9 ms·

What Germany did was very quickly turn off all nuclear power plants without any plans on replacing them with sustainable alternatives. Now they're offline, what

by Yaina 5y ago

What Germany did was very quickly turn off all nuclear power plants without any plans on replacing them with sustainable alternatives. Now they're offline, what's done is done. France still has nuclear power plants, and they're really pushing for nuclear energy to be considered green. This is about investing and creating incentives. So IMHO Germany shouldn't build new plants and France shouldn't get EU funding for their existing ones and everyone, but especially these wealthy countries should focus on truly sustainable energy. Every euro spend on a "transitional" does not go towards the truly sustainable technologies.

Zenst 5y ago
Oh, they only a few days ago turned off a load more, reducing their nuclear capacity by half...just before winter. https://techxplore.com/news/2021-12-germany-nuclear-reactors-energy-crisis.html https://techxplore.com/news/2021-12-germany-nuclear-reactors... Which will increase the pressure upon Gas demand at a time that is probably one of the worst for a long time, let alone the usual winter pressure. Shame nuclear didn't get that green EU label years ago when, as France could of green lit it's updated nuclear plant program instead of stagnating in limbo at a time in which many of their existing plants are entering end of life and with current timescales, would at best see a few pushed past that or some serious shortfalls in energy production. As for Germany building new plants, with the public opinion, I would suspect that Germany's nuclear production is something they are happy to offshore to France and buy in that green energy cheaply without any of the political fallout/protests on it's doorstep.
lucb1e 5y ago
> Every euro spen[t] on a "transitional" does not go towards the truly sustainable technologies. We won't have many euros left if we need to fight climate change effects while we wait for new technologies. We need to use the technology we already have. In addition to that, in parallel, we also need to find enough land owners that are willing to have a wind turbine in their proverbial back yard. And in parallel install solar panels on available surfaces. And introduce (pumped, battery, etc.) energy storage. We need all of it. Renewables don't have a money problem, it's a political and humanitarian problem. It literally costs money to have money (ask your bank), so the big money owners want to invest it. It's well known that solar panels and wind turbines pay for itself easily and are very low risk (lower even than an index fund if you operate more than a single device). Nuclear isn't so simple, but has unique advantages. We don't have the luxury to play politics around whether nuclear is renewable or not, it's low on greenhouse gases and doesn't require a lot of land per MWh. No point delaying further while we debate for another five years about whether we should really fund this not-truly-renewable technology. For gas, I mostly agree with you because that's an ongoing emission source with much higher greenhouse gas emissions. Building new gas plants isn't going to get us very far (even if its merits vs. alternatives need to be weighed on a case-by-case basis). But nuclear is different from gas: it's a calculable emission source for the initial construction, and over its lifetime will be orders of magnitude lower, in the same ballpark as wind and hydro. I'd love to go with only truly renewable sources (not that "renewables" like wind and solar have renewable or long-lived hardware, but it's a good start). I just don't see that as an option in densely populated western Europe. I'm happy that the EU looks at merits here rather than ideologies.
- pydry 5y ago
  >Nuclear isn't so simple, but has unique advantages Its advantages are dwindling compared to solar/wind/battery/pumped hydro/demand shaping. It requires gargantuan subsidies to even exist. For instance, the nuclear industry in the US has barraged us with propaganda about how really incredibly safe it is and how overregulated they are but insurers will still refuse to insure a nuclear plant unless 99% of the liability for accident cleanup is placed on taxpayer shoulders. Its main advantage is that it can mitigate some of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal. This is realistically why the US, UK and France keep it but Germany doesnt think it's worth it. These three elephants in the room: cost, accident liability and nuclear arsenals are invariably absent from media discussions about nuclear power in the US largely because of who drives the discussion.
  - lucb1e 5y ago
    > Its main advantage is that it can mitigate some of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal With such arguments, there really is no point having a discussion. You know that's not the advantages I was referring to (since they're in the very next sentence you're quoting) and you're ignoring that completely.
    - pydry 5y ago
      I bring it up because while it looms large in the minds of policymakers and is a large factor in their decision-making it almost never gets discussed in the media. The question of who insures nuclear plants (always taxpayers) is likewise something else that is always curiously whitewashed out of American media. Most of the advantages other than the nuclear arsenal one, on the other hand, are repeated frequently and are very well known.
  - SonicTheSith 5y ago
    The thing is, While Nuclear is not cheap, it will be cheaper than the effects from un-softened climate change. While Nuclear is difficult to maintain and if an accident happens it is bad, but the damage and affected area can be easily calculated. While Nuclear waste storage costs money and has to be secure for a long time, the chance that we as humans will be able to recycle the nuclear waste in 200-500 years is fairly high. On the other hand once shit hits the fans with climate change shit really hits the fan but with the quantity of New York City's total sewage from the last 5 decades. The thought that we will be able to recycle nuclear waste in 200+ years is more reliable than any promise Elon Musk has ever given.
cschwarm 5y ago
> What Germany did was very quickly turn off all nuclear power plants without any plans on replacing them with sustainable alternatives. This is not quite correct. The first decision to phase-out nuclear was made around the year 2000 [1]. Its initial date for the shutdown of the last nuclear reactor was set to be 2022. The plan was agreed upon by the owners of these plans. Around 2010, this first decision was taken back, and a few months later, Fukushima happened. This led to the second decision to phase-out nuclear. Only then, eight of 17 reactors were turned off quickly. But this had no major impact, because the switch to renewables was already under way for ten years. Compare Germany's coal consumption after Fukushima with Japan's, and you'll noticed the difference. [1] https://wiki.energytransition.org/the-book/policies-for-clean-energy/atomausstieg/ https://wiki.energytransition.org/the-book/policies-for-clea...

by Yaina 5y ago

Zenst 5y ago

Oh, they only a few days ago turned off a load more, reducing their nuclear capacity by half...just before winter. https://techxplore.com/news/2021-12-germany-nuclear-reactors-energy-crisis.html https://techxplore.com/news/2021-12-germany-nuclear-reactors... Which will increase the pressure upon Gas demand at a time that is probably one of the worst for a long time, let alone the usual winter pressure. Shame nuclear didn't get that green EU label years ago when, as France could of green lit it's updated nuclear plant program instead of stagnating in limbo at a time in which many of their existing plants are entering end of life and with current timescales, would at best see a few pushed past that or some serious shortfalls in energy production. As for Germany building new plants, with the public opinion, I would suspect that Germany's nuclear production is something they are happy to offshore to France and buy in that green energy cheaply without any of the political fallout/protests on it's doorstep.

lucb1e 5y ago

> Every euro spen[t] on a "transitional" does not go towards the truly sustainable technologies. We won't have many euros left if we need to fight climate change effects while we wait for new technologies. We need to use the technology we already have. In addition to that, in parallel, we also need to find enough land owners that are willing to have a wind turbine in their proverbial back yard. And in parallel install solar panels on available surfaces. And introduce (pumped, battery, etc.) energy storage. We need all of it. Renewables don't have a money problem, it's a political and humanitarian problem. It literally costs money to have money (ask your bank), so the big money owners want to invest it. It's well known that solar panels and wind turbines pay for itself easily and are very low risk (lower even than an index fund if you operate more than a single device). Nuclear isn't so simple, but has unique advantages. We don't have the luxury to play politics around whether nuclear is renewable or not, it's low on greenhouse gases and doesn't require a lot of land per MWh. No point delaying further while we debate for another five years about whether we should really fund this not-truly-renewable technology. For gas, I mostly agree with you because that's an ongoing emission source with much higher greenhouse gas emissions. Building new gas plants isn't going to get us very far (even if its merits vs. alternatives need to be weighed on a case-by-case basis). But nuclear is different from gas: it's a calculable emission source for the initial construction, and over its lifetime will be orders of magnitude lower, in the same ballpark as wind and hydro. I'd love to go with only truly renewable sources (not that "renewables" like wind and solar have renewable or long-lived hardware, but it's a good start). I just don't see that as an option in densely populated western Europe. I'm happy that the EU looks at merits here rather than ideologies.

pydry 5y ago
>Nuclear isn't so simple, but has unique advantages Its advantages are dwindling compared to solar/wind/battery/pumped hydro/demand shaping. It requires gargantuan subsidies to even exist. For instance, the nuclear industry in the US has barraged us with propaganda about how really incredibly safe it is and how overregulated they are but insurers will still refuse to insure a nuclear plant unless 99% of the liability for accident cleanup is placed on taxpayer shoulders. Its main advantage is that it can mitigate some of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal. This is realistically why the US, UK and France keep it but Germany doesnt think it's worth it. These three elephants in the room: cost, accident liability and nuclear arsenals are invariably absent from media discussions about nuclear power in the US largely because of who drives the discussion.
- lucb1e 5y ago
  > Its main advantage is that it can mitigate some of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal With such arguments, there really is no point having a discussion. You know that's not the advantages I was referring to (since they're in the very next sentence you're quoting) and you're ignoring that completely.
  - pydry 5y ago
    I bring it up because while it looms large in the minds of policymakers and is a large factor in their decision-making it almost never gets discussed in the media. The question of who insures nuclear plants (always taxpayers) is likewise something else that is always curiously whitewashed out of American media. Most of the advantages other than the nuclear arsenal one, on the other hand, are repeated frequently and are very well known.
- SonicTheSith 5y ago
  The thing is, While Nuclear is not cheap, it will be cheaper than the effects from un-softened climate change. While Nuclear is difficult to maintain and if an accident happens it is bad, but the damage and affected area can be easily calculated. While Nuclear waste storage costs money and has to be secure for a long time, the chance that we as humans will be able to recycle the nuclear waste in 200-500 years is fairly high. On the other hand once shit hits the fans with climate change shit really hits the fan but with the quantity of New York City's total sewage from the last 5 decades. The thought that we will be able to recycle nuclear waste in 200+ years is more reliable than any promise Elon Musk has ever given.

cschwarm 5y ago

> What Germany did was very quickly turn off all nuclear power plants without any plans on replacing them with sustainable alternatives. This is not quite correct. The first decision to phase-out nuclear was made around the year 2000 [1]. Its initial date for the shutdown of the last nuclear reactor was set to be 2022. The plan was agreed upon by the owners of these plans. Around 2010, this first decision was taken back, and a few months later, Fukushima happened. This led to the second decision to phase-out nuclear. Only then, eight of 17 reactors were turned off quickly. But this had no major impact, because the switch to renewables was already under way for ten years. Compare Germany's coal consumption after Fukushima with Japan's, and you'll noticed the difference. [1] https://wiki.energytransition.org/the-book/policies-for-clean-energy/atomausstieg/ https://wiki.energytransition.org/the-book/policies-for-clea...