4 ms·

In Germany there was a problem with the decommissioning of plants - the owning companies didn't have any funds for decommissioning because they didn't have to h

In Germany there was a problem with the decommissioning of plants - the owning companies didn't have any funds for decommissioning because they didn't have to have the capital. They only had to take debt in advance for it, which they can get out of more easily. Edit: typo

roenxi 8y ago
> the owning companies didn't ... have the capital I'll admit to not speaking German, but wasn't a contributing factor that the government simply didn't give them very much notice they were being shut down? I've worked on mine sites at an industrial scale that couldn't hope to remediate the pit if they were hit with a short-term shutdown - it'd be an ecological and social disaster. However, if you let them run to planned completion the remediation gets done.
- lispm 8y ago
  > government simply didn't give them very much notice they were being shut down? like ten to twenty years? The nuclear exit was agreed on in 2000 and they were given long times to close their reactors. When should a company start saving for a shutdown? In the last days?
  - roenxi 8y ago
    > The nuclear exit was agreed on in 2000 My impression was it was a little more political and complicated than that [0]. I mean, if it was technically time to shut down the reactors then somebody obviously screwed up - but Germany isn't a great place to be citing examples from because their government has obviously been a massive headache for anyone planning out a nuclear reactor's lifespan. > When should a company start saving for a shutdown? In the last days? It should start when it needs to to have budget + contingency at the time of shut down. [0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
    - ben_w 8y ago
      > Germany isn't a great place to be citing examples from because their government has obviously been a massive headache for anyone planning out a nuclear reactor's lifespan. Really? Worse than anyone else? Looking at the map on Wikipedia, there don’t seem to have been any reactors in East Germany, at least not at the time Fukushima made nuclear a dirty word again, and the post-cold-war political shifts was the only unusual stability issue I could think of.
    - sgift 8y ago
      > My impression was it was a little more political and complicated than that [0]. I mean, if it was technically time to shut down the reactors then somebody obviously screwed up - but Germany isn't a great place to be citing examples from because their government has obviously been a massive headache for anyone planning out a nuclear reactor's lifespan. In 2000 the phase-out was decided (the negotiations between the companies and the government started in 1998). The nuclear companies didn't do anything to prepare for it, but instead hoped that a government lead by the CDU (conservatives) would cancel it. In 2009 with a government formed between CDU and FDP (market liberals) they got their wish and it seemed their lack of preparing worked. Unfortunately for them in 2011 Fukushima happened and even the CDU couldn't just ignore anymore that the citizens don't like nuclear power very much (They lost Baden-Württemberg to the Greens shortly after, something unthinkable a few years before that) and reinstated the phase-out. So, no, it's really not more complicated than that. From 2000 on the writing was on the wall and instead of preparing for it the companies just sat on their hands and hoped for the best.
      - roenxi 8y ago
        > In 2009 ... they got their wish. > Unfortunately for them in 2011 Fukushima So if they had been diligently saving until 2009, then cleared out their financial buffer in 2010, they would quite reasonably be caught flat-footed in 2011? What is being described here is a problem, but it is not a technical problem and it is iffy to blame corporate wrongdoing. I've literally done rehab planning; these are short time frames and are clearly being driven by politics not technical planning. Decommissioning isn't something that gets done for fun. Companies need time. It seems completely reasonable that they borrowed the money to decommissioning rather than having it on hand.

roenxi 8y ago

> the owning companies didn't ... have the capital I'll admit to not speaking German, but wasn't a contributing factor that the government simply didn't give them very much notice they were being shut down? I've worked on mine sites at an industrial scale that couldn't hope to remediate the pit if they were hit with a short-term shutdown - it'd be an ecological and social disaster. However, if you let them run to planned completion the remediation gets done.

lispm 8y ago
> government simply didn't give them very much notice they were being shut down? like ten to twenty years? The nuclear exit was agreed on in 2000 and they were given long times to close their reactors. When should a company start saving for a shutdown? In the last days?
- roenxi 8y ago
  > The nuclear exit was agreed on in 2000 My impression was it was a little more political and complicated than that [0]. I mean, if it was technically time to shut down the reactors then somebody obviously screwed up - but Germany isn't a great place to be citing examples from because their government has obviously been a massive headache for anyone planning out a nuclear reactor's lifespan. > When should a company start saving for a shutdown? In the last days? It should start when it needs to to have budget + contingency at the time of shut down. [0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
  - ben_w 8y ago
    > Germany isn't a great place to be citing examples from because their government has obviously been a massive headache for anyone planning out a nuclear reactor's lifespan. Really? Worse than anyone else? Looking at the map on Wikipedia, there don’t seem to have been any reactors in East Germany, at least not at the time Fukushima made nuclear a dirty word again, and the post-cold-war political shifts was the only unusual stability issue I could think of.
  - sgift 8y ago
    > My impression was it was a little more political and complicated than that [0]. I mean, if it was technically time to shut down the reactors then somebody obviously screwed up - but Germany isn't a great place to be citing examples from because their government has obviously been a massive headache for anyone planning out a nuclear reactor's lifespan. In 2000 the phase-out was decided (the negotiations between the companies and the government started in 1998). The nuclear companies didn't do anything to prepare for it, but instead hoped that a government lead by the CDU (conservatives) would cancel it. In 2009 with a government formed between CDU and FDP (market liberals) they got their wish and it seemed their lack of preparing worked. Unfortunately for them in 2011 Fukushima happened and even the CDU couldn't just ignore anymore that the citizens don't like nuclear power very much (They lost Baden-Württemberg to the Greens shortly after, something unthinkable a few years before that) and reinstated the phase-out. So, no, it's really not more complicated than that. From 2000 on the writing was on the wall and instead of preparing for it the companies just sat on their hands and hoped for the best.
    - roenxi 8y ago
      > In 2009 ... they got their wish. > Unfortunately for them in 2011 Fukushima So if they had been diligently saving until 2009, then cleared out their financial buffer in 2010, they would quite reasonably be caught flat-footed in 2011? What is being described here is a problem, but it is not a technical problem and it is iffy to blame corporate wrongdoing. I've literally done rehab planning; these are short time frames and are clearly being driven by politics not technical planning. Decommissioning isn't something that gets done for fun. Companies need time. It seems completely reasonable that they borrowed the money to decommissioning rather than having it on hand.