11 ms·

German here, but I'll be a bit lazy and refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany .

German here, but I'll be a bit lazy and refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany . I quickly skimmed over it and I think it touches the history well. From my personal perspective, I can definitely relate being nuclear skeptic due to Chernobyl (I was 7 years old at the time) and basically constant demonstrations/problems with the end storage facility subject - for as long as I remember. Also, at least in my memory around ~2000 it became clear that nuclear was not economically viable vs going green and that was also when the Atomausstieg was sealed by the new Schröder government which had the Greens in the coalition. Merkel (conservative) wanted to prolong the run times but when Fukushima happened all those plans quickly turned over. Happy to answer any questions about it.

scyzoryk_xyz 5y ago
So how did plans to import natural gas via NS1/NS2 fit into these plans?
- MobiusHorizons 5y ago
  My understanding was that Natural gas in Europe is used for house heat, and industrial processes that have never been electrified. I was not aware of using it (at a wide scale) for electricity generation. (definitely not an expert though)
  - Reason077 5y ago
    Natural gas is a major source of electricity in many European countries (and in some countries, the biggest source). Natural gas is considered preferable to burning coal because it creates significantly less air pollution and CO2 emissions for each unit of electricity. Here's a neat map where you can view the current electricity generation mix for countries in real-time: https://app.electricitymap.org/map https://app.electricitymap.org/map
tsimionescu 5y ago
> Also, at least in my memory around ~2000 it became clear that nuclear was not economically viable vs going green and that was also when the Atomausstieg was sealed by the new Schröder government which had the Greens in the coalition. And yet, Germany has twice the emissions of France because it relies heavily on gas and coal. Very sad to see that global warming is considered more economically viable than nuclear energy.
- croes 5y ago
  That's because politicians like Altmaier sabotaged the expansion of wind and solar energy.
robertlagrant 5y ago
> Also, at least in my memory around ~2000 it became clear that nuclear was not economically viable vs going green That would be surprising. I would have said that renewables (without comparing massively subsidised and unproven renewables costs with unsubsidised and well understood practical nuclear costs) would only be relatively recently even in the same ballpark as nuclear. And even then, only when the sun's shining/wind's blowing.
- croes 5y ago
  "Nuclear power in Europe benefits mainly from massive tax breaks, subsidies and other financial assistance for construction, maintenance and disposal (in Germany a total of about 187 billion euros over the past forty years)"
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    Is that excluded from the total cost calculations of nuclear power?
    - croes 5y ago
      Depends on who you ask. Power plant companies usually omit these costs.
      - robertlagrant 5y ago
        Okay, but given you quoted that point above, what are you saying in relation to what I said?
agumonkey 5y ago
How is the renewable energy sector ? useless ? stable ? growing ?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  Massive, and growing rapidly. The second derivative is debatable (i.e. the growth may be slowing) and it may not be fast enough, but Germany heavily subsidized renewables both through subsidies and minimum prices for renewable energy generation very early (which is one of the reason for the absolutely perverse electricity prices, which ironically make gas heating more attractive). Random quote I found: "In 2020 renewable energy sources produced more electricity than all fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) together and now provide 45.3 percent of German electricity demand." Electricity demand is just a part of energy demand though, so getting all heating to e.g. heat pumps will be a major effort.
zajio1am 5y ago
> and that was also when the Atomausstieg was sealed by the new Schröder government which had the Greens in the coalition And after that, Schröder got his deserved chair on Nordstream AG and later Rosneft and Gazprom.
- fy20 5y ago
  This is what rubs me most about the decision. Thanks to Germany the whole of Europe is now dependant on Russian gas, but at least a few politicians got promotions out of it right? When my country joined the EU they were forced to decommission an old nuclear power plant. Before that we were a net exporter of electricity. There was talk about building a new plant to ensure energy security in the region and reduce dependence on Russia, but it never materialised. If Germany - which most of the smaller countries look up to - did not make this decision our energy landscape would look very different today. Over the last winter we have seen energy prices go up 50% or more (electricity comes from Russian gas, and heating comes from Russian gas) and inflation in general is up over 10%. Maybe in rich Germany this is not such a big deal, but here where people do not earn so much it is.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Was this a nuke plant that resembled the one at Chernobyl?
adastra22 5y ago
> nuclear was not economically viable vs going green This is such a strange statement as nuclear is the greenest power source.
- blackbrokkoli 5y ago
  Regarding numbers like CO2 emission per MW that is definitely true. However, the highly destructive, scary and dangerous trash that it does produce is like a comical epitome of the kind of visible pollution the first generation green movement was fighting. There is a reason that dystopian sci-fi trash heap illustrations always feature a leaking nuclear barrel. Combined with the fact that Germany is just (fairly) densely populated everywhere, criticism of storage solutions are not about endangered desert lizard species, but about radiation spikes in elementary schools. I'm both German and would like to re-establish nuclear here as a necessary evil, but I get the contra points. I hope this gives some perspective :)
  - adastra22 5y ago
    The entirely of the nuclear waste produced by the United States since the beginning of its atomic program could fit in a couple of olympic sized swimming pools. And water does such a good job of stopping the radiation that is actually a pretty good way of storing it. And that's without considering fuel reprocessing, which would not only drastically reduce the raw fuel need (and therefore increase the green value of nuclear power), but would reduce the final waste product to something that could fit in a broom closet. The scale of the nuclear waste problem is seriously, seriously oversold.
    - zardo 5y ago
      > The entirely of the nuclear waste produced by the United States since the beginning of its atomic program could fit in a couple of olympic sized swimming pools. Hanford alone has enough liquid nuclear waste to fill 80. Does that waste not count?
      - adastra22 5y ago

scyzoryk_xyz 5y ago

So how did plans to import natural gas via NS1/NS2 fit into these plans?

MobiusHorizons 5y ago
My understanding was that Natural gas in Europe is used for house heat, and industrial processes that have never been electrified. I was not aware of using it (at a wide scale) for electricity generation. (definitely not an expert though)
- Reason077 5y ago
  Natural gas is a major source of electricity in many European countries (and in some countries, the biggest source). Natural gas is considered preferable to burning coal because it creates significantly less air pollution and CO2 emissions for each unit of electricity. Here's a neat map where you can view the current electricity generation mix for countries in real-time: https://app.electricitymap.org/map https://app.electricitymap.org/map

tsimionescu 5y ago

> Also, at least in my memory around ~2000 it became clear that nuclear was not economically viable vs going green and that was also when the Atomausstieg was sealed by the new Schröder government which had the Greens in the coalition. And yet, Germany has twice the emissions of France because it relies heavily on gas and coal. Very sad to see that global warming is considered more economically viable than nuclear energy.

croes 5y ago
That's because politicians like Altmaier sabotaged the expansion of wind and solar energy.

robertlagrant 5y ago

> Also, at least in my memory around ~2000 it became clear that nuclear was not economically viable vs going green That would be surprising. I would have said that renewables (without comparing massively subsidised and unproven renewables costs with unsubsidised and well understood practical nuclear costs) would only be relatively recently even in the same ballpark as nuclear. And even then, only when the sun's shining/wind's blowing.

croes 5y ago
"Nuclear power in Europe benefits mainly from massive tax breaks, subsidies and other financial assistance for construction, maintenance and disposal (in Germany a total of about 187 billion euros over the past forty years)"
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  Is that excluded from the total cost calculations of nuclear power?
  - croes 5y ago
    Depends on who you ask. Power plant companies usually omit these costs.
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      Okay, but given you quoted that point above, what are you saying in relation to what I said?

agumonkey 5y ago

How is the renewable energy sector ? useless ? stable ? growing ?

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
Massive, and growing rapidly. The second derivative is debatable (i.e. the growth may be slowing) and it may not be fast enough, but Germany heavily subsidized renewables both through subsidies and minimum prices for renewable energy generation very early (which is one of the reason for the absolutely perverse electricity prices, which ironically make gas heating more attractive). Random quote I found: "In 2020 renewable energy sources produced more electricity than all fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) together and now provide 45.3 percent of German electricity demand." Electricity demand is just a part of energy demand though, so getting all heating to e.g. heat pumps will be a major effort.

zajio1am 5y ago

> and that was also when the Atomausstieg was sealed by the new Schröder government which had the Greens in the coalition And after that, Schröder got his deserved chair on Nordstream AG and later Rosneft and Gazprom.

fy20 5y ago
This is what rubs me most about the decision. Thanks to Germany the whole of Europe is now dependant on Russian gas, but at least a few politicians got promotions out of it right? When my country joined the EU they were forced to decommission an old nuclear power plant. Before that we were a net exporter of electricity. There was talk about building a new plant to ensure energy security in the region and reduce dependence on Russia, but it never materialised. If Germany - which most of the smaller countries look up to - did not make this decision our energy landscape would look very different today. Over the last winter we have seen energy prices go up 50% or more (electricity comes from Russian gas, and heating comes from Russian gas) and inflation in general is up over 10%. Maybe in rich Germany this is not such a big deal, but here where people do not earn so much it is.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Was this a nuke plant that resembled the one at Chernobyl?

adastra22 5y ago

> nuclear was not economically viable vs going green This is such a strange statement as nuclear is the greenest power source.

blackbrokkoli 5y ago
Regarding numbers like CO2 emission per MW that is definitely true. However, the highly destructive, scary and dangerous trash that it does produce is like a comical epitome of the kind of visible pollution the first generation green movement was fighting. There is a reason that dystopian sci-fi trash heap illustrations always feature a leaking nuclear barrel. Combined with the fact that Germany is just (fairly) densely populated everywhere, criticism of storage solutions are not about endangered desert lizard species, but about radiation spikes in elementary schools. I'm both German and would like to re-establish nuclear here as a necessary evil, but I get the contra points. I hope this gives some perspective :)
- adastra22 5y ago
  The entirely of the nuclear waste produced by the United States since the beginning of its atomic program could fit in a couple of olympic sized swimming pools. And water does such a good job of stopping the radiation that is actually a pretty good way of storing it. And that's without considering fuel reprocessing, which would not only drastically reduce the raw fuel need (and therefore increase the green value of nuclear power), but would reduce the final waste product to something that could fit in a broom closet. The scale of the nuclear waste problem is seriously, seriously oversold.
  - zardo 5y ago
    > The entirely of the nuclear waste produced by the United States since the beginning of its atomic program could fit in a couple of olympic sized swimming pools. Hanford alone has enough liquid nuclear waste to fill 80. Does that waste not count?
    - adastra22 5y ago