[pfdietz]

In a post-fossil fuel age, Germany is fucked energywise anyway compared to sun-drenched lower latitude countries. Unless nuclear in Germany can compete with solar in these places (competing with solar in Germany is not enough), German energy-intensive industries will operate at a great disadvantage.

[ChemSpider]

That is not correct. Once the energy cost goes below a certain level, it simply is no longer important compared to other factors like human resources, tax, infrastructure,... .

Example: If the kWh/h costs 2 cent in Germany and only 1 cent in country X, that 100% difference would not matter, even for the most energy hungry industries.

[pfdietz]

Renewable energy has to get cheaper than it currently is before it becomes less of an economic input than fossil fuels currently are, for many industrial processes. For example, in production of iron renewable energy is competing against the raw chemical energy of coke.

[the_third_wave]

> In a post-fossil fuel age, Germany is fucked energywise anyway compared to sun-drenched lower latitude countries

Assuming that the 'greens' either get the boot or a revelation which leads to new nuclear power stations being built in Germany I'd say they'll be more than fine at night while during the day they'll be able to use their installed and yet to be installed solar capacity in addition to their base load capacity.

If and when the long-term energy storage problem is solved in an actually useable way [1] this can change but until that time any country or region intent on going 'fully renewable' will need a backup base load capacity for those times the sun and wind are absent. The former happens predictably every night and less predictably when the skies are overcast, the latter is as predictable as the weather. That base load can - assuming that 'non-renewable/non-nuclear' sources are out - be nuclear or (possibly pumped) hydroelectric. If the geography allows for (pumped) hydro and if the local 'greens' do not get laws (re)written to block the establishment of such infrastructure that would offer a long-term solution. Realistically speaking most places which allow for large-scale hydroelectric facilities probably already have them. This leaves nuclear power... which is expensive to establish but cheap to run. This combination of facts makes nuclear a good base load provider since running a nuclear power plant at or near maximum capacity does not add much to the expenditures but means the investment in building the plant and the related processing/waste storage facilities is recuperated sooner. Adding solar and wind to the mix will lead to an excess in power during the times these sources produce which will necessitate lowering the output of the nuclear plant which in turn means the investment in building it will take longer before the investment is recuperated.

[1] something like 'e-fuels' using captured CO₂ and generated H₂ to create synthetic hydrocarbons - possible but extremely energy-inefficient - or some yet to be developed process

[pfdietz]

The proposal I've heard for using CO2 to make e-fuels for grid storage would work like this:

1) Electrolyze water to H2 and O2. 2) Store the O2 (either as compressed gas or LOX). 3) Use the H2 with CO2 to make hydrocarbons or other fuels (methanol?). 4) The fuel is eventually burned in Allam cycle turbines, using the stored oxygen to burn the fuel in compressed CO2 (oxyfuel combustion). The produced CO2 of combustion comes off with water and is easily separated for storage for use in step (3).

This still has storage (oxygen, CO2, and the produced fuel) but these may be easier than storing hydrogen in locations without suitable geology.