3 ms·

This shut down is all a knee jerk reaction to Fukushima.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Japan had to make the same choice, the USA is making the same choices right now. Those nuclear plants were built all at once and their certs are almost up. Either we will see a new nuclear building boom to replace/upgrade those aging plants, or we are going to see a serious reduction in nuclear generation. So far, the only countries going with new nuclear plants and upgrades to old ones are France/Russia and China/India (but just new plants only).
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  You are downvoting me for your own emotional reasons. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge... “ After the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Green Party won the elections in 1998, the government of Gerhard Schroeder (SPD) reached what became known as the “nuclear consensus” with the big utilities (in 2000). They agreed to limit the lifespan of nuclear power stations to 32 years.” “ In the wake of the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima, Japan, on 11 March 2011, the same Merkel government decided on 14/15 March to suspend the 2010 lifetime-extension for a three-month period, and then to mothball Germany's seven oldest reactors for the same period (known as the nuclear moratorium). The accident in Fukushima and the reaction by Germany's federal government … In June 2011, the government proposed to shut down eight nuclear plants for good and limit the operation of the remaining nine to 2022.” In this discussion it’s irrelevant that majority voted for it. 2022 phase out is a knee jerk reaction to Fukushima. It’s very easy to verify this by just searching for “Fukushima Germany”. Fukushima had nothing to do with the age of reactors, nor the design. It was down to the placement of the power plant. None of that could have ever happen in Germany. It should have been 2030.
  - detaro 5y ago
    Why is the (unpopular) Merkel extension of the "nuclear consensus" the "it should have been" and not the original deal?
    - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
      Good question. Pressure from the Greens comes to mind. “The accident in Fukushima and the reaction by Germany's federal government coincided with the hot phase of campaigning for the important election in the rich and influential state of Baden-Württemberg on 27 March 2011, where after 58 years in power the conservative CDU was under threat by the Green Party (the Green Party won and provided the state premier for the first time in Germany).” Two things come to mind immediately after. From the Wikipedia: “Eight of the seventeen operating reactors in Germany were permanently shut down following Fukushima. Chancellor Angela Merkel said the nuclear power phase-out, previously scheduled to be completed as late as 2036, would give Germany a competitive advantage in the renewable energy era, stating, "As the first big industrialized nation, we can achieve such a transformation toward efficient and renewable energies, with all the opportunities that brings for exports, developing new technologies and jobs".” It’s 2022 and none of this happened. Electricity prices soaring right at the time when these reactors would be helpful. Only now kicking off H2 programs. Jobs are at risk as reported now daily by Handelsblatt across multiple sectors. “The nuclear electricity production was primarily replaced with coal electricity production and electricity importing. One study found that the nuclear phase-out caused $12 billion in social costs per year, primarily due to increases in mortality due to exposure to pollution from fossil fuels.[12]”. Have you heard of Hambacher Forst? That disaster is a direct result of a phase out - a real disaster caused by a knee jerk reaction to “what if”.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    > You are downvoting me for your own emotional reasons. I didn't downvote you, and you can't downvote comments you reply to anyways. Also, its bad form to talk about downvotes on HN (mostly because of misplaced accusations like this). Nothing about your comment goes against mine, now is the time they have to decide to mothball plants, let them stay as they are, or upgrade them with a few billion in improvements. Why keep them around when both sides are uninterested (even if for different reasons)? Decommissioning a plant 10 years early can avoid upgrades needed to go for 10 more years. Nuclear power has always been plagued by high capital costs...which is why virtually stopped building plants in the mid 1980s (my dad was part of the boom and got hit hard by the bust). Not only high capital costs, but insurance against disaster must also be subsidized by the government (private insurance companies won't go near nuclear plants). Economically, nuclear power has always been on the edge of affordability.
    - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
      > I didn't downvote you, and you can't downvote comments you reply to anyways. Then please accept my apology. It must have been a coincidence that you have replied at roughly the same time as a downvote rolled in.

Japan had to make the same choice, the USA is making the same choices right now. Those nuclear plants were built all at once and their certs are almost up. Either we will see a new nuclear building boom to replace/upgrade those aging plants, or we are going to see a serious reduction in nuclear generation. So far, the only countries going with new nuclear plants and upgrades to old ones are France/Russia and China/India (but just new plants only).

rad_gruchalski 5y ago
You are downvoting me for your own emotional reasons. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge... “ After the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Green Party won the elections in 1998, the government of Gerhard Schroeder (SPD) reached what became known as the “nuclear consensus” with the big utilities (in 2000). They agreed to limit the lifespan of nuclear power stations to 32 years.” “ In the wake of the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima, Japan, on 11 March 2011, the same Merkel government decided on 14/15 March to suspend the 2010 lifetime-extension for a three-month period, and then to mothball Germany's seven oldest reactors for the same period (known as the nuclear moratorium). The accident in Fukushima and the reaction by Germany's federal government … In June 2011, the government proposed to shut down eight nuclear plants for good and limit the operation of the remaining nine to 2022.” In this discussion it’s irrelevant that majority voted for it. 2022 phase out is a knee jerk reaction to Fukushima. It’s very easy to verify this by just searching for “Fukushima Germany”. Fukushima had nothing to do with the age of reactors, nor the design. It was down to the placement of the power plant. None of that could have ever happen in Germany. It should have been 2030.
- detaro 5y ago
  Why is the (unpopular) Merkel extension of the "nuclear consensus" the "it should have been" and not the original deal?
  - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
    Good question. Pressure from the Greens comes to mind. “The accident in Fukushima and the reaction by Germany's federal government coincided with the hot phase of campaigning for the important election in the rich and influential state of Baden-Württemberg on 27 March 2011, where after 58 years in power the conservative CDU was under threat by the Green Party (the Green Party won and provided the state premier for the first time in Germany).” Two things come to mind immediately after. From the Wikipedia: “Eight of the seventeen operating reactors in Germany were permanently shut down following Fukushima. Chancellor Angela Merkel said the nuclear power phase-out, previously scheduled to be completed as late as 2036, would give Germany a competitive advantage in the renewable energy era, stating, "As the first big industrialized nation, we can achieve such a transformation toward efficient and renewable energies, with all the opportunities that brings for exports, developing new technologies and jobs".” It’s 2022 and none of this happened. Electricity prices soaring right at the time when these reactors would be helpful. Only now kicking off H2 programs. Jobs are at risk as reported now daily by Handelsblatt across multiple sectors. “The nuclear electricity production was primarily replaced with coal electricity production and electricity importing. One study found that the nuclear phase-out caused $12 billion in social costs per year, primarily due to increases in mortality due to exposure to pollution from fossil fuels.[12]”. Have you heard of Hambacher Forst? That disaster is a direct result of a phase out - a real disaster caused by a knee jerk reaction to “what if”.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  > You are downvoting me for your own emotional reasons. I didn't downvote you, and you can't downvote comments you reply to anyways. Also, its bad form to talk about downvotes on HN (mostly because of misplaced accusations like this). Nothing about your comment goes against mine, now is the time they have to decide to mothball plants, let them stay as they are, or upgrade them with a few billion in improvements. Why keep them around when both sides are uninterested (even if for different reasons)? Decommissioning a plant 10 years early can avoid upgrades needed to go for 10 more years. Nuclear power has always been plagued by high capital costs...which is why virtually stopped building plants in the mid 1980s (my dad was part of the boom and got hit hard by the bust). Not only high capital costs, but insurance against disaster must also be subsidized by the government (private insurance companies won't go near nuclear plants). Economically, nuclear power has always been on the edge of affordability.
  - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
    > I didn't downvote you, and you can't downvote comments you reply to anyways. Then please accept my apology. It must have been a coincidence that you have replied at roughly the same time as a downvote rolled in.