a bit more expensive to have a special taste.

So it's good that FOCUS-Online found out: “Unstoppable progress - even a Trump victory can't stop the energy transition!”. That's another stroke of luck.

https://www.achgut.com/artikel/katastrophen_trump_und_die_dunkelflaute

[The author] Manfred Haferburg was born in Querfurt in 1948. He studied nuclear energetics at the TU Dresden and had a lightning career at what was then the largest nuclear power plant in the GDR in Greifswald. Because of his cheeky singing of Biermann songs and some ill-considered remarks at the carnival, he was named an enemy-negative element of the GDR and consequently spent some time under the care of the Stasi in Hohenschönhausen. After reunification, he worked for an international organization on the safety culture of nuclear power plants worldwide and has seen more nuclear power plants from the inside than almost anyone else.

Skybird

11-06-24, 11:30 AM

And some days ago I red an explanation by a Swedish military or government spokesman, I forgot what he was excatly, and he said that the Swedes go back to nuclear power because the vulnerability of especially windmills. Sink a small missile into a windmill tower, and its gone forever. Defend thousands of such towers, and you must overstretch and in the end will defend all but lose everything.

I could imagine similiar risks for huge fields with solar panels. Have an overlfight and let some truckloads of small pebbles rain down from the sky. They must not even be explosive. Just simple rocks and stones... Okay, kind of anecdotical, but you get the idea. No country in Europe has such a tight air defences grid that it could cover all these enormous proportions of land.

Catfish

11-06-24, 11:41 AM

em2nought

11-06-24, 11:26 PM

Just finished escorting my very first windmill blade. Quite the show. :up:

Skybird

11-07-24, 05:12 AM

^ I get your idea, but one well-placed missile can take out a central nuclear reactor easily, and you know exactly where to hit. Bit more difficult with thousands of windmills.

But yes, windmills and enormous solar panels cannot be the solution, only an intermediate one at best. And if you experiment you better have some plan b up your sleeve, even without enemy interference.
Its a difference whether you can focus defences on some hotspots or must guard hundreds of locations. And a hit on a windmill destroys, a powerplant can maybe be r epaired, and the security cell of a nuclear plant is harder to destroy than you think. They are build to sustain the crash of an airliner. The bigger risk is that theif cooling infrastructure gets disrupted.

Any way i think the swedes know why they reason like they do.

Skybird

11-08-24, 04:44 PM

Germany - and parts of Europe - are currently experiencing a winter doldrums, neither the sun is shining nor the wind is blowing, which occurs several times in our latitudes in winter, whereby for many discussants doldrums mean phases of wind and solar absence lasting at least 7 days. As a result, the amount of green electricity generated in Germany has fallen to one percent - 1%! - of what can "normally" be expected (as if dark doldrums are unnormal...). As this can only be compensated for by electricity imports from other countries, some of which are also suffering from dark doldrums or are distributing their surpluses to many of the current victims of dark doldrums, energy costs are currently through the roof on the markets and at times at a higher level than during the war-related crisis in 2022.

Pity is inappropriate. The situation is intentional and everyone thinks it's great.

Dargo

11-09-24, 08:23 AM

Nah, it is the capitalist sham of we buy cheap energy in summer and pay double for it is in the winter.

Skybird

11-09-24, 08:37 AM

In Germany we dont buy energy cheaper in summer either. Prices the consumer must pay and priuces at the energy markets are completely disconnected. And that is even politically wanted and designed to be so.

German energy policy is examplary only for one thing: how not to run energy policies.

Jimbuna

11-09-24, 09:18 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/QtGYG7bk/Gl-Zio7u0-1.webp (https://postimg.cc/FfpV07w7)

Skybird

11-09-24, 09:38 AM

^ Unrealistic, I think. Germany has the by far biggest low wages labour sector amongst all Western industrial countries.

https://i.postimg.cc/rsY04S7W/Unbenannt.png (https://postimg.cc/QK1dGW8x)

Industry- and business electricity is even worse, usually for Germany factors of 2-3 get mentioned when it its about how much more eletcitc power cots the diisutrey when conmar9ng to the US, China. Of those companies - MANY conmaonies - that leave Germany or shut down, rthey all list a couple of shared reasons, high energy costs are always amongst them, and inc ase of prudcing conmonies: the degradign staiblity of the grid, leading to micro blackouts from several tens of seocnds to a small number of minutes that do enormously costly damages.

Electricity is a major reason for Germany's decline. Not the only one, but a major one.

Dargo

11-09-24, 10:18 AM

Superb plan of Frau Merkel to close nuclear energy.

Skybird

11-09-24, 10:30 AM

Superb plan of Frau Merkel to close nuclear energy.
Yep, she was brilliant in completing Erich Honecker's late revenge on the BRD.

Two years ago I paid 36 Euros per month for electric power. Now its 66 Euros. The difference is the green-red contribution from Scholz and Gang.

Otto Harkaman

11-09-24, 12:17 PM

Germany's Growing Dependence on U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas: An Evolving Energy Partnership
As Europe grapples with energy security issues following shifts in the global energy landscape, Germany’s dependence on U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) has emerged as a significant factor in its energy strategy. Historically reliant on Russian gas, Germany's energy policies underwent a dramatic shift after the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022, leading to an increased focus on diversifying gas supplies. This article examines Germany’s rising dependence on U.S. LNG, the underlying factors, and the projections for future trends in this energy partnership.

Germany's Energy Shift: From Russian Gas to LNG Imports
Before the Ukraine crisis, Germany relied heavily on Russian natural gas, which accounted for over half of its natural gas imports. This changed almost overnight when Germany decided to phase out Russian gas due to security concerns. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline, designed to double the amount of gas directly transported from Russia to Germany, became irrelevant after the German government suspended its certification.
The rapid pivot toward LNG became the cornerstone of Germany's strategy to ensure energy security and independence. However, Germany had limited infrastructure for receiving and processing LNG. In response, Germany invested in building its first LNG terminals, with operational sites in Wilhelmshaven and Brunsbüttel and others under development. This infrastructure expansion has paved the way for increased LNG imports, particularly from the United States.

U.S. LNG: A Reliable Alternative?
The U.S. emerged as a prominent LNG supplier to Europe, stepping in to fill the gap left by Russia. In 2022 alone, U.S. LNG exports to Europe skyrocketed, with Germany among the primary beneficiaries. By 2023, Germany became one of the largest importers of U.S. LNG in Europe.
American LNG is not only seen as reliable but also strategically aligned with Germany's goals of reducing dependence on Russian energy. With LNG, Germany gains flexibility, as shipments are more easily rerouted than pipeline gas. However, the costs associated with LNG imports, including transportation and regasification, are higher than those for pipeline gas. Consequently, Germany faces a trade-off between energy security and energy costs.

Factors Contributing to Continued Dependence on U.S. LNG
Several factors suggest that Germany’s dependence on U.S. LNG is likely to grow in the coming years:

Diminishing Domestic Production: Germany's domestic natural gas production is limited and unlikely to meet its demand. Additionally, as Germany continues its transition to renewable energy, natural gas remains an important backup fuel to compensate for intermittent renewable energy generation.
EU Climate Goals: Germany aims to reduce its carbon emissions, targeting a complete phase-out of coal by 2038 and potentially accelerating it to 2030. While renewables are expanding, they may not entirely cover the shortfall left by coal. Natural gas, including LNG, is considered a transitional fuel that could bridge the gap until renewables become more stable and scalable.
Long-Term Contracts: U.S. energy companies and European buyers, including German utilities, are negotiating long-term contracts for LNG supplies. These agreements could further solidify Germany's reliance on U.S. LNG as both sides commit to sustained energy partnerships.
Infrastructure Investments: Germany’s continued investment in LNG terminals and storage facilities points to a long-term strategy that may prioritize LNG over other forms of energy imports.

Challenges and Risks
While U.S. LNG currently offers Germany a feasible alternative to Russian gas, it also presents challenges. The volatility of LNG prices, which are often linked to global oil prices, means that Germany could face higher energy costs. Furthermore, geopolitical factors, such as strained U.S.-EU relations or regulatory changes, could impact LNG supplies.
Additionally, environmental concerns are growing in Germany. LNG production and transportation contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, and there is increasing scrutiny over whether the dependence on LNG aligns with Germany’s green commitments. This pressure could eventually lead to a reevaluation of LNG imports in favor of more aggressive investments in renewable energy and green hydrogen.

Future Projections: Will Germany's Dependence on U.S. LNG Increase?
In the short to medium term, it is likely that Germany's dependence on U.S. LNG will increase. Several factors support this trajectory: the long lead times for expanding renewable infrastructure, the need for energy security, and Germany’s established trade relationship with the United States. Furthermore, as new LNG terminals come online, Germany will have the capacity to import even larger volumes of LNG, positioning it as a primary customer for American gas exporters.
However, in the longer term, Germany aims to transition away from fossil fuels. The expansion of renewable energy sources, technological advancements in energy storage, and the scaling up of green hydrogen production could reduce Germany’s need for LNG by the 2030s. To achieve these goals, Germany would need to balance its current reliance on LNG with investments in sustainable energy infrastructure, potentially decreasing LNG demand in the decades ahead.

Conclusion
Germany’s increased dependence on U.S. LNG underscores an evolving energy relationship shaped by security needs, geopolitical pressures, and environmental goals. In the near term, U.S. LNG will likely remain a crucial component of Germany’s energy portfolio, providing a reliable alternative as the country diversifies away from Russian gas. Yet, Germany’s long-term strategy remains committed to reducing fossil fuel dependence and meeting ambitious climate targets, signaling that this dependency on U.S. LNG may ultimately wane as Germany moves toward a greener energy mix. For now, U.S. LNG is indispensable, but Germany’s commitment to a carbon-neutral future could redefine this partnership over time.

Jimbuna

11-09-24, 12:44 PM

Yep, she was brilliant in completing Erich Honecker's late revenge on the BRD.

Two years ago I paid 36 Euros per month for electric power. Now its 66 Euros. The difference is the green-red contribution from Scholz and Gang.

What do you pay for gas?

Catfish

11-09-24, 12:56 PM

^ appx. 9 cent / kwh

Ostfriese

11-09-24, 12:59 PM

Two years ago I paid 36 Euros per month for electric power. Now its 66 Euros. The difference is the green-red contribution from Scholz and Gang.

Most of the difference I have to pay lands in the hands of greedy energy companies that simply refuse to hand down the vastly reduced prices they have to pay for electricity. There's a reason why energy companies have vastly increased their profits in the past two years, and the government has nothing to do with it.

Jimbuna

11-09-24, 01:13 PM

^ appx. 9 cent / kwh

Sorry Kai I meant based on individual usage/consumption.

I pay £98 per month for both gas and electricity combined.

Skybird

11-10-24, 04:32 AM

Most of the difference I have to pay lands in the hands of greedy energy companies that simply refuse to hand down the vastly reduced prices they have to pay for electricity. There's a reason why energy companies have vastly increased their profits in the past two years, and the government has nothing to do with it.
Thats a bit simplified, isn't it. The poltically wanted subventions I think are far more relevant. They are coutner.intuitve regarding market mechanics. The more the sun shines and the more the wind blows - the more expensive electricity gets...? C'mon on.

Yes, its really like this in Germany. The power from solar gets the more expensive for the consumer the more the sun shines. Same for wind. With building of ever more soilar panels and win dmills, the prices for power have gone up, not down. And thats due to laws, not just company greed.

Thats why I say often that Germany's energy policy works as only one example to the world: how to NOT run energy policy. Or in Elon Musk's recent words on the German energy policy: the Germans are fools.

Catfish

11-10-24, 06:00 AM

Coal and 'fossil fuels' are heavily subsidized, not only in Germany, much more than the renewable energies. The market is drastically distorted in favour of fossil fuels.

"Adam Smith once described subsidies as a "bounty," a premium or grant. Subsidies for fossil fuels are also government interventions designed to steer the energy market. They play a key role in achieving global climate goals because the incentives distort competition in favor of oil, gas, and coal - and thus make it more difficult to switch to more environmentally friendly resources. Politically, they are therefore a hot potato. In poorer countries in particular, revolutions would be at risk if previously cheap consumer prices for fuel or cooking gas were to rise immeasurably."

https://www-capital-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft-politik/wo-fossile-energien-am-staerksten-subventioniert-werden-34239662.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Dargo

11-30-24, 01:39 PM

Austria easily replaced Russian gas with wind energy

Austria has not received gas directly from Gazprom for 10 days, but has no problems. Record volumes of electricity from wind farming stations and the maximum hydropower generation in a decade will allow Austrian utilities to work out the starting heating season with minimal gas needs.

Austria’s successful withdrawal from gas could serve as an example for neighboring countries that could reduce collective gas consumption by compensating for electricity losses by increasing its imports through European networks — including from the same Austria.пишет For Gazprom, which has already lost the Nordic markets, this could be an additional blow.

Although this year Austria’s gas needs were more than 80% met at the expense of Russian fuel, the share of gas in the aggregate power generation has fallen below 6%, according to the Ember energy analytical center.

Meanwhile, the wind gave more electricity than gas in 19 of the last 20 months. That is, in the last heating season, Austria for the first time produced more electricity with the help of wind than with the help of gas. A similar situation is observed this season, including thanks to the development of wind energy. In general, it provided 2.5 times more electricity generation than gas in 10 months of this year, and the volume of electricity produced from the wind increased by 18%.
If in the winter of 2024-2025. Wind speed will correspond to the seasonal trend (in the countries of Central and Southern Europe, this speed reaches a peak just at this time of year), then wind generation will exceed gas throughout the winter, which will lead to a decrease in total gas consumption in Austria at such an important moment for the country, Reuters notes.

In addition, more than 3000 hydroelectric power plants in Austria produced 17% more electricity in 10 months of this year than in the same period of the past. Heavy rainfall in late 2023 - early 2024. Filled the tanks to multi-year highs.

Hydrogeneration this year accounted for 68%, wind - 13%, another 10% was given by sun.

Austria’s actions could be an example for neighbouring countries, which are also trying to reduce their dependence on gas imports. In addition, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Switzerland, Italy, Slovenia and Slovakia are connected to Austria by powerful power grids and can reduce gas consumption through imports of its electricity.

Among other things, the rupture of relations with Gazprom does not mean the complete loss of OMV’s access to Russian gas (at least until the end of the year, there is still a contract for its transit through Ukraine, which Kiev is not going to extend). Austria can, if necessary, buy gas from Slovakia, which continues to receive it from Gazprom. On Tuesday, Austria’s application for gas delivery from Slovakia was 21% higher than on Monday, while the total volume of deliveries to Europe through Ukraine remained at the level of the last weeks – about 42 million cubic meters, Reuters reports (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-gas-supply-eu-via-ukraine-stable-austria-nominations-up-21-2024-11-26/), citing data from Gazprom.

Despite the day-large growth, the Austrian application remains lower than until November 16, when Gazprom closed the cra d’t in response to the non-payment of OMV supplies for October. The Austrian company refused to pay in this way to get at least a part of the amount of more than 230 million euros, which it was awarded by the arbitration court for the termination of Gazprom’s exports for its German “daughter” in 2022. Gas storage facilities in Austria are filled by 90.4%, according to Gas Infrastructure Europe. https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2024/11/26/avstriya-legko-zamenila-rossiiskii-gaz-energiei-vetra-a148742 Translation is not 100% but heck you get the story.

Dargo

12-12-24, 09:40 AM

The Netherlands looks set to meet its self-imposed target for generating renewable energy by 2030. So says the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has looked at the plans for solar and wind energy, among others, of the various regions in our country. The Planning Bureau's analysis shows that 37 to 45 terawatt hours of electricity are likely to be generated by wind and solar farms by 2030. The Netherlands has set 35 terawatt hours as its target in the Climate Agreement. So that seems well within reach. The PBL researchers do warn that all regions are not yet looking closely enough at the long term. Even more is needed to meet all climate goals. The Netherlands wants to be climate-neutral by 2050, which would require the amount of electricity generated to continue to grow by a factor of 3 to 5.

To meet that target, even more new solar and wind farms would have to be built, not only at sea but also on land. But so far, too few new projects are in the pipeline, the researchers warn. Projects are becoming increasingly difficult to set up because space is limited. For instance, the central government does not want solar projects in nature or on agricultural land. Conservation of nature and landscape is also often mentioned by residents as an important issue. PBL calls this a missed opportunity, because, according to the researchers, a solar farm and nature can also reinforce each other. ‘For instance, solar parks often provide favourable conditions for vegetation that is more interesting to animals than farmland. In Solar farm Klarenbeek near Apeldoorn, for example, toad pools and 145 planted trees have been added at the insistence of local residents.’ There is also a risk that projects cannot go ahead because the power grid is too full to connect the solar or wind farm, or because of stricter regulations, e.g. distance rules for wind turbines.

em2nought

12-12-24, 11:28 PM

I earn about $2000 US for every windmill blade my team delivers. We're about to load our 4th since I started at the end of October.

Skybird

12-13-24, 06:49 AM

Germany's energy-exporting neighbors are no longer happy with Germany. Destroying Germany is one thing. Dragging its neighbors into the abyss with it, out of sheer ideology and professional incompetence, is a completely different matter.

https://www-focus-de.translate.goog/finanzen/um-uns-vor-noch-groesseren-verlusten-zu-schuetzen-strompreis-auf-rekordhoch-stahlwerk-in-sachsen-stoppt-produktion_id_260558159.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

And of two of the three bigger regional blackout incidfents across Europe in the recent ten years, Germany was the epicentre - but the cosnequence showed up hundreds and thosuands of kilometers away, in other coutnries of Europe like Switzerland, Austria, Spain. Thats the risk of shifting electric powerloads back and forth along a continental powergrid because one player in it is too stupid to keep its acts together.

Skybird

12-13-24, 07:17 AM

^ Again.

https://www-tichyseinblick-de.translate.goog/daili-es-sentials/dunkelflaute-deutschland-widerstand-europa-schweden/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

It is likely to be foreseeable when the well-intentioned idea of an [continentally integrated] electricity network will be shelved by the first countries. The network is not designed to constantly channel high energy flows across Europe to Germany - or vice versa, if there happens to be a lot of wind power in Germany, to ensure that it can be made scarce somewhere. Extreme load flows put pressure on the networks of neighboring countries, threatening stability there and destroying prices and thus the profitability of the plants.
Germany is a critical troublemaker in the European high-voltage grid. It is no wonder that its neighbouring countries are using expensive phase shifters to block their power lines and protect their grids. They are sealing off their borders.Tja. I cannot criticise them, if I were in their place, I would do the same.

Dargo

12-13-24, 03:07 PM

^ Again.

https://www-tichyseinblick-de.translate.goog/daili-es-sentials/dunkelflaute-deutschland-widerstand-europa-schweden/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Tja. I cannot criticise them, if I were in their place, I would do the same.I can not read the url for some reason it gives an error. But this is not an only German problem, the network has reached its capacity in several countries. We must all expand our network and use excess renewable power by producing green hydrogen that we can store in our empty gas field that will become batteries to power our heavy industries. We Dutch build and invest into that high time, Germany transfers to a newer economy what it lacked to do for at least a decade. Or... you can always pay us to shut down our solar/wind parks no problem, we make a special prise for you :) if you did not find the buttons to shut down your own duh we do that constantly by too much sun/wind.

mapuc

12-13-24, 03:20 PM

Yep we have the same problem here-No wind and no Sun. Which have made the price for Electricity going through the roof.

Many are talking about building some reactor(Nuclear powerplant) or wish that Denmark allowed these. Well a majority of the elected politicians are against it. It also showed that the Green politics created by the elected have failed-Base all energy on wind and Sun.

Markus

Skybird

12-13-24, 03:35 PM

^No, no, no, ntta is just more of what has caused this mess, and Germany does cause a major part of it for sure. The frequency in the grid needs to be kept in variation at utmost minimums, which you risk to villate iof shiftign to hi8uge quntties of power form one end of the grid to the other, its like a bridge where too many columns of soldiers march in synchronozedf steps and brign thre rudge tio collapse. Germany has no capacity to compensate the need to do so by priduzcing mor eneegry, nor has it the capcity ot stor eneergy in sufficient quantities, and it - and any other European nation - will not be able to doi so for many, many years to come, if ever. You need a basic load for microadjustements in the grid frequency and power to manage such flcutations, and this basic load must be coming from non renevwables, sicne oyu cannot afford to be depending on that the sun shines and the winds blows for such basic load safeties.

I cannot explain it better in detail in English, but I have linked to texts in the past years explaining it better. The origin of tese hickups in the European powergrid is for the most Germany and then again: Germany, and this is since many years and it has dramatically worstened in the last couple of years. We are being warned in Germany of rotating blackouts (=brownouts) now. The number of micro-blackouts has cinstrantly grpown over the last couple fo years.

Apine nations basing on water power (Austria) wll also run into problems when the last glacier has gone away.

You need weather-independent power production to a certaine xtend. And Germany has dropped below this treshhold mark. Every nation should produce at any time 10 GWh (I think it was 10 GWh) in reserves so that the engineers can juggle with energy transfers across the whole continent to keep the net frequency constant, says the EU. But Germany currently exceeds the need of just 10 GWh by a factor between 2 and 4. There are not this many reserves available across the whole continental grid, and shiftign this much enegry from one side of the gird to the other is a big risk for the net stability and constant frequency.

Thats what many - especially politicians - overlook: electric power is not just Ampere and Volt, its also Hertz. And one can fight over which is the bigger threat currently: issues with the total quantity of electic power produced, or the frequency in the continental grid.

In Germany, the number of critical events and almost-desasters has exploded by several factors over the past ten years. And on two or three occasions in these ten years it has caused regional blackouts in Austria, Spain and Northern Italy it was, I think. It was always caused by needing to intervene to keep the grid frequency from collapsing totally due to energy transfers to Germany.

I hate to say it, but within the European powergrid, Germany really is the heart of darkness. Metaphorically, and I fear sooner or later also literally. And the German destruction of powerplants continues!

Insanity at work. Pure and most elemental insanity.

And even at "normal" times, eletric power in Germany costs more tha anywhere els ein the din surtail world. Three times as much than iun China or the US. THREE TIMES. Excesses like during these critiucal days we just ahve with no su a nd no wind not counted, when at certain times of the day the prices at the power stocks explode to costs of 1000 Euros per MWh. Then electricity costs up to 30 times as much than in China or the US.

Learning from Germany means learning how to commit suicide. Lecturing and moralising we nevertheless do not give up. It replaces the old quality label of "made in Germany".

Große Fresse, aber nix dahinter.

mapuc

12-13-24, 05:56 PM

I have copied and translated what a Danish Politician wrote on his wall

The Danes must not be blanked out by greedy electricity speculators!
When electricity prices rise completely uncontrolled, it is not because it has suddenly become more expensive to produce electricity. It is because the European electricity market is a playground for energy speculators who earn money by speculating on our electricity bills.
It is both unreasonable and unsafe for electricity prices to multiply from one moment to the next. It is a result of leaving critical infrastructure on which we all depend to random market forces, where energy speculators can make billions during periods of volatility.
It is fundamentally unfair that you can get rich by creating uncertainty for ordinary people who have no choice but to pay the bill and hope and pray that the fluctuations stabilize.
Therefore, as a first step, we must have a ceiling on the electricity bill of Danes and Europeans, financed by a tax on the extraordinary profits of energy speculators.
The next step is a fundamental reform of the European electricity market - so that speculation is replaced by efficient and democratic planning.
Our critical infrastructure must work for the citizens - not for the speculators.

Markus

Skybird

12-14-24, 06:34 AM

On Dunkeldeutschland.

Grid security could only be maintained thanks to the outstanding work of the engineers at the grid control centers. In 2000, they had to intervene five times to stabilize the grid. These interventions are called redispatch measures. In 2024, the grid operators had to intervene 20,000 times, and the rate of increase is exponential. Such a number of interventions costs billions per year, and the probability of an error with the catastrophic consequence of a blackout increases exponentially.https://www-achgut-com.translate.goog/artikel/energiewende_ins_dunkeldeutschland?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

The author is a studied expert in nuclear physics and nuclear engineering, worked in the nuclear powerplant Greifswald and was expert for several international nuclear installations surveillance missions checking the safety of nuclear reactors worldwide. He was thrown in jail in the GDR for not being sufficiently compliant with the regime.

The term "Dunkeldeutschland" (= Dark Germany) once was used by former president Gauck in a derogatory manner to describe Germans in those parts of Germany, mainly East Germany, that were not voting politically correct according to the demands by Bundestag parties. "Dunkeldeutsche" is also the term to relate to AfD voters and critics of the unified block party CDUSPDFDPGREENSBSW that has completely hijacked democracy over here and has unofficially declared elections an exercise in futility.

Paraphrasing an old GDR joke, you could ask: “What are the four main enemies of the energy transition?” The answer is: “Spring, summer, fall and winter”.

Dargo

12-20-24, 12:12 PM

Skybird

12-25-24, 04:40 PM

[TE] According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global demand for coal will reach an all-time high this year. According to current forecasts, it is set to rise by one per cent to 8.77 billion tons, as the IEA reported in its latest analysis in London. Global coal consumption has increased by over 1.2 billion tons since 2020.
Rising demand in China in particular, with growth of one percent, and in India, where the increase is five percent, is driving this trend. China has more than 1,000 coal-fired power plants in operation, with an installed capacity of around 1,000 gigawatts. The Middle Kingdom also has plans to build a further 182 plants, which are expected to deliver an additional 131 gigawatts. India, on the other hand, has around 280 coal-fired power plants and is currently building 28 more. While Europe is increasingly endangering its industrial base and is now aiming to phase out coal after phasing out nuclear power, the Indian government intends to double annual coal production to 1.5 billion tons by 2030.

Even if Europe could completely do without coal power - a goal that is hardly realistic due to the dependence of renewable energies on the weather and without a widespread return to nuclear power - this would only have a minimal impact on global emissions, as the main culprits, China and India, are continuing to massively expand their coal power capacities. China accounts for more than 53 percent of global coal-fired power plant capacity, while the EU is estimated to account for just 8 percent of global capacity.

In October 2023, Economics Minister Robert Habeck was still in favor of taking the last reserve coal-fired power plants off the grid in 2024. He wanted to base Germany largely on LNG (liquefied natural gas) and renewable energies. But in a recent public statement, Habeck had to admit that this plan was unlikely, and even phasing out coal by 2030 was unrealistic.
Renewable energies now account for more than half of Germany's electricity mix. In the first three quarters of 2023, they even temporarily exceeded the 56 percent mark. Nevertheless, these technologies are not able to supply the business location or private households with electricity efficiently and at affordable conditions.

A major reason for the inefficiency of renewable energies is the strong dependence of solar and wind power on the weather. This dependence leads to fluctuations in electricity production. The output of solar and wind power is significantly reduced, particularly during periods of high pressure or so-called dark periods, when there is hardly any wind or the sun shines only sparsely.

These weather conditions occur particularly frequently in Germany in the winter months. Analyses by the German Weather Service (DWD) show that energy production from wind and solar power in certain regions of Germany then regularly falls to less than ten percent of the nominal output. This happens on average about 23 times a year with onshore wind turbines. In extreme situations, wind turbines come to a standstill almost completely, while solar production also reaches a minimum. These bottlenecks lead to price jumps on the electricity exchange.

It was only in mid-December that an acute blackout led to a real explosion in electricity prices. The stock exchange prices reached record levels that were not exceeded even during the last energy crisis. The price for a megawatt hour rose at times to 936 euros - more than double the prices in neighboring countries such as France and Poland and almost twelve times as high as the average spot market price so far this year.

A similar price jump occurred at the beginning of November, when the cost of a megawatt hour rose to over 800 euros. On November 6, the share of wind and solar energy was only 4.39 percent of total electricity demand. At some points, around 6 p.m., solar and wind energy even covered less than 0.2 percent of demand.

These figures are alarming, especially considering that these energy sources are to make up 100 percent of our energy mix in the future. If Germany continues down this path, it will neither be able to overcome its dependence on coal nor ensure a sovereign electricity supply. Instead, the country will be permanently dependent on electricity imports, for which foreign suppliers can charge excessive prices in times of unfavorable weather conditions.

The only way to ensure an efficient, independent and cost-effective energy supply is to re-implement nuclear power. This is the only way Germany can maintain its competitiveness at home, supply companies with cheap electricity and reduce the burden on private households in terms of their energy costs.

But what will happen to energy policy? Will there be a turnaround? With the change of government in February next year, a change of course could be imminent. The AfD in particular is speaking out strongly against the ideologically influenced energy policy and is calling for a return to nuclear power. The CDU and FDP have also now recognized that the nuclear phase-out under Angela Merkel was a serious mistake.

A similar shift is emerging at a global level. The world's largest companies by market capitalization, including Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon and Alphabet (Google's parent company), are united in their support for the reintroduction of nuclear power. Donald Trump is also calling for a return to nuclear power in the United States.

The sudden interest of large corporations in nuclear power is mainly due to the enormous energy consumption caused by the use of artificial intelligence (AI). The integration of AI into data centers and applications leads to a drastic increase in electricity consumption. Training AI models also requires enormous amounts of energy. Experts warn that in some scenarios, the global energy demand caused by AI could exceed the annual consumption of entire countries.

In this context, the ideologization of climate change increasingly appears to be a fading trend. Author Ernst Wolff explained in an interview with Dominik Kettner: "AI will require huge amounts of energy in the next few years, and then it will be time to say goodbye to the climate agenda." It remains to be seen whether the narrative of the climate debate will fundamentally change in the coming months or years.

The green transformation in Germany has clearly failed. Despite a share of more than 50 percent of the electricity mix from renewable energies, it is not possible to ensure a stable and cost-efficient energy supply. Dark periods and high-pressure weather lead to production outages and record prices on the electricity exchange, while coal-fired power plants remain indispensable. In order to ensure a competitive, independent and cost-effective energy supply in the long term, a return to nuclear power is becoming increasingly unavoidable.
https://www-tichyseinblick-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/nachfrage-nach-kohle-hoechststand/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

And the problems of

1.) the high net energy loss when transmitting electricity via cable over hundreds of kilometers (up to over 50% if you consider the distance from the North Sea offshore windfarms to Munich, meaning that twice as much energy has to be generated in the north as you want to consume in the south);

2.) maintaining a base volatge that has to be available at all times, not just when the weather plays along, so that one can react to needed adjustments and has manouver potential to compensate for grid fluctuation (see point 3 below) ;

3.) and finally the frequency fluctuations in the continental electricity grid, which now lead to over 20,000 critical, risky interventions per year to prevent regional blackouts that could otherwise cascade into continental blackouts -

all these issues are not even mentioned in the above considerations, and are to be added in top.

Insanity in action.

Skybird

12-25-24, 05:20 PM

There is much more natural hydrogen hidden in the Earth's rocks than previously thought. In fact, the total amount of white hydrogen contains more energy than all natural gas reserves on Earth. This could theoretically keep cars running for centuries to come. There is much more than previously assumed. So much so, in fact, that the amount found contains more energy than all natural gas reserves on earth. In the past, some brands such as BMW, Honda, Toyota and Suzuki have successfully experimented with cars in which hydrogen is injected into the cylinders instead of petrol. The conversion is similar to that of an LPG system. But it is more effective to use the hydrogen in cars with a fuel cell, where the hydrogen is converted into electricity, which then drives an electric motor.

It is not only cars that can benefit from the amount of hydrogen found, which is some 5.6 trillion tonnes, according to the journal Science Advances (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado0955). The hydrogen can also be used to power, power plants. Even if only 2 per cent of the total can be pumped up, researchers say there is already enough hydrogen to cover global energy needs for the next two hundred years. It was long thought that hydrogen was too volatile to accumulate underground on a large scale, but this turns out not to be the case. The European and African Union have long been investigating the extent to which this naturally occurring hydrogen can be used, the German opinion magazine Der Spiegel (https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/wasserstoff-kaum-erschlossene-quelle-kann-so-die-energiewende-doch-noch-gelingen-a-2291d31e-5f08-41b8-afb6-5ea94e6d2b81) reported last year. The large stockpile is a windfall. For a long time, it was assumed that it was not present in high concentrations in the Earth's crust, making commercial use hardly worthwhile. One reason was that while drilling for natural gas and oil, large hydrogen reserves were never discovered.

However, hydrogen and fossil fuels rarely occur in the same places. Moreover, it was usually not measured whether hydrogen was escaping from the borehole - after all, people were looking for oil or natural gas. A US Geological Survey (USGS) model, presented at a meeting of the Geological Society of America in October 2022, already suggested that there could be enough natural hydrogen to meet growing global energy demand for thousands of years. So those models now appear to be correct. At the moment, only people in the African country of Mali make direct use of this natural energy source. 60 kilometres from the Malian capital Bamako, a small generator generates the electricity needs of the village of Bourakébougou. It is powered by white hydrogen, which is extracted from the ground there. White hydrogen is made as iron and water in the earth react with each other under high pressure and temperature, leaving, among other things, hydrogen.

The African and European Union's Hyafrica project is now exploring the potential of the energy source for the continent. After all, if countries skip the step from fossil fuels, many millions of tonnes of CO2 could be saved. White hydrogen from the earth has the main advantage that it does not need to be made. This is in contrast to current hydrogen, which is actually only an energy carrier, where energy is converted into hydrogen, which is then converted back into energy. So you have to deal with energy loss twice. With battery-electric cars, there is one time energy loss. In fact, white hydrogen is potentially infinitely available because the reaction between iron and water is continuous, so hydrogen is permanently replenished by the earth in large quantities. Although experts think it is relatively cheap to pump it up, everything hinges on the cost and energy density of white hydrogen.

Quatsch and SciFi. Comparable to "fusion reactors are just around the corner".

This text is from August 2022, to illustrate some implications mainstream media usually do not reflect on. The author studied physics in Munich and received his doctorate in nuclear physics. After that, he worked in nuclear research for many years. In the 1980s, he worked as a safeguards inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

The German Chancellor recently visited the President of Canada to make initial agreements with him on the supply of green hydrogen. In the short term - this or next winter - this will certainly not be possible. But is it the solution to our energy problems in the medium or long term?
Three times the size of NRW
Green projects are characterized by the fact that they forego studies of technical and economic feasibility and start with implementation straight away. This means that things can sometimes be quite expensive, but the benefits are all the less. The energy transition then costs a little more than a scoop of ice cream, and instead of electricity from coal and nuclear power, there is freezing for peace. So there is plenty of reason to take a closer look at Canadian hydrogen.
The island of Newfoundland lies off the Canadian mainland, three times the size of North Rhine-Westphalia but with fewer inhabitants than Düsseldorf. This sparsely populated region is said to have constant, strong winds, making it an ideal location for turbines to generate electricity. But who is going to buy the electricity? The nearest cities worth mentioning are too far away to lay cables. So the energy is packaged in a way that makes it easier to export.
You run the electricity through water and produce hydrogen, and because it comes from clean wind energy, it's called "green hydrogen." One kilogram of it contains 33 kWh of energy, which is about five times the amount of coal. That's the good news. The bad news is that one kilogram of hydrogen takes up 11 cubic meters of volume, which would barely fit in a very large wardrobe.
freezing cold
Thanks to this low density, airships were previously filled with hydrogen; this made them lighter than air. But now we don't want to transport passengers, but hydrogen itself. To do this, we use the effect that gases become liquid at low temperatures. The smaller the molecules, the colder it has to be. Methane, CH4, for example, becomes liquid at -164°C and hydrogen H2 at -253°C. That's damn cold, only 20°C above absolute zero. The machines for this liquefaction use 12 kWh per kg of H2, which is more than a third of its energy content. And more bad news: even a kg of liquid hydrogen (LH2) still has a volume of 14 liters! This makes it very unwieldy to transport, not to mention that it always has to be kept at 20°C above absolute zero during the journey. So can the hydrogen not be shipped from Canada to Germany as planned?
From Australia to Japan
For half a century, LNG ships loaded with liquid natural gas, i.e. liquefied methane, have been ploughing through the world's oceans; these are these huge barges with half a dozen domes on deck. Couldn't they also be used for green hydrogen?
No, for two reasons. The difference between -164°C and -253°C is not significant in our opinion - both are freezing cold. From a physical point of view, the difference between 20 Kelvin for LH2 and 109 Kelvin for LNG is enormous. The insulation systems have to be different, as do the cooling units that ensure the low temperatures.
But there is a second aspect, the economic aspect. In each cubic meter of tank, such a ship carries 440 kg of LNG, but would only carry 71 kg of LH2, i.e. only one sixth. The economic calculation naturally takes into account the ratio of transport costs to the value of the cargo, and this is very unfavorable for LH2.
So is there no feasible way to transport LH2 from Canada to Germany? That would be a prerequisite for the Canadian deal!
The world's first voyage (https://translate.google.com/website?sl=auto&tl=en&hl=de&client=webapp&u=https://www.marubeni.com/en/news/2022/release/00030.html) of its kind, including loading and unloading of LH2, was made by the Suiso Frontier (https://translate.google.com/website?sl=auto&tl=en&hl=de&client=webapp&u=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suiso_Frontier) from Victoria, Australia to Kobe, Japan, arriving in May 2022. It was a highly subsidized project to demonstrate technical feasibility.
LH2 release
So has this proven the feasibility of importing LH2 from Canada? It may be technically possible. But its economic viability is more than questionable. If you look at the entire supply chain: wind energy - electricity - electrolysis - liquefaction - shipping - distribution - storage - power generation in fuel cells - feeding into the grid - then you have to be very skeptical. It would be extremely expensive. Perhaps the LH2 tax will then be introduced in Germany and a kilowatt hour will ultimately cost one euro.
Let us hope that one day the realisation will prevail that the citizens are not there to finance the absurd energy plans of the Greens, but that energy policy is there to ensure that citizens have the quality of life they have worked for and to provide the economy with an infrastructure in which it can operate competitively.

https://think-again.org/kommt-die-rettung-aus-neufundland/

mapuc

12-25-24, 05:59 PM

^ Regarding Dargo's post I read the same in the science news some weeks ago and here is one of them. So what is correct here ?

A mountain of hydrogen is lurking beneath Earth's surface — and scientists say that just a fraction of it could break our dependence on fossil fuels for 200 years.

https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/energy/just-a-fraction-of-the-hydrogen-hidden-beneath-earths-surface-could-power-earth-for-200-years-scientists-find

Markus

Catfish

12-25-24, 06:16 PM

'Skybird' wants to have back his horses. All has been better back then. Even the future. But then imagine to have to play real golf without a PC.
:O:

Skybird

12-25-24, 07:44 PM

Quatsch, Kai. It is the eternal and utterly destructive disease of the Greens that they constantly invent completely unrealistic, naive scenarios and then sell them as the near future, which is of course also “without alternative”. But they have no idea about physics, mathematics and economics and categorically reject rational technological solutions, or rattle on through world history and blather on about stupid things and lecture the others - who unfortunately do it much better than we do.

Habeck's Graichen said it himself: the expectation that city districts in Germany will be heated with hydrogen is completely unrealistic. He also said that it was not worth continuing to finance the current gas networks because of the hydrogen circus. Incidentally, most of them are technically unsuitable for this and will have to be at least expensively converted - VERY expensively, which is always elegantly denied or concealed on television. Not to mention the fact that hydrogen is much more dangerous to handle than current domestic gas.

Not to mention what happens when cars with hydrogen tanks slam into each other. Gasoline explosions are fun, in comparison.

To store and to transport energy, hydrogene is probably the most stupid idea that is currently taken into consideration. What they think about mining it from the earth crust directly to me still is scifi, like economic solutions for winning energy from fusion reactors. We and the next generations will not live to see it becioming real, if it ever becomes real. we need working pragmatic solutions NOW, not in 100 or 200 years. We will not make it into the time in 200 years if we find no way to get there.

The US wants to triple its nuclear energy, I read. Also costs time and lots of money, but different to all the scifi beeing talked about we know that this thing works.

The hybris of the Greens is that they all too easily want to bet everybody's life on imaginary concepts that are totally unproven. And that they want to destroy the proven things already when the planned new things are still just ideas and need testing. They headjump into the pool blindly without checking first whether there is water in it. Worse: they throw others into the pool, too. Even if these resist with force.

One cannot act any more irresponsibly and destructively.

Dargo

12-25-24, 08:33 PM

All in all, with the current use of uranium, there is still supply for 130 years. However, if more nuclear power plants are built and thus the use of uranium becomes more intensive, it will quickly diminish. Uranium is a finite resource. This means that either way, the role of the nuclear sector in solving climate problems will be very limited. And relatively short because when uranium runs out, another solution will have to be found.

Most of the hydrogen is likely too deep or too far offshore to be accessed, and some of the reserves are probably too small to extract in a way that makes economic sense, the researchers suspect. However, the results indicate there's more than enough hydrogen to go around, even with those limitations, Geoffrey Ellis, a petroleum geochemist at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and lead author of the new study, told Live Science. Just 2% of the hydrogen stocks found in the study, equivalent to 124 billion tons (112 billion metric tons) of gas, would supply all the hydrogen we need to get to net-zero [carbon] for a couple of hundred years. Hydrogen is projected to account for up to 30% of the future energy supply in some sectors, and global demand is expected to rise fivefold by 2050.

It is not using one energy source but use all but keep riding that old horse thinking the wells are infinite, and the party goes on forever when all big oil/gas companies already transited to the new resources. But we the rest will and are already on the new train this train will not stop it already left the station keep fighting those windmills good luck with that.

Dargo

12-25-24, 10:57 PM

Nice frame, but when was the ‘left’ really in power? It remains bizarre how the ‘right’ has had the message ingrained that the left has ruled so many times, and we are victims of all sorts of leftist pastimes. Between 1945 and the present, the left has been in the minority when it comes to governing. Even when right-wing parties are in power, it is still ultimately down to the left. It is a convenient way of shifting responsibility for its own policies. And if you run through them one by one after climate crisis, biodiversity crisis, housing crisis, benefits crisis, refugee crisis, care crisis, youth care crisis, rising inflation, overstrained labour market, high energy prices, increasingly skewed wealth distribution, declining trust in politics and democracy, rising populism and discrimination, it remains remarkable that a substantial part of the population believes that these problems are ‘the fault’ of the left while most of these problems were created under right-wing governments.

They truly believe that if you ignore, deny, or make these issues smaller they will no longer exist, or be solved. Unfortunately for them, and the politicians on whom they whimsically pinned their hopes, problems that you let slide, that you do nothing about, become like a house that has not been painted or maintained for a long time: the decay continues unabated, and eventually you are stuck with a slum. Penny wise, pound foolish is what the British call it. There has been wholly inadequate investment in the public sector, and essentially in the private sector too. The consequences of that ‘leftist’ climate crisis seemed remote; why start preparing for it. Hassle people with necessary investments, burden increases. No, for years, people (think: the farmers, citizens afraid of black people reporting here or coming to work, climate deniers, anti-vaccinators) have been gagged mainly by right-wing parties and politicians. And hardly any policies have been implemented that would do pin on the one hand, but were very much needed on the other.A political movement is now growing that is constantly angry and fuelling anger and aggression in society! They are not interested in real solutions because they need the wrongs to keep cursing. That is also the only thing they really understand: cursing and hating. They don't have a single positive idea; all they want is to indulge in resentment. Also striking: they hate intellectuals, they hate artists, they hate culture, they hate everything that is not as ordinary as they are. Unremarkable, perfectly logical, is that the leader is a populist who tells everything the masses want to hear and with which he can mobilise the masses for his own interests.Every mature person knows that since the early 1970s, right-wing parties have ALWAYS governed, and the left was allowed to join in now and then. Joining right-wing parties, provided they ‘behaved’ and kept their left-wing wishes modest and certainly did not try to push through too much.

Skybird

12-26-24, 05:36 AM

On the argument that the limited availability of Uran limits the use of nuclear energy.
The site below is a lobby organization so they have a bias pro nuclear, but I nevertheless give this text instead of needing to collect the details from several other sites, which would mean more work, and that on a holliday... In summary what they write on this one pages is what I believe to know about it, too, and it reflects my expectations for future technologies.

https://nuclearinnovationalliance-org.translate.goog/uranium-supply-not-significant-constraint-using-nuclear-energy-climate-mitigation?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=de&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=rq

Regarding hydrogen, and the claim they found hige deposits in the Earth, which is a new developement. We know since decades that there is frozen methanhydrate in certain regions of the deep sea. Mined and processed under very controlled conditions, it would be an enormous energy carrier, at the cost of producing carbon emissions. What has come of this knowledge? Practically nothing, and when 15 years ago in this forum I rang the bell about the dangers of it and its consequences if the bound carbon would be freed into the atmosphere, everybody in the forum laughed at me. Today, the release of methane from permafrost soils and methanhydrate in the deep sea is a topic at every climate conference. The CO2 emissions problem dwarfens in its presence.

What i am about here is that one knew of methanhydrate - but even, as a thought experiment, when not caring for climate emissions, one did not show interest and ambition in it at all althoughh it would have been tempting lure under any any economic reasoning that does not care for emissions.

New technologies like this, or fusion reaction, need PLENTY of time to hatch and develope and finally bringing efficient results at economically reasonable costs. The term efficiency is precisely defined in economics, it is the ratio between investment and reward. And an economy will do what is efficient. Or the economy is controlled by the state, then it gets abused and pressed to produce results it cannot produce at economic costs: it either becomes financially ruinous, or dysfunctional in production, and usually: both, only the sequence in which both phases take place may vary.

The use of hydrogene one day may come or not, but it is many, many, many decades away. Like the use of fusion energy. You can build proof of concept designs and show that it is technically possible: absolutely. But you must be able to do it efficiently, the investment and the reward must be in a healthy ratio. And this is where both fail, and will fail for long time to come. Time that we do not have, the energy hunger of the world grows much faster than the development of these two things do.

And we will not have a future if we have no functioingn, working, pragmatic way to get there. High-flying plans for a glorious soooper-doooper perfect world are just fantasies like having a dream of winning in the lottery. Stay invested, if yout hink its worth it in the VERY long term, and indeed I think it is worth it - but I also think it will not grow fruits before many more decades if not generations passing by. AND UNTIL THEN...???

In some regions, wind, water and sun as energy producers make sense. In SOME. Not in Germany, foir exmaple. In Germany, we have messed up things big time. And we will not recover from our destruction orgy for the rest of my natural life expectancy at least. Building a nuclear plant these days is so overbureaucratic a process that you must count (in the West, the Chinese may do it faster) construction time in years between 10 and 25. But thats still much faster than fusion energy. Or a hydrogene based mobility and energy economy.

Realisim. Pragmatism. Rationality. 50% of 100 is more than 100% of nothing. Keep plans and ideas realistic, for heaven's sake. We can already see how the West messes up with all these superidealistic high flying reality denying superplans. Step one comes before step 2, step 2 comes before step 3. Germany on the other hand wanted to jump directly to step 15 or 20, and do in less than 10 years what the Scandinavians did in 50, 60, 70 years, and did under much easier situational conditions. And now?

Derzeit fliegen wir blöden Arschlöcher in Deutschland mit voller Wucht voll auf die Fresse.

For nill effect on the climate. And nobody takes us as an example to learn from. We are the running joke of the world. The defintion of "Trottel" is: doing it German.

And still many have their head in the far away future and still refuse to see the real present moment laid out before their eyes right here, right now.

The future never has killed anybody. Its always the present that kills. You never stumble over mountains, but over small rocks.

Skybird

12-26-24, 09:55 AM

The author of the following, Frank Hennig, is a graduate engineer for power plants and energy conversion, spent his working life in the power plants of a large electricity company and its legal successors. He was a member of the works council for many years and was responsible for public relations, which led him to study PR at the German Press Academy. Today, he works in technical training and as a speaker for a trade union.
-----------
Even with imperative will, the energy transition cannot be achieved

By Frank Hennig, December 26, 2024

Four enemies once hindered the construction of real existing socialism: spring, summer, autumn and winter. Now they are making the "great transformation" more difficult. Whereas in the past we wanted to defy the seasons, today we will follow them. They determine life after the transformation.

The tilt of the earth's axis in its orbit around the sun means that we have different seasons with very different weather in this country. This is unfortunate if you want to make solar energy the backbone of the energy supply. It is precisely in the coldest time of the year that energy consumption is at its highest and energy supply from solar heat is at its lowest. Nevertheless, there are influential forces in Germany who want to prove to the world that wind and solar energy can supply an industrial country.

The first two weeks of November showed how this can go wrong. Little wind and hardly any sun caused the electricity supply to fall and prices to rise. Since the lack of electricity in the grid can be discussed in green circles but cannot be changed, other electricity producers at home and abroad were put under a lot of pressure. Even in France, a coal-fired power plant at the Saint-Avold site went back into operation. It was a good thing that it had not yet been shut down.

The description of wind power as the "workhorse" of the energy transition has once again been exposed as a fairy tale. A workhorse responds to commands, wind energy depends on the whims of nature. It is clear that imports drove up prices. Robert Habeck, the responsible minister and the Green Party's candidate for chancellor, presented his own view: if more "renewables" were fed into the grid, electricity would become cheaper again, so more of it would have to be built. However, expansion is of no use when there is no wind.

Not only did electricity prices rise, but so did specific CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour generated. With emissions of more than 500 at times, Germany fell to the bottom of the ranking of European countries. The dark doldrums and their consequences were widely discussed on social media, with concerns and indignation about the developments that had taken place prevailing. The upright supporters of the energy transition countered with the familiar reassurances. Foreign countries are helping us, that's just normal in the European market.

Experts disagree: This is not normal. In fact: The European grid has been built and expanded over a hundred years to provide security and to help each other in the event of a disruption. Of course, trade also takes place via it, but it is not in the spirit of European cooperation to shrink one's own energy system to such an extent that secure self-sufficiency is no longer possible and one becomes dependent on imports.

This developed European network is also not suitable for realizing green dreams of the future. The delivery of solar power from the south to Scandinavia in summer and wind power from there back in winter remains a theory. Some may still remember physics lessons: the keyword is ohmic resistance - the transmission loss is around one percent of the power fed in per 100 kilometers of line length. There has been progress in this area, but delivering large quantities over long distances is just as impossible as delivering electricity at all during periods of low wind and with large excess capacities in wind and photovoltaic (PV) systems.

Even oil power plants reactivated

Some people suspected that Germany actually still had enough reserves that had not been tapped for price reasons. This is sheer nonsense, because it is certain that with prices of up to 820 euros per megawatt hour, all operational power plants in Germany were also in operation. Up to 700 megawatts even came from old oil-fired power plants (!) with poor efficiency and high emissions.

This also destroys another green hope: the phase-out of coal by 2030 will not happen on its own. Although the prices of CO2 certificates will continue to rise, this will not make the old plants uneconomical and force them out of the market, because electricity prices rise - at least - in line with the certificate prices. The decisive factor in the calculation is the so-called "clean spread" - the difference between the electricity price minus the production costs including the costs of CO2 certificates. If this value remains positive, continued operation will bring profit. Since the beginning of 2023, the price of CO2 has fallen from around 100 to 65 euros per ton today. So fossil-fuelled power plants are currently doing good business.

Another accusation is that the government has missed the boat on expanding the grid. This is also nonsense: if there is no electricity, there is no need to transport it. Oh yes, and the storage facilities are missing, they say, which should have been built long ago. How much capacity would we have needed? If we use an average import of nine gigawatts in the period from November 1 to 10 for the rough calculation, then a total of 2160 gigawatt hours would have been missing to meet our own needs. That would be 27 times the capacity that Germany has today in terms of battery and pumped storage capacity. With every additional conventional power plant that is shut down, the required capacity increases.

Nevertheless, every new battery that goes online is celebrated as a miracle. A "giant battery storage facility" with a capacity of 200 megawatt hours went into operation near Arzberg in the Fichtel Mountains. This makes sense for rapid grid control, where it also makes sense. But it is not effective for bridging periods of darkness. The Isar 2 nuclear power plant could theoretically have fully charged this storage facility in eight minutes before it was shut down, and after an hour of darkness it would have been empty again. Such a storage facility is of little use, but costs 110 million euros.

Anyone who does this kind of calculation will be hit with the magic word "hydrogen". When, how much and at what price hydrogen will be available is still up in the air. Nevertheless, it is now the only horse that the remaining traffic lights want to bet on. Most ideas for hydrogen production and processing have not left the stage of a PowerPoint presentation.

The hydrogen metabolism disorder

Even the NGO Agora Industrie assumes that the cost of green hydrogen in 2030 will be two to three times higher than expected, reaching seven times the price of natural gas. The price of electricity would have to fall to four cents per kilowatt hour to achieve anything approaching economic viability - utopia.

The H2 price is currently far from being economically viable for consumers. The import of green hydrogen is supposed to fix it, but the Norwegian company Equinor has stopped a pipeline project to North Rhine-Westphalia, and the Danes have postponed a similar project until at least 2031. They want a price guarantee.

This does not impress the current government. It is clearly suffering from a hydrogen metabolism disorder and is continuing to throw money into the bottomless pit. The Minister of Economic Affairs himself says he is taking a big risk - "maybe it will work". And if not? There is no plan B, just an idea that is reminiscent of Mao's "Great Leap Forward" of 1959. At that time, large companies such as steelworks were closed down in order to produce in small village blast furnaces. We are closing down large power stations close to consumers in order to generate electricity from small random power generators spread across the country.

Where is the trend in German power generation technologies heading now? For cynics, it is clear: from nuclear fission to bird fission and finally to water splitting. This has consequences. Depending on the weather and the time of year, we have too much or too little electricity, but never enough to meet our needs. Sometimes, like now in November, almost all wind turbines are idle. But they don't just stand around, they also use some of the scarce electricity for their standby needs.

There is too much electricity in the summer, which will be used to make green hydrogen in the future - which will then be stored at high losses and converted back into electricity in the winter with an overall efficiency of less than 25 percent. At the same time, the heating and mobility sectors are to be electrified.

"Communism is Soviet power plus electrification of the entire country," said Lenin. Green energy policy is German megalomania plus e-mobility plus heat pumps. The obvious failure of this approach is hardly mentioned, especially not by the industry affected. One exception is ThyssenKrupp boss Miguel Ángel López Borrego, who fundamentally questions the subsidies for wind and solar energy.

The so-called quality media have been rather sparing in reporting on the blackout, apart from "Welt", "BZ" and a few smaller newspapers. The news agency dpa - which is also financed by federal funds - reported, however, that power outages were "within the normal range", referring to the so-called SAIDI value, which records power outages for end customers lasting more than three minutes. Information that could cause uncertainty should be avoided.

Controllable backup power plants in short supply

How great is the danger really? Markus Löffler, professor at the Westphalian Energy Institute, is intensively studying the fluctuation problem in the grid and has determined that the planned controllable replacement power plants based on gas or hydrogen will not be nearly sufficient. Consequently, he recommends reducing the expansion of "renewables". A total of 150 gigawatts of available power would have to be available in Germany.

What laypeople often overlook is that it is not just the shortage that can become a problem, the surplus can be even more dangerous. Here, too, the weather plays a significant role. We know Easter, Pentecost, Ascension Day and sunny summer weekends when high PV power generation is offset by low consumption. Medium-sized companies that normally work through the weekend often take a break on long weekends. After lunch on a sunny Pentecost Sunday, we head to the quarry lake - practically no power is used. Since 29 gigawatts of solar power capacity - a third of the total installed PV output - cannot be remotely controlled and therefore cannot be regulated, unstable situations can arise in the distribution networks.

"Thinking damages the illusion," the great Hildegard Knef once mocked. The Greens insist on their negative knowledge advantage and will continue to try to explain the world to us. Being green means doing something for its own sake - at least in the opinion of the lobby behind it. Cynics counter that an energy transition should never again start on German soil.

What happens next? The system will increasingly have to be operated "on sight" in order to secure supplies for the next few weeks and days in the short term. High expectations of rapid network expansion and a hydrogen economy will fizzle out. "Security of supply" is largely ignored in the Sunday speeches of politicians of all stripes. However, a similar weather situation to that in November would be much more critical in January due to lower temperatures.

Since the French like to heat with electricity, they use significantly more energy in January, which can then no longer be delivered eastwards across the German border. Nobody wants to think about that.

Finally, the cynics again: We can hope for a merciful weather god, but if you go to a rain dance, you should at least take an umbrella with you.
https://www.tichyseinblick.de/kolumnen/lichtblicke-kolumnen/energiewende-nicht-zu-schaffen/

Skybird

01-12-25, 08:05 AM

On fusion energy "soon". :har:
---------------
On the author Hans Hoffmann-Reinecke: the author studied physics in Munich and received his doctorate in nuclear physics. He then worked for many years in nuclear research. In the 1980s he worked as a safeguards inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
-----------------

In September 2023, the "Bavarian Nuclear Fusion Mission" ushered in the "next energy era". Science Minister Markus Blume claims that the dream is within reach. And a location for the future fusion power plant has already been identified: on the grave of the destroyed Isar 2 nuclear power plant.

For someone who only speaks German, French and Russian have a lot in common: they can't understand either of them. In fact, however, the two languages are very different: try to get by in Paris with Russian. It's similar with nuclear power and nuclear fusion. Most people have no idea about either of them, and so the idea arises that these two processes for generating energy are very similar. People think that Gyro Gearloose only needs to tinker a bit with their nuclear power plants and we'll have nuclear fusion. But that would be like saying to a Frenchman: Do you speak French? Then you must understand Russian too.
Here's some explanation.

As you know, the matter around us is made up of atoms, which in turn consist of a tiny but heavy nucleus that is wrapped in a cotton ball of electrons. When different types of atoms come together, the cotton balls of different origins can arrange themselves in such a way that they end up in a more comfortable position where they have lower energy overall. It's like when a couple falls into a comfortable sofa. The energy difference is then released into the environment in one form or another. The sofa squeaks and the atoms give off heat or light.

Most of the processes in our everyday lives take place in this way: whether we drive a car, breathe or type on a computer, the cotton balls of atoms play a central role everywhere.

The atomic nuclei are always involved in these everyday processes, but they do not intervene in what happens. But they also play their games, albeit in a completely different league. As tiny as the nuclei may be, they are still made up of even smaller particles, the nucleons. There are two types of nucleons: protons, which hold the negatively charged cotton balls with their positive electrical charge, and electrically neutral neutrons. These nucleons also arrange themselves in the nucleus in such a way that the entire structure assumes the lowest possible energy state.

Until 1938, it was believed that these structures were indivisible. But then Otto Hahn & Co discovered that certain nuclei, such as the shear metal uranium, can be split by bombarding them with neutrons from the outside. It was also discovered that this releases an enormous amount of energy and that the whole thing can be used practically in a spontaneous chain reaction. In 1942, the first reactor was running to demonstrate this reaction, in 1945 the first bombs detonated, and in 1954 the first electricity flowed from a nuclear power plant in which uranium was split.

At that time, it was also recognized that energy is released not only when heavy nuclei split, but also when lighter ones, such as hydrogen, fuse. This happens on a large scale on the sun. In 1952, this process was replicated on Earth in the form of the hydrogen bomb. The energy released per atom is about 10 million times greater than with conventional energy sources, such as the combustion of coal.

Can fusion also be used "peacefully"? Controlled fusion has been worked on for seven decades, but practical success is still pending. The problem is that the positively charged nuclei repel each other vehemently - how are they supposed to fuse? In order to overcome this repulsion, the matter that is supposed to fuse must be heated to extremely high temperatures, say 150 million degrees; then some nuclei have enough momentum to approach each other and fuse as desired.

At these temperatures, the electrons have long since said goodbye to the nuclei. So we have a soup of independent nuclei and electrons in front of us, called plasma. In which pot should this "soup" be kept? No material can withstand these temperatures! And so vessels have been developed in which very strong magnetic fields keep the particles away from the walls. These vessels are typically shaped like a donut, also called a "torus". The largest of its kind, the "International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor", or ITER for short, has been under construction since 2007 and the first generation of a hydrogen plasma was planned for December 2025, 18 years later. This date has now been postponed by a good 10 years.

However, this test is only a functional test of the technology, it is by no means intended for fusion. Such experiments are to be carried out subsequently, in 2035, using a plasma from deuterium and tritium, the heavier isotopes of hydrogen, which have one or two neutrons in their nucleus in addition to a proton. “Normal” hydrogen has only one proton.

If the required key values for energy gain and stability are observed in these experiments, perhaps around 2045, then the “proof of concept” will have been provided, then ITER will have done its duty and will be shut down. It was never planned for the machine to generate electricity. That would then be a new project, and that would then take another few decades.

The Bavarian head of state Dr. Markus Söder is not very impressed by such prospects. In September 2023 he adopted the “Nuclear Fusion Master Plan”:
“Bavaria is launching the nuclear fusion mission. We want to be pioneers in the energy supply of the future. … For the first time, nuclear fusion will be studyable in Bavaria at new professorships. We are also setting up the "Bavarian Fusion Cluster" and connecting science and companies in an expert commission. The end result is a nuclear fusion power plant. We are giving an impetus to this from Bavaria with many partners as a driving force for Germany and Europe." And the Bavarian Minister of Science Markus Blume - a trained political scientist - seconds his boss: "Bavaria is setting out to make a decades-long dream of a sustainable, safe and infinite energy supply come true. And this dream is within reach - not a question of decades." The bad experiences with the Bavarian electric flying taxi, the "100 ton housefly", cannot dampen the optimism, although the fusion issue is about a factor of 1000 more complicated. The site for the future fusion power plant has already been reserved in November 2024: near Landshut, where the pipes and pumps of Isar2, one of the most modern nuclear power plants in the world, are currently being destroyed. Is today's Bavaria really a paradise for modern technologies?

There are still a whole series of fusion projects around the world, some with different approaches to solutions, such as the NIF, the "National Ignition Facility" in Livermore, Ca, which, however, pursues a completely different approach to ITER. However, the two are the largest facilities in the world in this field.

The "Wendelstein 7-X" project at the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics in Garching near Munich is also of great scientific importance. This is a facility in which plasma is trapped and heated in a container of different geometry. The facility is not as gigantic as ITER; construction began in 2005.

It was at this very historic location that Prime Minister Söder launched the aforementioned "Bavarian Nuclear Fusion Mission", and the facility also served as the backdrop for the reception given to Dr. Ursula von der Leyen in March 2024. Whether this visit and the "expert commissions" with their elegant English management buzzwords will impress the nucleons remains to be seen. One thing is certain: "You cannot fool Nature (Richard Feynman)".

In fusion research there is this merciless joke:

Question: "When will we finally be ready?"

Answer: "In thirty years - and it will always be like this."

30 years? During my physics studies 50 years ago, I myself attended lectures on "plasma physics" by Professor Ewald Fünfer at the Max Planck Institute in Garching. And an insider says that electricity will probably come from fusion. But it is just as likely that it will not come.

And one more thing, and this is probably the real killer argument: If fusion had a realistic chance, Elon Musk would have taken up the matter long ago. But he sticks to simpler projects, such as colonizing Mars.

https://think-again.org/kernfusion-auf-bayrisch/

Skybird

01-24-25, 07:38 PM

[Tichys Einblicke] The Italian government is preparing a draft law to allow the return to nuclear energy. The draft, consisting of four articles, was sent to the government headquarters in Palazzo Chigi by Environment Minister Gilberto Pichetto Fratin and is expected to be discussed at the next cabinet meeting. Implementation is expected to take place during this legislative period.

The center-right government of Giorgia Meloni wants to use it to reduce CO₂ emissions, strengthen Italy's energy independence and reduce energy costs for households. The draft stipulates that the government will issue decrees regulating the production of sustainable nuclear energy in the country within 24 months of the law coming into force. By 2050, nuclear energy is expected to cover between 11 percent and 22 percent of electricity demand, with an installed capacity of 8 to 16 gigawatts.

One focus is on the introduction of small modular reactors (SMRs). Minister Pichetto stressed in an interview with "Il Sole 24 Ore" that European coordination is necessary because the approval procedures have a significant impact on the cost of a reactor. Standardization of the first phases of the approval process would therefore represent a significant step forward for all EU member states involved.

The draft also contains measures to promote and enhance the regions in which nuclear power plants are to be built in order to support job creation and local economic development. The decommissioning of existing nuclear power plants that are not used for research purposes and the identification of sites for the safe storage of radioactive waste and spent fuel are to be continued. The draft law also promotes research into nuclear fusion and the improvement of technical and professional training.

Financial impacts on the state budget are to be avoided; the costs will be covered by funds already available or by future legal measures. Transparency and the involvement of the population are central elements of the draft. Information campaigns and public consultations are planned to raise awareness of the importance of sustainable nuclear energy.
---------------

"Das kann doch einen Deutschen nicht beirren
Hollahi, hollaha, hollaho!"

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ oYHSggGxolGxYXITEjJSorMy8uGB81ODMtNygtLisBCgoKDg0O GxAQGy0lHiU3MisrNy8tLTMtLzUrLSsrLy0sLTc1LS0rMS01Kz UvLS0zLS0tLy0tLS0tLS0tLy02Lf/AABEIAMsA+AMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAEAAQUBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQMEBgcIAgH/xABHEAABAwIDBAQKBggFBQEAAAABAAIDBBEFEiEGMUFRBxNhcR ciMlJUgZGho9MjM0NyscEUJEJTYpKi0RWCwuHwc7LS4vEW/8QAGwEBAAIDAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIDBAUGAQf/xAAwEQACAgECBQIDBwUAAAAAAAAAAQIDEQQxBRIhQVETYSIycQ YjM4GR0fAkobHh8f/aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8A3iiIgCIiAIiIAiIgCIiAIiIAiIgCIiAIi IAiIgCIiAIiIAiIgCIiAIiIAiIgCIiAIiIAiIgCIiAIiIAiIgC IiAIiIAiIgCIiAIiIAiIgCKyxStdGGNY0OkkdkYCbNvYuJcQDo GtJVCGvmZI2OoY0Z9GPYSWF1r5XBwBa6wNt97ICUREQBERAERE AREQBERAEREAREQBFZYpisFO3NNIGDgN7j2NaNT6li9VtbUy6U 0IjZ+8m8o9zBu9ZKxtRrKaFmyWC2FM57IzVUZquNnlvY37zgPx WvJoqiX6+qlf2NORn8rdFSZgtOPswe+5/Faez7Q1J/BFsyFo/LNgDGaW9v0iG/wD1Gf3V1FUMf5L2u7iD+C1z/hUH7pnsCx7afEMNogDMCJHC7WR36wjnvAAvxJCjTx52zUY1tv2 PZaWKWeY3Wi0Lg3SU2/0U9VEznMwSw9xILi0LY2HbcWY11RHma7USwePEW8HWve3ddbWO vrzy2Jxfv+5Q6G+sXkzRFb0NdFMwPie17Txab+o8j2FXCzU0+q KGsBa86TdosUo5oH0MfXRtY91RHkzixc0Mccvjjc/Uac1JdJGN4pSxRvw+lFRcnrTldI5g0y2jYQ43udRe1t2qo7A4p WzslrcRgFIcjIwHAxjKx0jnSFshzMBMgGvmX4r0FlsV0oiumjp 30M8Ujy4Zx40ALWuecz3ZSNGnSx10WxFA4fXwVdX1kErJY4YiA 6N7Xxl8r9RdpIzNbAPVL2qeQBERARWLfX0h49a4W7DBJc+5fMa OaSCIeUZBIexkfjE+3K3/ADKnBMJ5/wBI0FPC1wY86Bzzo94v+wGgi/G5VpDjEArHSF30b42tbI5rmsaWuN25nAAh2a9weHcgMlRfAUJQ H1FaUGJRTXyO8YeU1wLXt+812oV2gCIiAIiIAiIgCIiALE9qNs GQZooSwyN+skeQIYvvE6F3Z/8AE2sx5+Y0tMT1lryvGpjZa9m2/bI9nedMEb0fsn+krnvy/sU7HWYwcM7hq+U8SLC5sLgBabiHFaqW6+bD7939EvP9l9TJqp6 czX0/2XeGYlRzzE/pcdRUneS4F2nmDkOxTzY1i1H0c0EVRHPEJWOjcHNbnu0kai9xf f2rMWtXI6yyuU+auUnnfm3M6Dlj4imGL6GKsGr0GrBcz3JQyKD xXZKjqahtRPHnexuUAk5CASRmbuNiT7dbrI8q8uFhcqdd863mD afsePD3LRsIaMrQA0aAAWAHYAqMVIxl8jQ0E3IAsCeJsNLnieK vxE86hht26fiqTxY2IIPavVN+SSIwUz4n9bTPMUnG3kO7Ht3EL LdnNpm1B6qVvVVAGrf2XjzozxHZvHbvUE5qsa6jDwCCWvabtcN HNcNxBW34fxWzTvEusSFtMbF13NlrC+knYeTFWwsbVmCOMuLmZ M7Xk5criA9urbG17+Udykdk9oDMDBNYVDBrwEjd2dvbzH/wZGu2qtjbBTg+jNXODg8Mx/YnZODDKbqIS513F8j3eU95AF7DQCwAAHLibk5Ai8veGgkkAAXJ OgAG8k8lYRPSgXtqKtsmWVsUJc+OwYXPc1rix5zZhlJs62m5a4 2/6Z2x5ocNs92oNQRdgO76Jp8v7x8XkHBTnQvtc2rpTFK+9Q1xLr 73E6uPeTd3rPIoDYb6SN0fVljTHYDKR4thawtyFgqj2AixAIOh B3W5WUNX4s+CUZm54XaAtBLw/U2sN4I5DSyrxY/TOF+saBe3jEN132s6xugIiqbNTzCGN8oicC6JsbI3kW8tn0m5o 0I7HdiHaCaDWYPczjniMUgHMEXjf3XaVL4hDHVRgMkyvBvHI06 tda1wRvBBII5FQxdUQ6SyyRndmktNSv73WD479pHrQE5W0TJ2t ljdllAvFK3eL6gHzmHi0pSYg98DniO8zMzXR3t9I3e0Gx0O8Hk QoaiqOplaGt6q72smhBvH49+rmh7CRY27bi4UzTQObVTGx6t7Y 3X4dYMzXDvyhiAuqKqbLG2RnkuFxz7j2g6epfVZ4RC5jp2EEM6 0uZys9rXOt2Zy5EBJIiIDEukfaCsoKZlTTRMmY1+WZrr3DXaMe CDpZ1gdD5Y5XUbsliuO1tQ19VTNoqRmpbY9dK7g3xjdrOJ8Ubr XNza46RNvKChYaedhqJJGEOgba3VuBH0hdo1p1HE9idFG1hxCl eDG9pgcIw57s5czLdl32GZ4bYONtdDxsAM3Ubj2JCCLQjrX3bE DxfYkacha6klgVTUmpxBz7/RwXjj+99o726dwWDxHWLS0Ob37F1NfPL2RIUlAI3PcdXvOZ7jv JsqE8uY6bhu/urisls23E7+5WkMZebA2A3n8gvnEpuycrZd+psIruz01qqtarg UMdtxJ53N/cqZjynfdvbvHfzCq509hlHwNVWEC+u5fQ1JHNaLuIaOZIA9pXk ZtSTRFngtXlrAXa7hr6+Hs/NV22IuLEHcRuUJjlVIHCCH66TcfMaAMzjyUq05ywv8Ah6upJ1e NU8RyySta7lvI7wNyotxGnnGVkjHdgPjew6qNo9lqdg8cGR/EuJtfjYA/jdfajZqlduYWHgWuII9twrVDTp9HLPnCx+m56lEurcOX4Km9qp UdNNG7K5/WR20cdJB2O84dquXhTeE+jyWZI6oiIeyVhyyRuDg7svqDzBFxZ Z9g2JsqYWysOh0I4hw0cDfXf+Swt4VLBMajoJpTO8MpntLy47m yMFydPOb6yQAui4HreSfoy2e31KNTXzx5lujO8VxKGmhfPPI2O Jgu5ztw5d5J0AGpJAC5/wBvtuanEyY2ZoaIHSO9ny8nTW4cQzdzubW87V7SzYrOJJAWUrD enhPs62XnIRuG5oNhxJpYDs3UYhOYKawa366dwvHEOX8cnJo9d guvNYYlR4PNUTCCnidLM7cxtt3NxOjW9pIC3f0f9EcVH9NVSOk qCPJjc5kTLjmCC9w5mw7Li6zTZPZWlw+Hq6dmpt1kjtZZHc3u9 thuF9ApxARlJgjGPDy+SQtvk6xwIbcWJFgLm2lzdSD4mne0HvF 17RAWUuGRnyB1Z5s057xuO/irSolqWeKYevabjxS0AgnQOa8i2nK4UwiAxzA8FkD43ztYOqYW xgOLj4ziQSbaBrTlA14lZGiIAiIgCIiAwzaToyw6uqjVTiXrCA Hhj8rX5QGtzC1xoAPFI3LJsIwqClhbDTxtjibua33kneSeJOpV 6iAsMeruoppZeLWEj725v9RCwzZyDq4Wg79579595Uz0hy/q0cf7yZjT90Xefe0KMhdZtlyP2ktcpRrX1NhpY/dt+Sq9+Yk/8svLq1kEWd5sN/aSdwHajFGwUn6RMXyC8URLWNO5zxo5xHEA6er285GEX82y/mDJaKTa7EKnxoQIYuBNrkd5BJ9Qsrhn+JRavDKhnEN0fbs0F+7 VZCQLC2/ivTAvLLlB8qhHH877kOb2LfC61k0eZt9DZwOjg4bw4cCqsuHxv eHvGYgWaHatbzIB0zHdfsVGoxSmicQ+Rged7Rq8nta0E7l8GNx HyWTu+7BKf9KojTdN81UJY9k/8kWfcNpSx8wDcsZeCwcPIbnLQNwLr+u6rCjYJHS28dzQ0n+EEm w5b/cFTbVVMmkNJJ96a0TB22N3H1BXUGzJk8arldKf3bCY4R6gczu9 x9S2ml4LrdTLLXKvL/bcrlbGO7PBaqTgr2pwKlhZmiDYHNuWuBsL2OjvOHYqNBUNkjDv Fvuda1sw327OI7CFbquA2abDck0/Y8jcnsWTwqDwpWdgykgDd2fw/wC6jHrXWVOqWM5L4SyWzwoTaWkEkDgRfT3cfcSpx6tKpl2kf85 K2mbjJSXYuRrfZLZ2oxCoNPESyNh/WJvMHms5yGxty3roHA8Hgo4GU9OwMjYNBxJ4uceLjvJKiejuKN tAzIxrSXPL7C2aTOQXO5kgD3LJV9JrnzwUvJpZx5ZNBFiu2u2k OGvg60jLIXZgNX5RlF2C+ti69tdGlT2FYrT1MQlp5WSxnc5hBH ceR7DqFMiXiIiAIiIAiIgCIiAIixTaHpFwyinNPPMRKAC4NY9+ UOFxmLQbEgg232I5oClWdI+HQV0tFUPMMkZYA94+idnjbIPGF8 ts1vGsO1ZRRV0Mzc8UjJGnc5jg4e1pWDs2QwvF2Pq5I8/WyvMczCWPdGwiEajym/RXGYG19LK+2D2So6GerNNG5rc0cV3OLi4tZ1jnAntlykC2saA+ 9IJ8alHDO8+xn+6sIypHpDbpTP5Slv8AMw/2UZEVxfH1/U/kjaab8JF0xV2K3YVXYVzsyxlwxW9cXufFAx2QzOILxvbG1pc8t 5OIFgeF1WYVh3Sq6RtI2SMlrmuOo7bE+5pV3D4Qnqq4zXTPUhh vojZ2H0VNTMyxhjBxNxmPa5x1J7Svs2MUzPKnjH+YE+wFcouxu qP2z/UbfgoSpxKeS+aWRwPAucRbuuvpsGsYSMK+iVeHJ5ydV4r0iYbA CXTXtwGn/db3LAMf6dWC7aWIn+I/+wFv5StJRPb1ZBOuv+yt2MLjYAk8hqVJPJXOCjy4ecmZY3tlW1 hzSSnKdwBO7lf8hYdizzocxG8UkJO7Uerf/wBw/lWn6aN7btc0t4i4I/FZ90S1GWty8HD8nfmQtLxmr1NLNPt1/Q2tai6spYN0OebWvorZ6rPKoPK4RNvcikUXq2l3FXDyraY6FXx LUT3R479VeOU0g94P5rD+kzpLr8OrRBFTRdVla5r5Q89bfysha 5oGU6W1PHiFmXR639TzefLI7+rL/pU7X4fDOzq54o5WebI0Pb7HAhfR9In6EM+Eai/8SRrvYfHKbHZJ31FK28cEcUkb7SRnPJI+7CRf7Nh1AIIG/esr2f2GwyikMtNTNZIb+MS57gDvDS8nKO6ylsMwqnpmllPDHCw m5EbGsBPMho1KvFkFQREQBERAEREAREQBQOP7G4dWvElVTMkeB bN4zXWG4FzCCR2FTyIDU23GI43FUMoMIo3xUzGtDJI4mlrri5A e8dXG0E21sbgm9iFsTZehmgpI2VDw+osXTOG50r3F8hFgNMzjb QaW0ClUQEDtrSCSkc4/ZESjvbf8iVi9M+4C2DV07ZI3xu8l7S09xFj+K1jhmZl4n+XG4x u72mwPcRZcx9oaflsX0Nho5Zi4kwwqswq1YVWY5cnJGS0XTCor bGh6+ilZxAzD1DX+klSLXKpoRY6g71CEnXNTXbqR2ZzL1Ts2Wx zXtbje9re1Zbsz0dskc01LyAbnK0hoAsdC4g3PdbvUs/ZnqsWNx9H5TT2kgfgSe8Hks6bC0bmj2L6Vp7lZWrI7MzVRC1c0 lnwa8rOj2lNwwuaRxDv/ACup7B8DhgYGRsHbzJ7TxWSmJvIexGRNG4K3LL4U1weYxSZF1G CMkaWvDbHha6gNn9nTSYnGW/VuvbsNwfWLA+xZsqMTc1VGPMa559YyN/E+xYHEpKOlm34PL8cjbJ15VB5XtzlReVwMUa5I87yB2qzxh4jD rHQAn3aKu8qxNOaieKn4SPBd2Rt8Z3uFlnaav1JKtLq2S2+J9j PNlaTqqKBhFjkBI/id4x97ipVAi+iRjyxSXY0snl5CIikeBERAEREAREQBERAEREAR EQBc+4FtZ1+IVed3lTPLf+nnIj/l0Hc4LoJcW08slPUkjy2Pc1w52JDge/VYus061FLrf5FtNnpzydGxPuFcNcsV2Xxps0bbG5tpfeRyP8QW RxyXXz+6mVcnGW6Nv0ayi8Y5VGuVJ7LBp5j+391TdNYgAFzjo1 rRdzj2BVehOU+RLLfYrbWMlvjdJmDZW26yPUXNg5vFpP4dvera nna9oc3cfaOwrLsNwQNHXVOUuGoaTeOMDib6Od2ndw5nHsdYKq Z0sTjGLBrTbSQC93OGhsbgDjYLrtJW+G6XOonv28Z7e/lkdPrWpcqWUWfWjNlALn+a0FzvYFIQYLWP3Qhg5yOA9zblXWF4 4admQ0VuZgc0h3aQ8h3tJV1LtZIfq6R9+cj2MH9JcVnriOj5eb 1ELNVqpPEVj9CMrcDqIY3SySU7WNFySX/+Op4WVng0Lg10rxZ8ljbzWDyW+8k96uKkyzvD6l4dlN2RtFomH nY6ud2lXDmeJm7bfj/Zc7xXiK1X3dK+FdX7koysxiyWTw5youcvj32VtJLfuWljEsSE8 vboN5U3sFh5OerePL8SK/CIHU/5nfh2qBw7D3Vk3UtuIm2M7hy4MB84+4XWy4o2taGtADQAABuAA sAF1PBNC19/JfT9zE1lqS5F+Z7REXSmuCIiAIiIAiIgCIiAIiIAiIgCIiALlH pSwU0mMVLbWZI7ro+RbJ4xt2B+dv8AlXVy1/0wbDnEaUSQAfpcFzGN3WMPlx356XbfiLaXJQGhsDxB0EjHguyA jrA3fl4uaDvcN43Xta+q29Q14cGnM0hwvHI03jkbzYefAtOoNw QDotI08haS1wLXNJDgRYgjQgg7iCsx6O4etrooQ9wie/NJGD9G46AnKdA63EWK12u4bXqlnaXkyaNQ6+m6NotdLkDhE8tJ Aa7KQ0uJs0AngSQLrNMFwhsDbnxpXDx3/wClvJo5e1V6+jziMCwDJGvtws3gPd7FeKek4dTpW3Dd92V2XSs 3LTFKFs8TonEgG2otfQgjfoRcbioU7MycKkW7Yhf3OWSqjVRuc 2zHmN3nAA+5wIV92mpux6kU8eUQjOUdmQsWzA+0nkd2NysHuBP vWNY1VRU9Q6JjnPaANNXkP1zNuNTpY68ysxdhbnD6aplc3iAWx tt2mMB1vWse2lqKTqmwwNYXZgLsAyttqbuGhdoeN96xdVoNPKi UeVRW+Ul0x1LKrZKae5ERYiHcCO8Fp/qGqqPqDwVBUJ6pjSATdx3NGrieQA1XDqGXiKNzyork3Xmippaq TqoNw+sl/ZjHZzfyH/BI4XsxUVFnT3gh8z7Z47fMHvWcUFFFDGI4mBjBuA/E8z2lb/QcGlJqd3ReDEv1aj0huUsIwyKmiEUQsBqSfKc7i5x4kq9RF1MU orCNY228sIiL08CIiAIiIAiIgCIiAIiIAiIgCIiAIiIDBtuujG jxEmZp6iq/esFw/Sw61mgd36HdrpZa6wjo/wAZw2uimELaiJjtXQvHk34sfZ3ImwO4rfyICAOPuewuiYL2Ng4 m+Yfsu5G+ivsLxeOZgN8rjvB4HiO+/BKvBKeRxe5hDjvLHOYT97IRf1q2n2bi3wkwu5jxmu++13lHt0P agJpUK5sZjIltkO/Nu36e9QraSvj8kxvHY5zP6XBw96qNmxD90z1vb+TUBbP/AMNHkxmYj9lrZJR77tHrsoqpoKqsIfAyGKFriA15IIcPFN2sGh 36dvFT7qavkFnyRRNO/Ld7resNH4qTw6iZDGGNudSSTq5zibkntULK1ZFxezJRlyvKMWp tiHn6+qcR5sTQwfzG5I9iyHCsDpqb6mJrTxdvee9x1Uiiqp0lN PyRSJzunP5mERFkFQREQBERAEREAREQBERAEREAREQBFyp4W8d 9M+FB8tTGG7a7UzxmVk0nVZJHiR0EQjcImuc9rHdVZzrNdoORQ HSaLmz/APY7XXItV3Frj9DbcE2tcdTpe49oVpWdIu00Lc0ss0bbgXfTRt FyCQLui3kAn1FAdPIuVPC3jvpnwoPlp4W8d9M+FB8tAdVouVPC 3jvpnwoPlp4W8d9M+FB8tAdVouVPC3jvpnwoPlp4W8d9M+FB8t AdVouVPC3jvpnwoPlp4W8d9M+FB8tAdVouVPC3jvpnwoPlp4W8 d9M+FB8tAdVouVPC3jvpnwoPlp4W8d9M+FB8tAdVouVPC3jvpn woPlp4W8d9M+FB8tAdVouVPC3jvpnwoPlp4W8d9M+FB8tAdVou VPC3jvpnwoPlp4W8d9M+FB8tAdVouVPC3jvpnwoPlp4W8d9M+F B8tAdVouVPC3jvpnwoPlp4W8d9M+FB8tAdVouVmdLGPEgCsJJN gOqg3nd9mq56Tdo9f1iTTf8Aq8Wml9fo+SA6iRcvO6StowSP0h 9wLn6CHde1/q+a9S9JG0jQXOnkaBe5MEI3Wv8AZ9qA6fRcqeFvHfTPhQfLRAY QttbKbeYbTUDIJHVOfqy1+UEvDstS09XKZPFb9MzK1oblOY6lx WpUQG8KzpQw0sysdNo17QerIvfMGnV5J3jUkk7zqVF9K+N01Vh 7JYni8tQx7Yy6MyZGRTNzFrHuIBzN0cGkXtZajRAEREAREQBER AEREAREQBERAEREAREQBERAEREAREQF/g7acvJnkkjAF2GNoc4vBFhqRbv7FNPnowMra+pLHZg+7DuymwG p3usDu0usWRAZRUfoJzZa6pLspsXNNjYXDDY31dbW2l720VOtl pDE8Nral7yCQ1zTkLr/ALVz+0PZzKxtEAREQH//2Q==

Skybird

01-25-25, 08:47 AM

[Think again and trust your judgement] While the apocalyptic forest fires around Los Angeles are now largely under control, a fire of a completely different nature is raging further north: the lithium power storage facility at Moss Landing on the Pacific, 120 km southeast of San Francisco, has ignited itself and is now in flames. 1,500 people had to be evacuated.

Of all the weaknesses that renewable energies bring with them, their most serious disadvantage is their uncertain availability. Their electricity is missing when it is needed, such as in winter, and has to be destroyed when it flows in excess, such as on windy summer days. It therefore makes sense to try to store the excess electricity from the fat days for the lean days. This can be done in the form of lithium batteries, such as those used in electric cars. A typical Tesla battery, for example, stores 75 kilowatt hours (kWh) and weighs a good half a ton. This corresponds to the mechanical energy content of 30 liters or 22 kg of gasoline for a "combustion engine".

If you want to use battery storage to provide the general public with uninterrupted electricity supply, you have to calculate on a different scale. In the community of Moss Landing in California, which supplies the Monterey region with electricity, a battery storage system of 3000 megawatt hours (MWh) was put into operation in 2021. It serves as a buffer for the volatile amounts of electricity supplied by the area's abundant wind and solar generators. How many people could such a storage system supply electricity for a week during a dark period? With an average consumption of 2 kW per household - it is winter and heating is electric in the USA - that is 336 kWh per week per household. The reserves of the fully charged storage system in Moss Landing would be enough for a good 9000 households. Monterey has around 30,000 inhabitants, so no one needs to freeze.

Unfortunately, that has changed. On January 16, the Moss Landing plant, probably the largest in the world with 3000 MWh, went up in flames. And it is not the first time that a plant of this type has destroyed itself. A commercial building with 1.4 megawatts of photovoltaics on the roof and Li batteries with a capacity of 25 MWh in the basement was put into operation in Beijing in May 2019. In April 2021, there was spontaneous combustion, a "thermal runaway" of gigantic proportions. Several hundred firefighters and 50 vehicles were on duty for 12 hours until the fire was extinguished. Two people were killed and another was seriously injured.

The Californian plant is no longer burning. After several days of the Californian firefighters' toughest efforts, the 1500 evacuated people were allowed to return. The ruins are no longer smoking and the sky is blue again. No one was killed, no one was injured. The material damage is estimated at $400 million.

Where do these spontaneous combustions come from, which have also been reported in cars? Batteries are designed to store as much energy as possible in a small space. But if there is a "thermal runaway" when the battery burns out, then the more energy it has stored, the more damage it causes. Petrol or coal have a much higher energy density than a Li battery, i.e. they store more kilowatt hours per kg, but they only release this when oxygen is added. Without it, there is no fire. And so any conventional fire can be extinguished by keeping oxygen away, for example with a fire blanket, powder or water. A "burning" battery is unaffected by these measures, as it does not need oxygen to develop its energy.
The battery has all the ingredients it needs to deliver energy stored within it. If it then gets too hot somewhere, exothermic chemical reactions start between the components inside it, i.e. processes in which energy is released and which cause further heating. If the batteries burst and come into contact with well-intentioned fire-fighting water, the hot lithium reacts with the H2O and hydrogen is produced, which then burns in the air in the usual way. That makes things even worse. The battery manufacturers are of course aware of these risks and are talking about so-called "battery management systems", i.e. artificial intelligence inherent in the battery that is supposed to prevent any fire. That is progress.

There was once a time when electricity simply came from the socket, cheaply, and without lithium fires. There was something that was possible back then that has since been lost. What could that have been?

https://think-again.org/california-on-fire/