Hacker News Reader

Comment by dane-pgp | Hacker News Reader

Out of interest, how many nuclear power plants were turned off in Europe (net of replacements) since Russia invaded Ukraine?

For context[0], in 2013 (the year before Russia seized Crimea), Germany generated about 100 TWh of electricity from nuclear energy, and last year it was about 70 TWh. In that time, renewables have nearly doubled, from about 150 TWh to 240 TWh.

Of course, annualised figures don't account for the fact that there is less solar potential (and more heating demand) in the winter, but if the cost of importing non-Russian gas is cheaper than the cost of replacing ageing nuclear power stations or extending their design life, then the only concern is how much you are slowing down the race to net zero.

[0] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...

View on HN

There is no not Russian gas. Germany hasn’t got the capacity to import enough liquified gas using ships. It’s going to take years to build enough terminals and it’s unlikely to ever be cheaper than buying Russian gas (I don’t think it’s in Russia’s interest to hike their prices too much (longterm) since that would make it easier to replace them).

Not true. Norway currently supplies around 25% of the EUs gas supply, with quite a lot going through a terminal in Germany.

Norway supplies gas to Germany by pipeline, see the map [1].

Germany doesn't have an LNG import terminal:

"The current large-scale LNG receiving countries in Europe are Belgium (one terminal), France (four terminals), Greece (one terminal), Italy (three terminals), Lithuania (one terminal), Malta (one terminal), the Netherlands (one terminal), Poland (one terminal), Portugal (one terminal), Spain (seven terminals – six operational), Turkey (four terminals) and the UK (three terminals). Collectively, their overall LNG capacity is 237 billion cubic metres (of gas) (bcm), which is sufficient to cover approximately 40% of Europe’s gas demand. Russia also has an LNG regasification terminal which is supplied entirely by Russian gas." [2]

[1] https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/production-and-exports/the-...

[2] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/lng-europe-2021-current...

> In 2019, almost two thirds of the extra-EU's crude oil imports came from Russia (27 %), Iraq (9 %), Nigeria and Saudi Arabia (both 8 %) and Kazakhstan and Norway (both 7 %). A similar analysis shows that almost three quarters of the EU's imports of natural gas came from Russia (41 %), Norway (16 %), Algeria (8 %) and Qatar (5 %), while over three quarters of solid fuel (mostly coal) imports originated from Russia (47 %), the United States (18 %) and Australia (14 %).

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/energy/bloc-2...

Excellent, looks like we can stop importing coal from them as well, a double win.

As a data point, Italy turned off all its 4 (four) nuclear power plants following to a referendum in the late 80s, after Chernobyl.

> 4 (four)

I mostly see this type of writing in formal settings like contracts, or in cheques I think it's also done (but I've never seen a cheque so not sure). Now I have a chance to ask! Why do you write the same number twice? I always assumed it was to make reading easier with large numbers (not having to count groups of zeroes) or prevent writing errors (in formal contracts), but this is not a large number and HN has an edit system.

Not OP, but I'd write it like that for rhetorical effect. It becomes even more dramatic if written as "4 (four!)".

To make sure nobody thinks it's a typo.

The point is why not be more energy independent with domestic nuclear rather than increasing dependence on gas from Russia (or anyone else)?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com