3 ms·

Tell that to France, those losers still generate 70% of energy with nuclear plants, instead of following the lead of their German colleagues in denuclearizing t

Tell that to France, those losers still generate 70% of energy with nuclear plants, instead of following the lead of their German colleagues in denuclearizing their energy grid.

ncmncm 4y ago
Yet, France has no plans to build replacements for the large majority of plants soon to age out. What they will build is purely politically motivated. Those probably will not be completed, as they would be uncompetitive, but ratepayers might be forced to make them profitable by paying way more for power than their neighbors. Germany elected to build out a great deal of wind generation capacity rather than refurbish a much smaller capacity of aged, ramshackle nukes. That has worked out extremely well, and they continue.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  > Germany elected to build out a great deal of wind generation capacity rather than refurbish a much smaller capacity of aged, ramshackle nukes. That has worked out extremely well, and they continue. Really? It has worked really well?? Thanks to these really well policies, Germany has an unbreakable dependence on Russian has [1] and has paid billions of euros to Putin's murderous regime since the start of the war with Ukraine [2]. If this is 'really well', I'd rather pass. In conclusion, I suggest you start looking more rationally on energy generation, I sense a lot of anger and unexplained hatred towards nuclear power ('aged, ramshackle nukes' is not a rational sensible argumentation). [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/world/europe/germany-gas-russia-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/world/europe/germany-gas-... [2]: https://crea.shinyapps.io/russia_counter/ https://crea.shinyapps.io/russia_counter/
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Germany was dependent on fossil imports all along. What has changed is they import less, now, than when they ran the nukes. They will import decreasing amounts as they build out more renewables. It is a fact that the nukes shut down would have needed a great deal of expensive work to continue operating. Germany elected to spend the money on wind, instead, and it bought them more actually delivered wattage than the shut-down nukes had provided. If nukes were not the most expensive power source going, I would be all for it.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      Are you really arguing that they'd import more gas now if they hadn't shut down the nuclear plants? Everyone including Germans have understood by now that phasing out nuclear was a mistake, but you still repeat that no, gas dependency good, nuclear power independence bad.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Yes. They would be importing more fossil fuels now if they had not built out wind, and had instead spent the money on their reactors.
        Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
        If they hadn't destroyed their nuclear generation AND created wind&solar, etc, they wouldn't have to import anything from Russia. For some reason, you (incorrectly) presume that maintaining nuclear energy prevents building wind generators. Also, the money 'spent' on reactors is kinda paid off by customers who pay for the generated electricity.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Money is fungible. Each euro spent on one thing is a euro not spent on a different thing. Electrical power is also fungible. A kWh delivered is a kWh, whether generated on a nuke or in a wind turbine.

Tell that to France, those losers still generate 70% of energy with nuclear plants, instead of following the lead of their German colleagues in denuclearizing their energy grid.

ncmncm 4y ago

Yet, France has no plans to build replacements for the large majority of plants soon to age out. What they will build is purely politically motivated. Those probably will not be completed, as they would be uncompetitive, but ratepayers might be forced to make them profitable by paying way more for power than their neighbors. Germany elected to build out a great deal of wind generation capacity rather than refurbish a much smaller capacity of aged, ramshackle nukes. That has worked out extremely well, and they continue.

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
> Germany elected to build out a great deal of wind generation capacity rather than refurbish a much smaller capacity of aged, ramshackle nukes. That has worked out extremely well, and they continue. Really? It has worked really well?? Thanks to these really well policies, Germany has an unbreakable dependence on Russian has [1] and has paid billions of euros to Putin's murderous regime since the start of the war with Ukraine [2]. If this is 'really well', I'd rather pass. In conclusion, I suggest you start looking more rationally on energy generation, I sense a lot of anger and unexplained hatred towards nuclear power ('aged, ramshackle nukes' is not a rational sensible argumentation). [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/world/europe/germany-gas-russia-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/world/europe/germany-gas-... [2]: https://crea.shinyapps.io/russia_counter/ https://crea.shinyapps.io/russia_counter/
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Germany was dependent on fossil imports all along. What has changed is they import less, now, than when they ran the nukes. They will import decreasing amounts as they build out more renewables. It is a fact that the nukes shut down would have needed a great deal of expensive work to continue operating. Germany elected to spend the money on wind, instead, and it bought them more actually delivered wattage than the shut-down nukes had provided. If nukes were not the most expensive power source going, I would be all for it.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    Are you really arguing that they'd import more gas now if they hadn't shut down the nuclear plants? Everyone including Germans have understood by now that phasing out nuclear was a mistake, but you still repeat that no, gas dependency good, nuclear power independence bad.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Yes. They would be importing more fossil fuels now if they had not built out wind, and had instead spent the money on their reactors.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
        If they hadn't destroyed their nuclear generation AND created wind&solar, etc, they wouldn't have to import anything from Russia. For some reason, you (incorrectly) presume that maintaining nuclear energy prevents building wind generators. Also, the money 'spent' on reactors is kinda paid off by customers who pay for the generated electricity.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Money is fungible. Each euro spent on one thing is a euro not spent on a different thing. Electrical power is also fungible. A kWh delivered is a kWh, whether generated on a nuke or in a wind turbine.