3 ms·

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 pha

by 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

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.