6 ms·

> Nuclear... would require billions of investment and take decades to complete. As opposed to the cheap and quick Energiewende, which has been going on for a m

by 08-15 7y ago

> Nuclear... would require billions of investment and take decades to complete. As opposed to the cheap and quick Energiewende, which has been going on for a mere three decades by now, cost just 150 billion euro by 2015 and is expected to cost a further 370 billion euro by 2025 (https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article158668152/Energiewende-kostet-die-Buerger-520-000-000-000-Euro-erstmal.html https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article158668152/Energiewende...). Back when Siemens still built nuclear power plants, 500 billion euro would have bought 500GW worth of generation capacity, roughly 2.5x as much as Germany needs to become carbon neutral.

jillesvangurp 7y ago
Not disagreeing but Germany got rid of nuclear and the reality is that there are no plans, no budget, no goodwill/appetite, etc. for nuclear. Even if that magically changed (very unlikely), it would take decades to get reactors operational again. So, I don't see this happening on a timescale where it matters for retiring coal. Wind and solar on the other hand are extremely popular and all over the country. Arguably not the best use of government money, especially early on, but at this point these are starting to get so good that they are out competing everything else on cost for new projects (and some existing plants) even without subsidies. This is also a problem for nuclear because it would still be on the expensive side compared to that.
- 08-15 7y ago
  Why would it take decades? Not stopping the still operating PWRs takes no time. Restarting the stopped BWRs that haven't been dismantled takes weeks. Building a reactor takes four years, provided you buy it from the Russians, Koreans, or Canadians. How long it would take to build 50 reactors, which would decarbonize Germany's electric grid, depends on how quickly the pressure vessels can be forged. Probably on the order of one decade. So one decade to do what Energiewende didn't do in 30 years.
  - jillesvangurp 7y ago
    Just getting approvals for plans for just about anything takes years in a country like Germany. In most places in Germany even hinting at building a nuclear plant is political suicide. Merkel shutting down nuclear plants remains one of her more popular acts here with many despite the many raised eyebrows in regards to the cost of that. This came after decades of protests whenever nuclear material was transported around Germany. Absolutely nobody here actually wants a nuclear plant in their backyard. And yes I agree this is irrational but it remains a reality that is also preventing the construction of nuclear elsewhere in the world. It pretty much requires an autocratic regime to be able to get away with this. For reference, even building new highways is controversial in Germany and takes many years of planning, approvals, and bureaucracy. Also finishing the new airport in Berlin is now taking almost a decade past it's original scheduled opening time and is rumored to face yet more delays. The decision process to build a single nuclear plant alone would likely take decades. Then actually designing and building these things takes time. A lot of the expertise related to this is simply gone or will be by the time plans for this get any political support whatsoever. Rebooting 50 year old reactors is not going to be a popular decision; and besides most of that stuff will be gone by the time that decision gets taken. Buying legacy designs from the Russians would be an act of desperation. At this point the Chinese are the only ones left building and deploying modern nuclear plants. It's much easier and cheaper to just put up more wind and solar. This is at this point not controversial (actually the opposite) and unlike a nuclear plant you can just plan and deploy these things without any political backlash with a minimum of hassle. Even cost is actually much less of an issue as wind and solar are getting quite competitive these days and people put solar on their own roofs to save money. Doubling the current capacity seems a lot more feasible and would get them most of what they need. And why stop there. Economies of scale are awesome. The more they do this, the cheaper it gets.
    - 08-15 7y ago
      When you said "it would take decades", it sounded like you were making a technical argument. Now that you clarified that the only real obstacle is "lack of political will", we can sort of agree. > Absolutely nobody here actually wants a nuclear plant in their backyard. I love it how greenies always presume to speak for everybody. I live in Germany, and I want a nuclear plant in my backyard. (What is actually in my backyard is a lignite burning plant and and bunch of wind turbines.)

by 08-15 7y ago

jillesvangurp 7y ago

Not disagreeing but Germany got rid of nuclear and the reality is that there are no plans, no budget, no goodwill/appetite, etc. for nuclear. Even if that magically changed (very unlikely), it would take decades to get reactors operational again. So, I don't see this happening on a timescale where it matters for retiring coal. Wind and solar on the other hand are extremely popular and all over the country. Arguably not the best use of government money, especially early on, but at this point these are starting to get so good that they are out competing everything else on cost for new projects (and some existing plants) even without subsidies. This is also a problem for nuclear because it would still be on the expensive side compared to that.

08-15 7y ago
Why would it take decades? Not stopping the still operating PWRs takes no time. Restarting the stopped BWRs that haven't been dismantled takes weeks. Building a reactor takes four years, provided you buy it from the Russians, Koreans, or Canadians. How long it would take to build 50 reactors, which would decarbonize Germany's electric grid, depends on how quickly the pressure vessels can be forged. Probably on the order of one decade. So one decade to do what Energiewende didn't do in 30 years.
- jillesvangurp 7y ago
  Just getting approvals for plans for just about anything takes years in a country like Germany. In most places in Germany even hinting at building a nuclear plant is political suicide. Merkel shutting down nuclear plants remains one of her more popular acts here with many despite the many raised eyebrows in regards to the cost of that. This came after decades of protests whenever nuclear material was transported around Germany. Absolutely nobody here actually wants a nuclear plant in their backyard. And yes I agree this is irrational but it remains a reality that is also preventing the construction of nuclear elsewhere in the world. It pretty much requires an autocratic regime to be able to get away with this. For reference, even building new highways is controversial in Germany and takes many years of planning, approvals, and bureaucracy. Also finishing the new airport in Berlin is now taking almost a decade past it's original scheduled opening time and is rumored to face yet more delays. The decision process to build a single nuclear plant alone would likely take decades. Then actually designing and building these things takes time. A lot of the expertise related to this is simply gone or will be by the time plans for this get any political support whatsoever. Rebooting 50 year old reactors is not going to be a popular decision; and besides most of that stuff will be gone by the time that decision gets taken. Buying legacy designs from the Russians would be an act of desperation. At this point the Chinese are the only ones left building and deploying modern nuclear plants. It's much easier and cheaper to just put up more wind and solar. This is at this point not controversial (actually the opposite) and unlike a nuclear plant you can just plan and deploy these things without any political backlash with a minimum of hassle. Even cost is actually much less of an issue as wind and solar are getting quite competitive these days and people put solar on their own roofs to save money. Doubling the current capacity seems a lot more feasible and would get them most of what they need. And why stop there. Economies of scale are awesome. The more they do this, the cheaper it gets.
  - 08-15 7y ago
    When you said "it would take decades", it sounded like you were making a technical argument. Now that you clarified that the only real obstacle is "lack of political will", we can sort of agree. > Absolutely nobody here actually wants a nuclear plant in their backyard. I love it how greenies always presume to speak for everybody. I live in Germany, and I want a nuclear plant in my backyard. (What is actually in my backyard is a lignite burning plant and and bunch of wind turbines.)