8 ms·

You can see a great map of how terrible Germany's grid is compared to say France with this map [1]. Compared to France, which is so green due to high levels of

by grlass 5y ago

You can see a great map of how terrible Germany's grid is compared to say France with this map [1]. Compared to France, which is so green due to high levels of nuclear, Germany has banned the building, and is compelling the decommissioning of all nuclear plants, with the last ones expected to be shut down in the next couple of years [2]. [1] https://www.electricitymap.org/?lang=en https://www.electricitymap.org/?lang=en [2] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...

fredsted 5y ago
It's really sad that Germany is shutting down and replacing nuclear with coal due to Fukushima.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  It's sad that people want to risk giving up a good chunk of their country for a while due to a nuclear accident. Yes, the engineers and scientists all say those accidents can't ever happen. Then they do. And again. And again. Fukushima wasn't even "that bad" but terribly expensive and inconvenient.
  - nix23 5y ago
    It's sad that people want to risk a big chunk of their lungs due to daily coal smog.
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      As Germany is vilified so much in this discussion: I live in Germany and there is no deadly smog in Germany. I'm too lazy to look up if our air pollution is generally better or worse than in France, but in general, air pollution here is driven by traffic, not coal plants. Nuclear power, in its current form is not sustainable, both because of recurring accidents leading to political issues and because of the unsolved waste storage problem. The bottom line: We want to go to mostly renewable energy sources, and the shortest path leads, unfortunately, through more fossil fuels. We need to increase energy production. We would also need to replace our old nuclear power plants with something. If we replace those with new nuclear power, we will eventually have to decommission and replace those (and deal with all the waste). Coal plants are easier and faster to ramp up and ramp down. I don't like it. But there it is.
      - pyrale 5y ago
        > As Germany is vilified so much in this discussion I wouldn't care about Germany's problem if German politicians weren't trying to export it to their neighbours, whether by lobbying for energy transition credits not to be usable for nuclear, or by fucking up the spot power exchange. > I'm too lazy to look up Too lazy to look up actual figures, but not lazy enough not to post about it :(
      - nix23 5y ago
        >Nuclear power, in its current form is not sustainable But Coal is? https://www.euractiv.com/section/air-pollution/news/german-coal-plant-exposed-as-europes-single-worst-air-polluter/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/air-pollution/news/german-c... >German coal plant exposed as Europe’s single worst air polluter There is a nice map of NO2 pollution, and just Paris is worse..the rest of france looks pretty clean. >I'm too lazy to look up Yeah maybe next time don't be that lazy before wrinting something? And maybe of some interest: https://www.electricitymap.org/map https://www.electricitymap.org/map
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Coal is not sustainable, but easier to replace. Point is: Air quality in Germany isn't really that much of an issue, certainly there is no significant difference to France, while Germany has more industry and a higher GDP.
        nix23 5y ago
        https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollution-deaths-coal-plants-b1826079.html#:~:text=5%20pollution%20from%20coal%20plants,in%20Romania%2C%20Bulgaria%20and%20Greece https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollut.... 34000 death/year in europe, not even Chernobyl had like 4000 over all? But hey Air quality i not a issue in Germany. https://energytransition.org/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-deaths-in-germany/ https://energytransition.org/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-... 3000 death/year alone in germany https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/report-germany-suffers-more-coal-linked-deaths-than-rest-of-eu/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/repor... >>Only 50 premature deaths in France in 2013 could be traced to domestic coal-fired plants. The remaining 1,330 were cross-border, the majority from German plants. But hey too lazy to look it up, right?
  - namdnay 5y ago
    A coal plant is an ongoing accident all day every day. When do "these accidents" happen again and again? France hasn't had a single nuclear disaster in 50 years of operation Fukushima is a pretty good demonstration that even when everything goes wrong, the consequences aren't that bad.
    - brettermeier 5y ago
      Sure they are, nuclear consequences are worst if they really blow up, and some always will. And what about the trash... I don't think it's greener energy than coal...
      - namdnay 5y ago
        > and some always will no? why would they? > And what about the trash The whole of France produces less than 10 tons of long-term radioactive material. Hardly a big issue finding somewhere to safely bury that. > I don't think it's greener energy than coal ? of course it is, coal is insanely dangerous, germany burning coal is killing people every day. And then there's the impact on global warming
        foobarawayquux 5y ago
        I was curious about that quote "less than 10 tons of long-term radioactive material" and looked it up: Based on the orano group marketing site: https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio... it's 200 grams per inhabitant in France, which is 67 million. 200 grams * population of france in metric tons is 13.4 t That's quite good, even if it isn't 10 tons. Of course you still need a location for the short-lived (~300 year) nuclear waste.
        namdnay 5y ago
        https://www.sfen.org/rgn/dechets-radioactifs-verite-faits-exactitude-chiffres#:~:text=Ainsi%2C%20la%20masse%20totale%20de,de%20moins%20de%2010%20tonnes https://www.sfen.org/rgn/dechets-radioactifs-verite-faits-ex....
  - MrDresden 5y ago
    The cost in human lives related to coal exhaust is of multiple factors higher than that of nuclear. The potential for an extraordinary damage is there in the old nuclear plants, yes. However, closing them down with no plans to build newer ones (with evolved designes) is just giving in to scare tactics. At this point, we need all the low emission tech we have. That includes nuclear.
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      You might feel different if you live in a smaller country and all the infrastructure, including long term storage (usually called "temporary storage") is right next to you. At the moment, nuclear power is an incalculable credit card. We can reduce emissions by building more nuclear power, but the bill will eventually come due because it is so hard to get rid of it. I'd be for new nuclear power technologies that produce less waste. But the current technologies really aren't sustainable. Coal isn't sustainable either, but at least you can stop it more quickly.
      - MrDresden 5y ago
        I understand what you mean. However I would rather take the uncertain potential damage in the future, rather than the certain quantifiable damage today. There are (and have existed since even before the first commercial plants were ever built) plans and designs for reactors which work on different principals than those we have built in the last 70 years (for example liquid salt reactors). Some of these are currently being prototyped further today. There is also the potential for the stored up waste from the last 70 years of nuclear power production to be used in so called breeder reactors. All of these options however are not without flaws, and do produce toxic waste products (just with much shorter and manageable half lives). Nuclear power does though require long term planning by politicians (and a bit of a backbone), which given the current fear of this technology is sadly unlikely to materialize in time. And to address the point about coal being easier to move away from; how exactly would you suggest we do that? While fantastic, wind and solar energy is not as reliably as coal or nuclear. Hydro is very selectively available, and geothermal is relatively in its infancy. Even the giant solar panel project that Malaysia is planning to build in Australia (one of the most solar irradiated place on the planet) and which will be one of the largest in the world, is only expected to supply around 20% of their energy needs. However much one may disslike it, the fact is that there simply is at current no drop in replacement for coal & natural gas burning other than nuclear.
  - pyrale 5y ago
    > It's sad that people want to risk giving up a good chunk of their country for a while due to a nuclear accident. The current alternative is losing large parts of the whole planet due to climate change. Even if we don't factor the extreme events it creates, air pollution from coal kills more each year than all nuclear events related to power generation ever. I mean, sure, there are significant drawbacks to nuclear power, but that's like talking about lead paint issues in a burning house.
  - otikik 5y ago
    Give this a look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak The TLDR is: 7 million people die anually from air pollution. Fukushima and Chernobil combined don't even put a dent on that. And solar+wind alone is not enough.
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      You can't replace most of air pollution with nuclear power. And increasing nuclear fuel and waste production to anywhere near the necessary levels should give any environmentalist nightmares. Things do go wrong, and it's ridiculous to believe the required scale up would be possible with the current high regulatory standards. Especially with some of the major polluters not being known for their absence of corruption...
      - otikik 5y ago
        > You can't replace most of air pollution with nuclear power. It can replace most of coal-based electricity generators. It cannot replace everything. It needs solar, wind, and whatever else we can come up with (recycling, increases in efficiency, etc.) > And increasing nuclear fuel and waste production to anywhere near the necessary levels should give any environmentalist nightmares Waste is also discussed on the video, near the end. Coal's waste goes directly into the atmosphere, where it does harm and cannot be easily captured back. Things are already "going wrong" with that. When solar panels end in landfills, they bring a lot of heavy metals (like cadmium). If "things go wrong" those also are a nightmare. So, yeah: we are already on an environmentalist nightmare. The question is what do we do from here.
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Radioactive material in the ground water or food cycle would be much worse than anything related to coal burning. And there are several ways for it to get there unless there is an iron tight fist of regulation and compliance. Even then, it has happened. And your argument assumes replacing all fossil fuel with nuclear power, which means all the developing countries, all the dictatorships etc handling lots of radioactive material. I'm sure they'll all be responsible with it and not let anything spill over to other countries, right? And that's even assuming best intentions. I'm not a fan of fossil fuels. I'm grudgingly on board with my countries plan because nuclear power is no sustainable option for us. Both politically and technologically. We can get rid of coal plants a lot faster than we can decommission nuclear plants and store the waste...
- nix23 5y ago
  It's sad that emotion is more important than logic on a state level (maybe just a german thing)
  - Tade0 5y ago
    My pet theory is that it wasn't really Fukushima, but STUXNET and mounting costs of waste storage - the latter was even a topic during my German lessons in high school a few years earlier, so I'm willing to believe that it was at least perceived as a problem.
    - namdnay 5y ago
      I think the real reason is that the german environmental movement is closely tied to the former nuclear disarmament movement, and nuclear power had become somehow mixed up in it. It's a real tragedy
      - pgeorgi 5y ago
        > the former nuclear disarmament movement, and nuclear power had become somehow mixed up in it. Nuclear power was mostly interesting when it had weapon grade materials as a side product. It also explains why that horribly expensive mess has been subsidized the way it has been. "A simple power source" would have had to face competition by other power sources, but these others can't help equip nukes, so nukes-making nuclear power plants have been the focus.
        nix23 5y ago
        >when it had weapon grade materials as a side product Completely untrue BS, please get informed better: https://theconversation.com/debunking-myths-on-nuclear-power-its-not-for-making-bombs-20013 https://theconversation.com/debunking-myths-on-nuclear-power... >>Historically, if a country wants to produce a nuclear bomb, they build reactors especially for the job of making plutonium, and ignore civilian power stations. B Reactor: https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/BReactor https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/BReactor
- cedilla 5y ago
  Nuclear in Germany was in its death bed already by the nineties. It was killed by the massive costs, also fueled by failed experiments in "next generation" reactors that are still further away from feasibility than fusion power. And, to a lesser degree, nimbyism.
  - gmueckl 5y ago
    In my view, the death of nuclear power in Germany started with the protests against the reprocessing plant in Wackersdorf. This is the start of a strong anti nuclear power movement that gradually won over public opinion. Unfortunately, I personally believe that a lot of the campaigning against nuclear power was perpetuating wrong or misleading information. There are valid argument against that technology, but the arguments that proved successful at swaying public opinion were borderline fearmomgering. And they have taken root to such an extent that a levelheaded factual discussion has become hard.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > It was killed by the massive costs It was killed as an easy boon for idiotic environmentalist groups (the german green party is one of the few which at times reached relevant levels of representation), which have done more against the environment than for it. It which was also supported by local trade groups as Germany has huge deposits of lignite (whuch is basically the worst coal available). In no small part following greenpeace’s nonsensical switch from military to civilian nukes in a bid for relevance most environmentalist groups and green parties hate nukes with a passion. Decommissioning plants you could keep in running order is financially idiotic since you’ve already performed the vast majority of the investment.
    - namdnay 5y ago
      The same greenpeace that sells green energy contracts in Germany, which use... gas . It's crazy to think that a purported environmental organisation will be the main culprits for tens of thousands of avoidable cancers in Germany :(
      - 5y ago
- pgeorgi 5y ago
  Shutting down nuclear in Germany isn't "due to Fukushima". The legal basis was set in 2002 with plans that would have allowed nuclear plants to go on operating until an estimated 2015 to 2020 (it's about years of operation, not years of existence). In 2010 the plants were granted an extension by the conservative party, 8-14 operating years each, depending on their age. 2011, after Fukushima, that extension was scrapped for the most part, reverting to the previous terms. So yes, Fukushima accelerated the shutdown after CDU first slowed it down, but the original plan was for nuclear to be already gone by now. That there's still nuclear power going on until 2022 is due to several plants not operating for a while in the aftermath of Fukushima (due to operating life time being the relevant number). That original plan also aimed for a massive build up of renewable power sources which has been sabotaged in much the same way (e.g. installed wind power capacity going _down_ due to messed up updated regulations: can't upgrade a wind mill in-place while simple repairs aren't cost effective). Cost us ~120k jobs in renewables, too. Coal had full political backing though: Coal plants have been built illegally (with no political consequences), property has been seized to dig more coal (while the same conservatives pushing these seizures claim the eco movement wants to dispossess everybody), the 40k jobs related to coal are considered indispensable. tl;dr: We're replacing nuclear with coal because politics sabotages everything else. Fukushima is just a footnote in that mess.
- b3orn 5y ago
  Nuclear was never really replaced by coal, it was mostly replaced by wind and solar, you might even say that thanks to Germany planning to shut down nuclear in the early 2000s wind and especially solar are where they are now and would be much more expensive if nuclear wasn't shut down.
- Arnt 5y ago
  You may have read that Germany needs lots of coal plants, should build lots, or even is building, but in fact that isn't so. There are lists on the German wikipedia of the coal plants being built/replaced/renovated. There are some small coal plants being built and mostly replacing older small plants at the same location. I don't understand either why they're being built or why the older plants were there, but who cares, they're small. And there's a single big plant being built. Perhaps. The company that's building it doesn't seem to be in a hurry to complete construction. No matter how to assign output and add up the possible capacity, it's not enough to replace even a single nuclear plant.
bayesian_horse 5y ago
France is massively subsidizing nuclear power, and just like everybody else, has no real long term solution for the nuclear waste. Also, if there is a major accident, it is not the power companies or their investors that will pay the cost, it is the tax payers and the rest of society. Same with decommissioning the nuclear plants, for which the companies are supposed to hold back some funds, but they just undercalculate that, go bankrupt and the taxpayer pays up.
- marsouin 5y ago
  If I may, the taxpayer always pays in France anyway, it's the very basis of our nation . Orano, the group in charge of nuclear waste management isn't bankrupt at all. Also, there is a special agency (ANDRA) in charge of it and french facilities reuse up to 96% of fossile materials, which is not so bad.
- gambiting 5y ago
  >>Also, if there is a major accident, it is not the power companies or their investors that will pay the cost, it is the tax payers and the rest of society So you mean exactly how with coal the entire society bears the cost of just running the plants? Even if we set climate change aside for a second, there are huge health downsides to burning coal. I mention coal specifically because we're talking about the contrast with Germany here. >>Same with decommissioning the nuclear plants, for which the companies are supposed to hold back some funds, but they just undercalculate that, go bankrupt and the taxpayer pays up. The only issue I have with this is that nuclear power plants should have never been operated by private companies in the first place. They should have been national property and taxpayer funded from start to finish.
  - gitanovic 5y ago
    That might be a good solution, I also am against privatization of some strategic assets, and energy production is obviously one of them
  - ElKrist 5y ago
    It's the case for France. Electricité de France (EDF) operates the nuclear plants and is owned at 84.5% by the French State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_Franc...
mogadsheu 5y ago
Having spent >15 years in and around energy, I prefer to setter clear of value judgments on energy sources. Nuclear power is green for the duration of our lifetimes, at the cost of a near eternity of fallout.
- gambiting 5y ago
  >>Nuclear power is green for the duration of our lifetimes, at the cost of a near eternity of fallout. We have a permanent, forever solution to nuclear waste, it's just that no one wants to pay for it. It's easier to just keep kicking the ball down than solve the issue permanently. It's called deep borehole disposal - you drill a hole down to Earth's crust(~5km or deeper), fill the bottom 1-2km with nuclear waste, fill it back up. Literally solves the problem forever. It's not coming back up on anything shorter than a geological timescale, and the land above the borehole is perfectly safe to live on. The main reasons why it wasn't and isn't pursued is 1) cost - drilling itself is "solved" but inventing new storage casks that would fit the hole and re-processing the waste to fit is a new engineering challenge which would cost money 2) the idea that nuclear fuel, even spent, can be reused - either in breeder reactors, or for other purposes. If you bury it 5km deep it's almost impossible to retrieve it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal The above is why I'm kinda annoyed when people say that nuclear is bad because we just produce waste that will pollute for centuries. Like, yes, but we also know what to do with it, we're just unwilling to pay for it.
  - marsouin 5y ago
    Very true and it will become affordable at some point, also why we choose to store waste, for now. On a brighter side, fusion is making progress and produces no waste.
    - Tepix 5y ago
      I don't buy the argument. What if it does not become cheaper? When many of the nuclear reactors were built, there was no pervasive global terrorism that is a threat to nuclear waste storage (edit: an nuclear reactors). Things don't always improve.
curiousgal 5y ago
The issue is that Germany is actively sabotaging the adoption of nuclear power. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-four-others-oppose-classing-nuclear-green-eu-2021-07-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-four-others-...

by grlass 5y ago

fredsted 5y ago

It's really sad that Germany is shutting down and replacing nuclear with coal due to Fukushima.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
It's sad that people want to risk giving up a good chunk of their country for a while due to a nuclear accident. Yes, the engineers and scientists all say those accidents can't ever happen. Then they do. And again. And again. Fukushima wasn't even "that bad" but terribly expensive and inconvenient.
- nix23 5y ago
  It's sad that people want to risk a big chunk of their lungs due to daily coal smog.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    As Germany is vilified so much in this discussion: I live in Germany and there is no deadly smog in Germany. I'm too lazy to look up if our air pollution is generally better or worse than in France, but in general, air pollution here is driven by traffic, not coal plants. Nuclear power, in its current form is not sustainable, both because of recurring accidents leading to political issues and because of the unsolved waste storage problem. The bottom line: We want to go to mostly renewable energy sources, and the shortest path leads, unfortunately, through more fossil fuels. We need to increase energy production. We would also need to replace our old nuclear power plants with something. If we replace those with new nuclear power, we will eventually have to decommission and replace those (and deal with all the waste). Coal plants are easier and faster to ramp up and ramp down. I don't like it. But there it is.
    - pyrale 5y ago
      > As Germany is vilified so much in this discussion I wouldn't care about Germany's problem if German politicians weren't trying to export it to their neighbours, whether by lobbying for energy transition credits not to be usable for nuclear, or by fucking up the spot power exchange. > I'm too lazy to look up Too lazy to look up actual figures, but not lazy enough not to post about it :(
    - nix23 5y ago
      >Nuclear power, in its current form is not sustainable But Coal is? https://www.euractiv.com/section/air-pollution/news/german-coal-plant-exposed-as-europes-single-worst-air-polluter/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/air-pollution/news/german-c... >German coal plant exposed as Europe’s single worst air polluter There is a nice map of NO2 pollution, and just Paris is worse..the rest of france looks pretty clean. >I'm too lazy to look up Yeah maybe next time don't be that lazy before wrinting something? And maybe of some interest: https://www.electricitymap.org/map https://www.electricitymap.org/map
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Coal is not sustainable, but easier to replace. Point is: Air quality in Germany isn't really that much of an issue, certainly there is no significant difference to France, while Germany has more industry and a higher GDP.
        nix23 5y ago
        https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollution-deaths-coal-plants-b1826079.html#:~:text=5%20pollution%20from%20coal%20plants,in%20Romania%2C%20Bulgaria%20and%20Greece https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollut.... 34000 death/year in europe, not even Chernobyl had like 4000 over all? But hey Air quality i not a issue in Germany. https://energytransition.org/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-deaths-in-germany/ https://energytransition.org/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-... 3000 death/year alone in germany https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/report-germany-suffers-more-coal-linked-deaths-than-rest-of-eu/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/repor... >>Only 50 premature deaths in France in 2013 could be traced to domestic coal-fired plants. The remaining 1,330 were cross-border, the majority from German plants. But hey too lazy to look it up, right?
- namdnay 5y ago
  A coal plant is an ongoing accident all day every day. When do "these accidents" happen again and again? France hasn't had a single nuclear disaster in 50 years of operation Fukushima is a pretty good demonstration that even when everything goes wrong, the consequences aren't that bad.
  - brettermeier 5y ago
    Sure they are, nuclear consequences are worst if they really blow up, and some always will. And what about the trash... I don't think it's greener energy than coal...
    - namdnay 5y ago
      > and some always will no? why would they? > And what about the trash The whole of France produces less than 10 tons of long-term radioactive material. Hardly a big issue finding somewhere to safely bury that. > I don't think it's greener energy than coal ? of course it is, coal is insanely dangerous, germany burning coal is killing people every day. And then there's the impact on global warming
      - foobarawayquux 5y ago
        I was curious about that quote "less than 10 tons of long-term radioactive material" and looked it up: Based on the orano group marketing site: https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio... it's 200 grams per inhabitant in France, which is 67 million. 200 grams * population of france in metric tons is 13.4 t That's quite good, even if it isn't 10 tons. Of course you still need a location for the short-lived (~300 year) nuclear waste.
        namdnay 5y ago
        https://www.sfen.org/rgn/dechets-radioactifs-verite-faits-exactitude-chiffres#:~:text=Ainsi%2C%20la%20masse%20totale%20de,de%20moins%20de%2010%20tonnes https://www.sfen.org/rgn/dechets-radioactifs-verite-faits-ex....
- MrDresden 5y ago
  The cost in human lives related to coal exhaust is of multiple factors higher than that of nuclear. The potential for an extraordinary damage is there in the old nuclear plants, yes. However, closing them down with no plans to build newer ones (with evolved designes) is just giving in to scare tactics. At this point, we need all the low emission tech we have. That includes nuclear.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    You might feel different if you live in a smaller country and all the infrastructure, including long term storage (usually called "temporary storage") is right next to you. At the moment, nuclear power is an incalculable credit card. We can reduce emissions by building more nuclear power, but the bill will eventually come due because it is so hard to get rid of it. I'd be for new nuclear power technologies that produce less waste. But the current technologies really aren't sustainable. Coal isn't sustainable either, but at least you can stop it more quickly.
    - MrDresden 5y ago
      I understand what you mean. However I would rather take the uncertain potential damage in the future, rather than the certain quantifiable damage today. There are (and have existed since even before the first commercial plants were ever built) plans and designs for reactors which work on different principals than those we have built in the last 70 years (for example liquid salt reactors). Some of these are currently being prototyped further today. There is also the potential for the stored up waste from the last 70 years of nuclear power production to be used in so called breeder reactors. All of these options however are not without flaws, and do produce toxic waste products (just with much shorter and manageable half lives). Nuclear power does though require long term planning by politicians (and a bit of a backbone), which given the current fear of this technology is sadly unlikely to materialize in time. And to address the point about coal being easier to move away from; how exactly would you suggest we do that? While fantastic, wind and solar energy is not as reliably as coal or nuclear. Hydro is very selectively available, and geothermal is relatively in its infancy. Even the giant solar panel project that Malaysia is planning to build in Australia (one of the most solar irradiated place on the planet) and which will be one of the largest in the world, is only expected to supply around 20% of their energy needs. However much one may disslike it, the fact is that there simply is at current no drop in replacement for coal & natural gas burning other than nuclear.
- pyrale 5y ago
  > It's sad that people want to risk giving up a good chunk of their country for a while due to a nuclear accident. The current alternative is losing large parts of the whole planet due to climate change. Even if we don't factor the extreme events it creates, air pollution from coal kills more each year than all nuclear events related to power generation ever. I mean, sure, there are significant drawbacks to nuclear power, but that's like talking about lead paint issues in a burning house.
- otikik 5y ago
  Give this a look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak The TLDR is: 7 million people die anually from air pollution. Fukushima and Chernobil combined don't even put a dent on that. And solar+wind alone is not enough.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    You can't replace most of air pollution with nuclear power. And increasing nuclear fuel and waste production to anywhere near the necessary levels should give any environmentalist nightmares. Things do go wrong, and it's ridiculous to believe the required scale up would be possible with the current high regulatory standards. Especially with some of the major polluters not being known for their absence of corruption...
    - otikik 5y ago
      > You can't replace most of air pollution with nuclear power. It can replace most of coal-based electricity generators. It cannot replace everything. It needs solar, wind, and whatever else we can come up with (recycling, increases in efficiency, etc.) > And increasing nuclear fuel and waste production to anywhere near the necessary levels should give any environmentalist nightmares Waste is also discussed on the video, near the end. Coal's waste goes directly into the atmosphere, where it does harm and cannot be easily captured back. Things are already "going wrong" with that. When solar panels end in landfills, they bring a lot of heavy metals (like cadmium). If "things go wrong" those also are a nightmare. So, yeah: we are already on an environmentalist nightmare. The question is what do we do from here.
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Radioactive material in the ground water or food cycle would be much worse than anything related to coal burning. And there are several ways for it to get there unless there is an iron tight fist of regulation and compliance. Even then, it has happened. And your argument assumes replacing all fossil fuel with nuclear power, which means all the developing countries, all the dictatorships etc handling lots of radioactive material. I'm sure they'll all be responsible with it and not let anything spill over to other countries, right? And that's even assuming best intentions. I'm not a fan of fossil fuels. I'm grudgingly on board with my countries plan because nuclear power is no sustainable option for us. Both politically and technologically. We can get rid of coal plants a lot faster than we can decommission nuclear plants and store the waste...
nix23 5y ago
It's sad that emotion is more important than logic on a state level (maybe just a german thing)
- Tade0 5y ago
  My pet theory is that it wasn't really Fukushima, but STUXNET and mounting costs of waste storage - the latter was even a topic during my German lessons in high school a few years earlier, so I'm willing to believe that it was at least perceived as a problem.
  - namdnay 5y ago
    I think the real reason is that the german environmental movement is closely tied to the former nuclear disarmament movement, and nuclear power had become somehow mixed up in it. It's a real tragedy
    - pgeorgi 5y ago
      > the former nuclear disarmament movement, and nuclear power had become somehow mixed up in it. Nuclear power was mostly interesting when it had weapon grade materials as a side product. It also explains why that horribly expensive mess has been subsidized the way it has been. "A simple power source" would have had to face competition by other power sources, but these others can't help equip nukes, so nukes-making nuclear power plants have been the focus.
      - nix23 5y ago
        >when it had weapon grade materials as a side product Completely untrue BS, please get informed better: https://theconversation.com/debunking-myths-on-nuclear-power-its-not-for-making-bombs-20013 https://theconversation.com/debunking-myths-on-nuclear-power... >>Historically, if a country wants to produce a nuclear bomb, they build reactors especially for the job of making plutonium, and ignore civilian power stations. B Reactor: https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/BReactor https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/BReactor
cedilla 5y ago
Nuclear in Germany was in its death bed already by the nineties. It was killed by the massive costs, also fueled by failed experiments in "next generation" reactors that are still further away from feasibility than fusion power. And, to a lesser degree, nimbyism.
- gmueckl 5y ago
  In my view, the death of nuclear power in Germany started with the protests against the reprocessing plant in Wackersdorf. This is the start of a strong anti nuclear power movement that gradually won over public opinion. Unfortunately, I personally believe that a lot of the campaigning against nuclear power was perpetuating wrong or misleading information. There are valid argument against that technology, but the arguments that proved successful at swaying public opinion were borderline fearmomgering. And they have taken root to such an extent that a levelheaded factual discussion has become hard.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > It was killed by the massive costs It was killed as an easy boon for idiotic environmentalist groups (the german green party is one of the few which at times reached relevant levels of representation), which have done more against the environment than for it. It which was also supported by local trade groups as Germany has huge deposits of lignite (whuch is basically the worst coal available). In no small part following greenpeace’s nonsensical switch from military to civilian nukes in a bid for relevance most environmentalist groups and green parties hate nukes with a passion. Decommissioning plants you could keep in running order is financially idiotic since you’ve already performed the vast majority of the investment.
  - namdnay 5y ago
    The same greenpeace that sells green energy contracts in Germany, which use... gas . It's crazy to think that a purported environmental organisation will be the main culprits for tens of thousands of avoidable cancers in Germany :(
    - 5y ago
pgeorgi 5y ago
Shutting down nuclear in Germany isn't "due to Fukushima". The legal basis was set in 2002 with plans that would have allowed nuclear plants to go on operating until an estimated 2015 to 2020 (it's about years of operation, not years of existence). In 2010 the plants were granted an extension by the conservative party, 8-14 operating years each, depending on their age. 2011, after Fukushima, that extension was scrapped for the most part, reverting to the previous terms. So yes, Fukushima accelerated the shutdown after CDU first slowed it down, but the original plan was for nuclear to be already gone by now. That there's still nuclear power going on until 2022 is due to several plants not operating for a while in the aftermath of Fukushima (due to operating life time being the relevant number). That original plan also aimed for a massive build up of renewable power sources which has been sabotaged in much the same way (e.g. installed wind power capacity going _down_ due to messed up updated regulations: can't upgrade a wind mill in-place while simple repairs aren't cost effective). Cost us ~120k jobs in renewables, too. Coal had full political backing though: Coal plants have been built illegally (with no political consequences), property has been seized to dig more coal (while the same conservatives pushing these seizures claim the eco movement wants to dispossess everybody), the 40k jobs related to coal are considered indispensable. tl;dr: We're replacing nuclear with coal because politics sabotages everything else. Fukushima is just a footnote in that mess.
b3orn 5y ago
Nuclear was never really replaced by coal, it was mostly replaced by wind and solar, you might even say that thanks to Germany planning to shut down nuclear in the early 2000s wind and especially solar are where they are now and would be much more expensive if nuclear wasn't shut down.
Arnt 5y ago
You may have read that Germany needs lots of coal plants, should build lots, or even is building, but in fact that isn't so. There are lists on the German wikipedia of the coal plants being built/replaced/renovated. There are some small coal plants being built and mostly replacing older small plants at the same location. I don't understand either why they're being built or why the older plants were there, but who cares, they're small. And there's a single big plant being built. Perhaps. The company that's building it doesn't seem to be in a hurry to complete construction. No matter how to assign output and add up the possible capacity, it's not enough to replace even a single nuclear plant.

bayesian_horse 5y ago

France is massively subsidizing nuclear power, and just like everybody else, has no real long term solution for the nuclear waste. Also, if there is a major accident, it is not the power companies or their investors that will pay the cost, it is the tax payers and the rest of society. Same with decommissioning the nuclear plants, for which the companies are supposed to hold back some funds, but they just undercalculate that, go bankrupt and the taxpayer pays up.

marsouin 5y ago
If I may, the taxpayer always pays in France anyway, it's the very basis of our nation . Orano, the group in charge of nuclear waste management isn't bankrupt at all. Also, there is a special agency (ANDRA) in charge of it and french facilities reuse up to 96% of fossile materials, which is not so bad.
gambiting 5y ago
>>Also, if there is a major accident, it is not the power companies or their investors that will pay the cost, it is the tax payers and the rest of society So you mean exactly how with coal the entire society bears the cost of just running the plants? Even if we set climate change aside for a second, there are huge health downsides to burning coal. I mention coal specifically because we're talking about the contrast with Germany here. >>Same with decommissioning the nuclear plants, for which the companies are supposed to hold back some funds, but they just undercalculate that, go bankrupt and the taxpayer pays up. The only issue I have with this is that nuclear power plants should have never been operated by private companies in the first place. They should have been national property and taxpayer funded from start to finish.
- gitanovic 5y ago
  That might be a good solution, I also am against privatization of some strategic assets, and energy production is obviously one of them
- ElKrist 5y ago
  It's the case for France. Electricité de France (EDF) operates the nuclear plants and is owned at 84.5% by the French State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_Franc...

mogadsheu 5y ago

Having spent >15 years in and around energy, I prefer to setter clear of value judgments on energy sources. Nuclear power is green for the duration of our lifetimes, at the cost of a near eternity of fallout.

gambiting 5y ago
>>Nuclear power is green for the duration of our lifetimes, at the cost of a near eternity of fallout. We have a permanent, forever solution to nuclear waste, it's just that no one wants to pay for it. It's easier to just keep kicking the ball down than solve the issue permanently. It's called deep borehole disposal - you drill a hole down to Earth's crust(~5km or deeper), fill the bottom 1-2km with nuclear waste, fill it back up. Literally solves the problem forever. It's not coming back up on anything shorter than a geological timescale, and the land above the borehole is perfectly safe to live on. The main reasons why it wasn't and isn't pursued is 1) cost - drilling itself is "solved" but inventing new storage casks that would fit the hole and re-processing the waste to fit is a new engineering challenge which would cost money 2) the idea that nuclear fuel, even spent, can be reused - either in breeder reactors, or for other purposes. If you bury it 5km deep it's almost impossible to retrieve it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal The above is why I'm kinda annoyed when people say that nuclear is bad because we just produce waste that will pollute for centuries. Like, yes, but we also know what to do with it, we're just unwilling to pay for it.
- marsouin 5y ago
  Very true and it will become affordable at some point, also why we choose to store waste, for now. On a brighter side, fusion is making progress and produces no waste.
  - Tepix 5y ago
    I don't buy the argument. What if it does not become cheaper? When many of the nuclear reactors were built, there was no pervasive global terrorism that is a threat to nuclear waste storage (edit: an nuclear reactors). Things don't always improve.

curiousgal 5y ago

The issue is that Germany is actively sabotaging the adoption of nuclear power. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-four-others-oppose-classing-nuclear-green-eu-2021-07-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-four-others-...