5 ms·

People make a point about Germany because they made a populist political decision to close nuclear plants in 2015. At a point where it was evident that there fu

by cerved 5y ago

People make a point about Germany because they made a populist political decision to close nuclear plants in 2015. At a point where it was evident that there future needs to be fossil free and with no real alternatives they decide to shut down their reactors. In contrast, the US seized civilian nuclear power plants after three mile island, fifty years ago.

rndgermandude 5y ago
>People make a point about Germany because they made a populist political decision to close nuclear plants in 2015. Well, in 2002. Really long before that, because nobody was allowed to build new ones in ages already. But 2002 formalized the ban into law. Then came Merkel and reversed the shortened service life times for existing reactors. And then in 2011 after Fukushima, she re-reverse it. (No idea where you got the 2015 from). Germany still has running reactors, by the way. We did not just shut them all down, as you say. We shut down the very oldest ones still in operation, then shut down more and more in the time frame we originally planned to shut them down before Merkel's initial reversal and kept doing that for the last decade. The six remaining facilities will be gone by end of next year, tho. They will have been in production for at least 33 years each, at that point. So we had a decade to get our shit together and replace the nuclear with something else sustainable. We fell short, but not that short. >with no real alternatives There are alternatives, real ones, proven working ones. A mix of less consumption, driven by more efficient tech, wind/solar/water as the work horse and biomass to compensate for "bad" weather and some storage for the worst case. We could be emission-neutral and nuclear-free now, while not significantly more expensive (we'd have had costs regardless of what we built, building new nuclear plants isn't free either, and we would have needed new ones if we went the nuclear route instead). If there had been the political will to actually do so in the Merkel government... And that doesn't even take into account the European grid and how European nations could bridge temporarily increased demand/temporarily lower productions of individual members. Germany invested heavily into renewables at first, but this got more slow-paced recently, again thanks to some of Merkel's people, in particular Peter Altmaier who was "Secretary of the Economy" and considered his job to be a fulfillment center for old garde lobbyist needs. Regardless, over half the electric energy production is now from renewables. So I guess, there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
- cerved 5y ago
  Nuclear is being phased out by 2022. Coal by 2038, the majority of which is brown coal. The problem is Germany is phasing out nuclear power when they should phase out coal and its reliance on natural gas.
  - rndgermandude 5y ago
    Yes and no. Yes, coal and other fossil fuels would be far more important to phase out in general than nuclear. But the problem with the German nuclear plants is that they are old, old builds with old tech, and way past their expiration dates, even with the constant upgrades they received over the years. Every inspection in the last decade raised serious "wtf" moments (and inspections are rather lax and even more so before Fukushima). Nuclear can be reasonably safe if you take the time and money to make it so and don't build them in earthquake alley, but these particular ones stopped being safe a decade or more ago. So you either have to spend serious coin (billions) to modernize the still existing ones, all the while you take them off grid for extended periods of time, or you have to spend serious coin (billions) to build new ones, which will take you like a decade before they go into production anyway. Nuclear is too expensive, frankly. Renewables today are already cheaper, if you also account for all direct, indirect and hidden subsidies each receives. New or upgraded nuclear is not seen favorable by most (according to polls) Germans, me included. I'd rather see that money go to installing renewables capacity instead, and investing into renewables tech research. But sure, if we actually had new-ish and safe reactors that could be safely operated for another 10 or 20 or whatever years, I'd personally say: go for it, keep them running for that time instead of coal and gas plants.
    - cerved 5y ago
      So modernize them. Germany is obviously unable to produce sufficient renewable energy. It's far too inelastic. It's Germanys fault the electricity is so expensive.
    - shapefrog 5y ago
      They saw fit to bring online a new Coal plant, replacing existing coal plants that they are old, old builds with old tech, and way past their expiration dates at a cost of serious coin (billions). Billions quickly become very abstract things. As part of its stimulus package, Germany intends to expand the role of green hydrogen to help end the country's reliance on coal. The government agreed on a plan on how to spend the €9 billion earmarked for the project.The plan, which could see hydrogen eventually make up about 10% of the country's total electricity capacity, was unveiled as part of a €130 billion ($147 billion) stimulus to help reboot the economy during the coronavirus pandemic. The hydrogen commitment is part of some €40 billion earmarked for climate-related spending.

by cerved 5y ago

rndgermandude 5y ago

>People make a point about Germany because they made a populist political decision to close nuclear plants in 2015. Well, in 2002. Really long before that, because nobody was allowed to build new ones in ages already. But 2002 formalized the ban into law. Then came Merkel and reversed the shortened service life times for existing reactors. And then in 2011 after Fukushima, she re-reverse it. (No idea where you got the 2015 from). Germany still has running reactors, by the way. We did not just shut them all down, as you say. We shut down the very oldest ones still in operation, then shut down more and more in the time frame we originally planned to shut them down before Merkel's initial reversal and kept doing that for the last decade. The six remaining facilities will be gone by end of next year, tho. They will have been in production for at least 33 years each, at that point. So we had a decade to get our shit together and replace the nuclear with something else sustainable. We fell short, but not that short. >with no real alternatives There are alternatives, real ones, proven working ones. A mix of less consumption, driven by more efficient tech, wind/solar/water as the work horse and biomass to compensate for "bad" weather and some storage for the worst case. We could be emission-neutral and nuclear-free now, while not significantly more expensive (we'd have had costs regardless of what we built, building new nuclear plants isn't free either, and we would have needed new ones if we went the nuclear route instead). If there had been the political will to actually do so in the Merkel government... And that doesn't even take into account the European grid and how European nations could bridge temporarily increased demand/temporarily lower productions of individual members. Germany invested heavily into renewables at first, but this got more slow-paced recently, again thanks to some of Merkel's people, in particular Peter Altmaier who was "Secretary of the Economy" and considered his job to be a fulfillment center for old garde lobbyist needs. Regardless, over half the electric energy production is now from renewables. So I guess, there is some light at the end of the tunnel.

cerved 5y ago
Nuclear is being phased out by 2022. Coal by 2038, the majority of which is brown coal. The problem is Germany is phasing out nuclear power when they should phase out coal and its reliance on natural gas.
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  Yes and no. Yes, coal and other fossil fuels would be far more important to phase out in general than nuclear. But the problem with the German nuclear plants is that they are old, old builds with old tech, and way past their expiration dates, even with the constant upgrades they received over the years. Every inspection in the last decade raised serious "wtf" moments (and inspections are rather lax and even more so before Fukushima). Nuclear can be reasonably safe if you take the time and money to make it so and don't build them in earthquake alley, but these particular ones stopped being safe a decade or more ago. So you either have to spend serious coin (billions) to modernize the still existing ones, all the while you take them off grid for extended periods of time, or you have to spend serious coin (billions) to build new ones, which will take you like a decade before they go into production anyway. Nuclear is too expensive, frankly. Renewables today are already cheaper, if you also account for all direct, indirect and hidden subsidies each receives. New or upgraded nuclear is not seen favorable by most (according to polls) Germans, me included. I'd rather see that money go to installing renewables capacity instead, and investing into renewables tech research. But sure, if we actually had new-ish and safe reactors that could be safely operated for another 10 or 20 or whatever years, I'd personally say: go for it, keep them running for that time instead of coal and gas plants.
  - cerved 5y ago
    So modernize them. Germany is obviously unable to produce sufficient renewable energy. It's far too inelastic. It's Germanys fault the electricity is so expensive.
  - shapefrog 5y ago
    They saw fit to bring online a new Coal plant, replacing existing coal plants that they are old, old builds with old tech, and way past their expiration dates at a cost of serious coin (billions). Billions quickly become very abstract things. As part of its stimulus package, Germany intends to expand the role of green hydrogen to help end the country's reliance on coal. The government agreed on a plan on how to spend the €9 billion earmarked for the project.The plan, which could see hydrogen eventually make up about 10% of the country's total electricity capacity, was unveiled as part of a €130 billion ($147 billion) stimulus to help reboot the economy during the coronavirus pandemic. The hydrogen commitment is part of some €40 billion earmarked for climate-related spending.