ᐅ Gas Prices – Where Is Gas Still Affordable?

mayglow schrieb:

"for the base load nuclear, for peaks something fossil?"

I don’t want to preempt Scout’s answer, but nuclear power is the last thing you want to associate with renewables because it is the least flexible way to generate electricity. This is currently causing major problems for the Grande Nation. (Besides the overwhelming costs and decades of propaganda that are hardly reversible.)

In fact, gas is the best option to complement renewables.

Now, you might think, “Yeah, screw that, there’s no gas, so it’s not possible, I’m out!”

But wait! ;-)

The amounts of gas needed to balance fluctuations (some call it “dark doldrums” because it sounds more dramatic) in renewable energy supply can be comfortably sourced from other places. It’s actually not that much compared to the amounts we currently use for industry and heating.

The approach (also @halmi) starts with a very rapid expansion of renewables. In the worst case, we might briefly have an oversupply, then we can temporarily help out France, and Poland won’t have to burn as much coal. And as gas consumption decreases, we can phase out coal power plants accordingly. We do this because gas burns more flexibly and, above all, cleaner. In terms of climate impact, the difference isn’t that significant.

Oh, and “easy” it definitely won’t be. This is a massive challenge! But looking at the alternatives, the motivation comes naturally. ;-)

halmi schrieb:

... how do we do it concretely and in a socially acceptable way?

Regarding “concretely,” I’ve already provided some search engine tips further up. As for the latter part, I have a counter-question:
Is it currently “socially acceptable”?

Deliverer schrieb:

but nuclear is the last thing you want in connection with renewables

I think I mixed things up a bit (statements from Marvinius and Scout). But roughly, I understood that they are against "too much" renewable energy. At least that was the general tone I could extract. Renewables are not suitable for base load due to strong fluctuations, and we would need a lot of something else to cover "calm wind" and similar situations, which would be done using fossil fuels... And therefore, we would be less emissions-heavy/cheaper if we leave out (or do not push so heavily) renewables and rely more on nuclear for base load. This is my summary, so I might be putting words in their mouths they did not intend. That’s why I’m asking, and also whether these are assumptions or if there’s more to read somewhere.

By the way, I find it interesting how some of the arguments overlap from different sides here. "If we hadn’t rushed out of nuclear, we’d have fewer problems now" versus "If we hadn’t missed out on expanding renewables, we’d have fewer problems now." Also, somewhere here there was something like "We used to be leaders in (research on?) nuclear power plants, but we gave that up." You can say the same about wind and solar energy as well 😉

I wouldn’t want to be a politician right now. In the short term, I don’t see either more nuclear or renewables as a quick solution for the upcoming winters. So, somehow, we’re back to fossil fuels, which no one wants in the long run, and where to get them now is definitely not trivial. "Just open the pipeline" sounds simple but completely ignores the geopolitical pressure that exists right now (and it wouldn’t be uncontested domestically either). We do have certain alliances, and simply ignoring what they want… well, it’s certainly not simple and probably not without consequences. Getting them from elsewhere is also not so easy (and probably comes with high premiums at the moment). Also, the dilemma is that a lot of money is currently being spent on interim solutions that no one wants in the long term. But I don’t think we can avoid this right now (because the "should have" train has already left the station).

mayglow schrieb:

I think I got a bit mixed up (statements from Marvinius and Scout)

Above all, I misread and replied to your "nuclear + fossil" with "nuclear + renewables"... Must have been my biological autocorrect. Sorry.

mayglow schrieb:

It is also a dilemma right now that a lot of money is being spent on interim solutions that no one wants in the long term. But I guess we can’t avoid that at the moment (because the “should have done it earlier” train has already left).

Yes... I’m not really involved in that. But what kind of timelines are assumed for planning, environmental impact assessments, and construction of liquefied natural gas terminals and their associated shipping fleets? And what will the cost per kWh be for energy that is brought here so complicatedly, coming from whoever shady countries (including the USA! as per yesterday’s reports)? I’ll take a guess: with the time, energy, and money currently being invested, we could have built renewables AND paid for heat pumps for the people who would then no longer need gas.
But yes. That’s just my gut feeling.

mayglow schrieb:

@Scout** Genuine question: is there any keyword or search term on Google where someone has calculated how much “emergency fossil power” might still be needed?

“Shadow power plants” is one of the keywords.

It depends on the type of renewable energy (RE), the region, and how well connected it is to other regions at the high-voltage grid level (and connectivity is increasingly lacking!). Also, the question is what availability is expected: are 6 minutes of downtime per year acceptable, or 6 hours, or even 6 days?

How much load can be shed based on supply, for example by industry or heat pumps (which often benefit from discounted tariffs)?

Balancing regionally within a large interconnected grid might work for wind power but no longer for photovoltaics, because output is highly correlated even within central Europe’s two time zones. In other words, between 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM local time during the winter half-year, photovoltaic production is basically zero all across Europe. For every megawatt of photovoltaic capacity, one megawatt of backup capacity must also be available. That’s just how it is.

This is all a stochastic model. With wind power and a grid quality like today’s covering an area roughly the size of one federal state, it’s generally assumed that for 1 MW of wind power, 0.85 MW of reserve capacity is needed. For photovoltaics, it’s close to 1.0 MW as mentioned.

This means that beyond the well-known “1 cent per kWh,” there are additional costs for financing and materials to build the shadow power plants, as well as their standby losses. Without this backup, the grid would not maintain familiar quality but instead face issues similar to South Africa’s—daily brownouts lasting hours, which in winter here would likely be even longer. Cheap is cheap... this factor for wind can be reduced, as already mentioned by @Deliverer, through geographic distribution. Fine. But that requires a well-developed interconnected grid, which is currently practically at full capacity in Central Europe. Further expansion is urgently needed. In Germany alone, more than 10,000 km of high-voltage lines and about 30,000 km of medium-voltage lines are necessary. Only about 1,000 km of the high-voltage grid have been built within the last 10 years. Do the math...

Otherwise, if I roughly understand your proposal as “nuclear for base load, fossil for peak load”? (And the Greens are silly because they don’t want nuclear) I find nuclear problematic insofar as humans are involved in operations and mistakes can be fatal, plus we still have no plan where to store the waste for thousands of years. The fact that right now (with skyrocketing gas prices) we might have fewer problems is probably so (although as far as I know, some fuel rods also come from Russia...)

No. First, honestly say: 100% RE in the next 20 years is unrealistic. Run both types of generation in parallel, and expand RE pragmatically. Generate as much regionally as possible. Complement fossil plants with smaller combined heat and power (CHP) units. Expand the interconnected grid. Import green hydrogen, store blue hydrogen made from surplus energy. LNG terminals.

I view nuclear power plants dispassionately: either we build them here, preferably advanced 4th generation (molten salt, thorium), where none of your mentioned problems exist anymore. If not here, then we will import electricity from our neighbors (possibly from their 3rd generation plants with problems you described), pay more for it, but at least we can keep our moral stance and proudly carry the anti-nuclear sticker—just now on the electric car, so to speak :p Another alternative definitely exists: large-scale coal power plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS), i.e. CO₂ sequestration underground.

Ultimately, it’s a political decision. RWE and EON are currently building new nuclear plants in the UK. They probably have no problem selling the electricity generated there to Germany. They gladly take the then generated 100 cents per kWh (hypothetically). The end price is paid by the average consumer, who also elects the politicians. So the circle closes again.