5 ms·

"Uh...Germany's actually recarbonized by shutting down their nuclear" Germany outsourced their nuclear to France. Remember that Germany and France are no long

"Uh...Germany's actually recarbonized by shutting down their nuclear" Germany outsourced their nuclear to France. Remember that Germany and France are no longer countries, but states in the Eurozone within the wider European Union. It's the same effect as, say, New Mexico exporting nuclear power to California and California then calling itself 'nuclear free'.

stkdump 4y ago
Germany is still a net exporter of electricity. France benefits from that, because in recent years they had to shut down their nuclear plants during heatwaves, when the rivers they use to cool them got too warm. I guess that will only get more frequent in the future.
- roenxi 4y ago
  > Germany is still a net exporter of electricity. Very difficult to interpret that fact when dealing with renewable-heavy grids. Germany probably doesn't have a lot of control over when the energy is being generated - so it is entirely possible that they are exporting but still reliant on electricity imports - if power is being produced when it is not needed.
- varajelle 4y ago
  This is a funny argument against nuclear. Some nuclear reactor have to shut down for a few days to avoid heating the rivers is a big problem. But the solar panel being down more than half the time (night or clouds) and the wind turbine also being down depending on the wind in uncontrollable ways is Ok.
  - jillesvangurp 4y ago
    Shutting down and restarting nuclear plants is super expensive and that actually adds to their cost problem. Predictable intermittencies of solar and wind are a given and mainly a challenge for other energy sources on the grid. For example, a lot of gas plants originally intended for base load are now pushed into the role of peaker plants. When there is cheap solar and wind power available, it's cheaper to shut down gas production. Of course that vastly reduces overall profitability of these gas plants. Any time they don't produce, they still cost money. Nuclear peaker plants are not a thing. It's just not practical.
  - croes 4y ago
    How many wind turbines have to be down to have the same effect as one nuclear power plant being down? Not to mention that some people think Putin could attack other countries after Ukraine. That's not the time you want nuclear power plants as possible target.
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      Ridiculous argument. A nuclear power plant is much less of a concern as a target than, you know, Berlin.
      - mixermachine 4y ago
        Attacking a nuclear power plant is quite effective in terms of ammunition vs burned soil. If somebody attacks my region I would rather not like to worry about nuclear to be honest.
      - croes 4y ago
        How long did it take to repair the damage in Berlin after WW2, for how many years has Chernobyl power plant been a problem? And how many years will it remain so? In any case, I have not heard of any fears that Russian missiles could damage Ukrainian wind or solar power plants.
  - uecker 4y ago
    At the moment half of France's nuclear plants are down for months and France is relying on imports. But this no the argument against nuclear. The argument against nuclear is that it simply is far too expensive.
- shakow 4y ago
  > because in recent years they had to shut down their nuclear plants during heatwaves, when the rivers they use to cool them got too warm This is an ecological concern, not a technical one. If the French are ok with frying fishes, they can let their nukes run.
runarberg 4y ago
No, the math doesn’t add up. The most recent reactor to open in France was in 2002. In the last 30 years France has opened a total of 5 new reactors with 7.300 MW of nuclear energy capacity (not subtracting the ~3.500 MW it decommissioned in the same period). In the same period Germany has closed 17 reactors with total capacity of around 18.000 MW (assuming I tallied correctly). So unless France has significantly changed their energy production for their domestic usage (or reduced their energy consumption by a lot), this myth is simply false. Germany is not replacing their domestic nuclear energy with France’s.
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  There is also the notion that the energy market overall has grown quite a bit and continues to grow. Nuclear has been declining for a long time. Both in absolute and relative terms.
mdp2021 4y ago
> no longer countries Well, no. The entities united in the European Union are still Countries - Sovereign States, "governments over permanent populations in defined territories enabled to relate with peers, entering as part of the international community after recognition from at least one peer". They have embassies and deal with embassies. The distinction you are trying to convey, allegedly changing the scenario in energy trade, is not clear.
- sharikous 4y ago
  EU law arguably has a greater weight than individual constitutions now. There are some countries like Poland which claim to not accept that, but the principle of EU law supremacy has become generally accepted (even without a referendum in that sense...)
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > EU law supremacy ... individual constitutions The EU Council and the EU Commission can issue "Directives", which States must implement, and "Regulations", direct laws, with power to override national ones. (Plus "Decisions", "Recommendations" and "Opinions" - see https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law/types-legislation_en https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law... ) The possibility of "Regulations" is clearly and explicitly a delicate matter which has to find the right space for movement in a collection of Sovereign States. Constitutions and laws are very different entities: a Constitution is the Social Contract to which citizens subscribe, the collection of the guidelines defining the National Project. This already entails, a Constitution indicates a Country - it strengthens the point. This said, I am still confused about that original idea some proposed, according to which Countries and Not-Sovereign States have critical differences in energy trade.
  - bakuninsbart 4y ago
    The actual situation is a bit more complex. Basically, the EU would argue that EU law trumps national law, and this is also in some of the contracts... however, there is no higher authority here in Germany than the consitution, some parts of which cannot be changed. Basically, if our constitutional court decides that some of the things going on in the EU are unconstitutional, and the legislative can't change those paragraphs in the constitution, then Germany would crash out of the EU. This is similar for a lot of the other member states, so there's a lot of careful maneuvring to avoid these kinds of confrontations. One situation where this almost happened was during the discussion on Eurobonds. [0] [0] https://www.dw.com/en/eu-launches-infringement-proceedings-against-germany-for-bond-buying-challenge/a-57826186 https://www.dw.com/en/eu-launches-infringement-proceedings-a...
jhgb 4y ago
> are no longer countries, but states in the Eurozone 1) All countries are states. 2) EU countries are still countries.

stkdump 4y ago

Germany is still a net exporter of electricity. France benefits from that, because in recent years they had to shut down their nuclear plants during heatwaves, when the rivers they use to cool them got too warm. I guess that will only get more frequent in the future.

roenxi 4y ago
> Germany is still a net exporter of electricity. Very difficult to interpret that fact when dealing with renewable-heavy grids. Germany probably doesn't have a lot of control over when the energy is being generated - so it is entirely possible that they are exporting but still reliant on electricity imports - if power is being produced when it is not needed.
varajelle 4y ago
This is a funny argument against nuclear. Some nuclear reactor have to shut down for a few days to avoid heating the rivers is a big problem. But the solar panel being down more than half the time (night or clouds) and the wind turbine also being down depending on the wind in uncontrollable ways is Ok.
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  Shutting down and restarting nuclear plants is super expensive and that actually adds to their cost problem. Predictable intermittencies of solar and wind are a given and mainly a challenge for other energy sources on the grid. For example, a lot of gas plants originally intended for base load are now pushed into the role of peaker plants. When there is cheap solar and wind power available, it's cheaper to shut down gas production. Of course that vastly reduces overall profitability of these gas plants. Any time they don't produce, they still cost money. Nuclear peaker plants are not a thing. It's just not practical.
- croes 4y ago
  How many wind turbines have to be down to have the same effect as one nuclear power plant being down? Not to mention that some people think Putin could attack other countries after Ukraine. That's not the time you want nuclear power plants as possible target.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    Ridiculous argument. A nuclear power plant is much less of a concern as a target than, you know, Berlin.
    - mixermachine 4y ago
      Attacking a nuclear power plant is quite effective in terms of ammunition vs burned soil. If somebody attacks my region I would rather not like to worry about nuclear to be honest.
    - croes 4y ago
      How long did it take to repair the damage in Berlin after WW2, for how many years has Chernobyl power plant been a problem? And how many years will it remain so? In any case, I have not heard of any fears that Russian missiles could damage Ukrainian wind or solar power plants.
- uecker 4y ago
  At the moment half of France's nuclear plants are down for months and France is relying on imports. But this no the argument against nuclear. The argument against nuclear is that it simply is far too expensive.
shakow 4y ago
> because in recent years they had to shut down their nuclear plants during heatwaves, when the rivers they use to cool them got too warm This is an ecological concern, not a technical one. If the French are ok with frying fishes, they can let their nukes run.

runarberg 4y ago

No, the math doesn’t add up. The most recent reactor to open in France was in 2002. In the last 30 years France has opened a total of 5 new reactors with 7.300 MW of nuclear energy capacity (not subtracting the ~3.500 MW it decommissioned in the same period). In the same period Germany has closed 17 reactors with total capacity of around 18.000 MW (assuming I tallied correctly). So unless France has significantly changed their energy production for their domestic usage (or reduced their energy consumption by a lot), this myth is simply false. Germany is not replacing their domestic nuclear energy with France’s.

jillesvangurp 4y ago
There is also the notion that the energy market overall has grown quite a bit and continues to grow. Nuclear has been declining for a long time. Both in absolute and relative terms.

mdp2021 4y ago

> no longer countries Well, no. The entities united in the European Union are still Countries - Sovereign States, "governments over permanent populations in defined territories enabled to relate with peers, entering as part of the international community after recognition from at least one peer". They have embassies and deal with embassies. The distinction you are trying to convey, allegedly changing the scenario in energy trade, is not clear.

sharikous 4y ago
EU law arguably has a greater weight than individual constitutions now. There are some countries like Poland which claim to not accept that, but the principle of EU law supremacy has become generally accepted (even without a referendum in that sense...)
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > EU law supremacy ... individual constitutions The EU Council and the EU Commission can issue "Directives", which States must implement, and "Regulations", direct laws, with power to override national ones. (Plus "Decisions", "Recommendations" and "Opinions" - see https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law/types-legislation_en https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law... ) The possibility of "Regulations" is clearly and explicitly a delicate matter which has to find the right space for movement in a collection of Sovereign States. Constitutions and laws are very different entities: a Constitution is the Social Contract to which citizens subscribe, the collection of the guidelines defining the National Project. This already entails, a Constitution indicates a Country - it strengthens the point. This said, I am still confused about that original idea some proposed, according to which Countries and Not-Sovereign States have critical differences in energy trade.
- bakuninsbart 4y ago
  The actual situation is a bit more complex. Basically, the EU would argue that EU law trumps national law, and this is also in some of the contracts... however, there is no higher authority here in Germany than the consitution, some parts of which cannot be changed. Basically, if our constitutional court decides that some of the things going on in the EU are unconstitutional, and the legislative can't change those paragraphs in the constitution, then Germany would crash out of the EU. This is similar for a lot of the other member states, so there's a lot of careful maneuvring to avoid these kinds of confrontations. One situation where this almost happened was during the discussion on Eurobonds. [0] [0] https://www.dw.com/en/eu-launches-infringement-proceedings-against-germany-for-bond-buying-challenge/a-57826186 https://www.dw.com/en/eu-launches-infringement-proceedings-a...

jhgb 4y ago

> are no longer countries, but states in the Eurozone 1) All countries are states. 2) EU countries are still countries.