3 ms·

It is one of the best options available given the limitations of the area. Germany does not have the geography for large-scale hydropower like e.g. Norway does,

It is one of the best options available given the limitations of the area. Germany does not have the geography for large-scale hydropower like e.g. Norway does, it does not have large-scale access to geothermal energy sources like Iceland does, it does not have access to reliable wind like actually not that many places have - where 'reliable' stands for 'does not stop when you need it'. It does not have access to large deposits of natural gas like the Netherlands once did and Russia still does. What Germany does have is coal of varying qualities, much of it on the lower end of the quality scale. More importantly, what Germany does have is a tradition of engineering excellence which is just the thing needed to design and build effective nuclear power infrastructure. France succeeded here so I see no reason why Germany could not if they only managed to convince - or push aside - the remaining recalcitrant 'green' politicos.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
Germany also doesn't have Uranium either. Nuclear power plants are simply not competitive. Part of that is due to legal security requirements. But they need fuel and cooling to work. They need to be rebuild regularly and the storage question is not solved. There is a lack infrastructure and energy storage, this is why Germany exports power to other countries who have them, but solving these issues are a better strategy than new nuclear plants. Nuclear power will not help fighting climate change and it is simply too expensive compared to other renewable sources. That is the opinion of leading engineers too and exceptionally widely spread.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  Sweden has plenty of Uranium and is on friendly foot with Germany. The demand for Uranium is also much easier to meet than that for combustibles like coal, oil and gas. Germany was on the verge of firing up a fast breeder reactor in Kalkar [1] which would have solved both the nuclear waste problem as well as made it far less dependent on incoming fission-grade Uranium. The reactor was ready for its first load of spent nuclear fuel - which it would have turned into new fuel for traditional fission reactors plus a small amount of highly radioactive [2] waste - but it was never started due to the protests of the predecessors of the 'greens'. Imagine a Germany which would have gone the route the French - who did build fast breeder reactors - went. Imagine the reduction in dependency on imported fuels and the reduction in emissions. Also imagine a German industry which would have been less dependent on combustible fuels due to the availability of lower-priced electricity. That industry would have been far better prepared for the rise of cheaper renewable electricity sources like solar an wind. Compare this to the current situation where those same 'greens' responsible for making this evolution impossible now voted for an increased use of coal-fired power plants to be able to close the last nuclear power plants. [1] https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:23072049 https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:23072049 [2] highly radioactive which implies a short half-life, this type of waste needs to be stored for a period of 100-300 years instead of the thousands required for spent fuel pellets. It also is of much smaller volume and as such solved the nuclear waste problem as well as (supposed) fuel problem.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

Germany also doesn't have Uranium either. Nuclear power plants are simply not competitive. Part of that is due to legal security requirements. But they need fuel and cooling to work. They need to be rebuild regularly and the storage question is not solved. There is a lack infrastructure and energy storage, this is why Germany exports power to other countries who have them, but solving these issues are a better strategy than new nuclear plants. Nuclear power will not help fighting climate change and it is simply too expensive compared to other renewable sources. That is the opinion of leading engineers too and exceptionally widely spread.

the_third_wave 4y ago
Sweden has plenty of Uranium and is on friendly foot with Germany. The demand for Uranium is also much easier to meet than that for combustibles like coal, oil and gas. Germany was on the verge of firing up a fast breeder reactor in Kalkar [1] which would have solved both the nuclear waste problem as well as made it far less dependent on incoming fission-grade Uranium. The reactor was ready for its first load of spent nuclear fuel - which it would have turned into new fuel for traditional fission reactors plus a small amount of highly radioactive [2] waste - but it was never started due to the protests of the predecessors of the 'greens'. Imagine a Germany which would have gone the route the French - who did build fast breeder reactors - went. Imagine the reduction in dependency on imported fuels and the reduction in emissions. Also imagine a German industry which would have been less dependent on combustible fuels due to the availability of lower-priced electricity. That industry would have been far better prepared for the rise of cheaper renewable electricity sources like solar an wind. Compare this to the current situation where those same 'greens' responsible for making this evolution impossible now voted for an increased use of coal-fired power plants to be able to close the last nuclear power plants. [1] https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:23072049 https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:23072049 [2] highly radioactive which implies a short half-life, this type of waste needs to be stored for a period of 100-300 years instead of the thousands required for spent fuel pellets. It also is of much smaller volume and as such solved the nuclear waste problem as well as (supposed) fuel problem.