4 ms·

And still the current plan is for Germany to shut down its few remaining nuclear reactors by the end of the year, while the company/companies maintaining them a

by tpmx 4y ago

And still the current plan is for Germany to shut down its few remaining nuclear reactors by the end of the year, while the company/companies maintaining them are saying they can keep them running? Please stop the shutdown, ffs, are you insane? Let's try to stop Germany from harming itself further via international pressure. Blame and shame. Call them idiots to their faces. Point fingers. They need to shocked. The germans seem to need to need a healthy dose of sanity/science. Their politics have been hijacked by anti-nuclear anti-science activists for too long. Their celebrated "Mittelstand" industry is no good if they can't provide basic functions such as electric power in a clean way, but then again I'm not really sure they care.

cloutchaser 4y ago
looperhacks 4y ago
If you are referring to the latest discussion about a specific plant (Isar 2), the company running the plant (e.on) wants to shut it down. The discussion came up because the TÜV Süd (internationally mostly known for certifying that dam in Brazil one year before it killed 270 people because it was not safe and broke) certified that the plant is safe, but pretty much everyone involved claimed that the certificate is bogus (and the public image of the TÜV Süd is pretty bad anyway).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tpmx 4y ago
- koheripbal 4y ago
  There are three remaining plants in Germany, all scheduled to shut down this year. The Government doubled-down on it's decision claiming that the plants didn't have the resources to continue operations. In a rare moment, the operators of the plants embarrassed the gov't by going public that they could indeed continue to run safely. One thing to note is that the prime minister appointed the head German head of Greenpeace to the cabinet this year - who is ideologically against any form of nuclear power, regardless of safety.
  - the8472 4y ago
    She isn't responsible for energy, infrastructure or finance, which should be responsible departments regarding the power plants. > On February 8, 2022, it was announced that she was to be appointed to the Federal Republic of Germany's Federal Foreign Office as a special representative for international climate policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Morgan_(activist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Morgan_(activist)
    - koheripbal 4y ago
      She has publicly said that nuclear power has no place in Germany's future energy policy AS PER HER CLIMATE POLICY PLAN.
- fishoutofth 4y ago
  Just adding a source to what you're saying: --------------------------------- "Are the operators on board with an extension? The three remaining plants are each run by a different company, which all declined to answer questions in detail. A spokesperson for RWE said extending the operation of its Emsland plant in Lower Saxony would come with “high obstacles” related to technical matters and legal issues. Its Gundremmingen plant, which went offline in 2021, “has lost its operating authorization and is in the process of being safely dismantled.” EnBW, which runs the Neckarwestheim plant in Baden-Württemberg, said it was “fully committed” to Germany’s phaseout decision. E.ON has also ruled out an extension of its Isar 2 site in Bavaria. “There is no future for nuclear in Germany, period,” CEO Leon Birnbaum told the Financial Times this month. “It is too emotional. There will be no change in legislation and opinion.” --------------------------------- source: https://www.politico.eu/article/politics-behind-germany-refusal-reconsider-nuclear-phaseout/ https://www.politico.eu/article/politics-behind-germany-refu... another older article from february: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-its-nuclear-plants-running-2022-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-i...
rgbrenner 4y ago
If you cant build new plants, I dont think the solution is to run old plants forever until they fail. Shutting down old plants should have nothing to do with being pro/anti nuclear. Everything has a life span.
- tpmx 4y ago
  The plants are being shut down because of political concerns. From a technical POV they can keep running. Vattenfall was also forced to retire nuclear plants in Germany way ahead of schedule because of german politics a few years ago. That was stupid.
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    It was a political decision to set the shut down date to end of 22, but due to maintenance and fuel concerns, it might not be possible to just keep them running. Of course we can perform all necessary maintenance and order new fuel to have them back in a year or two, but it might be simpler just to push the alternatives. (If it is easily possible to keep them running, of course we should do, but that is not so clear to me)
User23 4y ago
> Let's try to stop Germany from harming itself further via international pressure. Blame and shame. Call them idiots to their faces. Point fingers. They need to shocked. Trump literally did exactly this. Needless to say they doubled down. Classic example of an inability to separate the value of a message from the messenger. The Greens are barking mad though, and not just about nuclear. Parliamentary democracy being what it is, they can sadly inflict that madness on the republic.
- tpmx 4y ago
- _ph_ 4y ago
  The Greens are the one party not responsible for the current mess Germany is is (which is much less than people here think it is). It was the previous government which decided to cut the run time of the power plants short (it didn't have Greens in the government). The previous government didn't start to cut ties with Russia after 2014. The previous government curbed the buildup of renewable energy.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dang 4y ago
Please don't call names or fulminate or do online shaming or nationalistic flamewar on HN—regardless of how wrong other people or you feel they are. You may not owe opposing energy activists better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- tpmx 4y ago
  Sorry. I realize I may have gotten a bit carried away here. You're making some good points. I'll read through the guidelines. (Fulminate is an interesting word, btw.)
_ph_ 4y ago
First of all, please don't call people names and please stay to the truth. I will take a deep breath and try to answer some of your claims calmly. Yes, one can debate whether it was a clever idea to decide in 2001 to get rid of nuclear power while there was no end date set for coal. However the plans allowed for 25 years of further run time, enough time for buildup of renewables. And Germany was quite successfull, renewables make up over 50% of the electricity. However, they fell behind the expectations because the Merkel government curbed the roll out of renewables. You can see how solar collapsed after 2012 and wind after 2017: https://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/EE/Redaktion/DE/Bilder/Grafiken_erneuerbare_Energien/Diagramm-18.png https://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/EE/Redaktion/DE/Bilder/G... On top of that, after the Fukushima disaster, it was decided to cut the run times of the nuclear power plants short. Mixing those together wasn't a great thing. Without one or even both, the path to renewables would have been smother and much further ahead. We are talking about only 3 power plants left, whatever we decide, it won't make a huge difference. But as things are, I would also be in favour of keeping them running, if we reasonably can. However that is not a given. Maintenance intervals were of course decide with the final shut down at the end of the year in mind, as was ordering of the nuclear fuel. I really don't know, whether this can be reasonably reversed without higher costs than the possible alternatives. And it is important to mention, that there is no scarcity of electricity in Germany, nor is any expected in the winter. Only 14% of the imported Gas go to electricity production. Ironically German electricity production is espeically high at the moment, as Germany has to keep the European grid up as France is failing to produce enough electricity. About 50% of the French nuclear power plants are down at the moment, they are old and require maintenance. On top of that, the rest has to run at reduced power due to limited cooling in the summer and due to the draught. Germany has for this reason produced an extra 20 TWh of electricity, partially coming from the precious gas reserves. Because the nuclear power plants are not delivering at the moment. So please cut down your flaming of Germany while it keeps the European grid running.
- tpmx 4y ago
  Based on you previous comments in this submission: I think this is a novel re-interpretation of reality, from the angle that the German Green party was somehow not responsible for the nuclear power shutdown in Germany, and the effects that had on the European power grid.

by tpmx 4y ago

cloutchaser 4y ago

looperhacks 4y ago

If you are referring to the latest discussion about a specific plant (Isar 2), the company running the plant (e.on) wants to shut it down. The discussion came up because the TÜV Süd (internationally mostly known for certifying that dam in Brazil one year before it killed 270 people because it was not safe and broke) certified that the plant is safe, but pretty much everyone involved claimed that the certificate is bogus (and the public image of the TÜV Süd is pretty bad anyway).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tpmx 4y ago
koheripbal 4y ago
There are three remaining plants in Germany, all scheduled to shut down this year. The Government doubled-down on it's decision claiming that the plants didn't have the resources to continue operations. In a rare moment, the operators of the plants embarrassed the gov't by going public that they could indeed continue to run safely. One thing to note is that the prime minister appointed the head German head of Greenpeace to the cabinet this year - who is ideologically against any form of nuclear power, regardless of safety.
- the8472 4y ago
  She isn't responsible for energy, infrastructure or finance, which should be responsible departments regarding the power plants. > On February 8, 2022, it was announced that she was to be appointed to the Federal Republic of Germany's Federal Foreign Office as a special representative for international climate policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Morgan_(activist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Morgan_(activist)
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    She has publicly said that nuclear power has no place in Germany's future energy policy AS PER HER CLIMATE POLICY PLAN.
fishoutofth 4y ago
Just adding a source to what you're saying: --------------------------------- "Are the operators on board with an extension? The three remaining plants are each run by a different company, which all declined to answer questions in detail. A spokesperson for RWE said extending the operation of its Emsland plant in Lower Saxony would come with “high obstacles” related to technical matters and legal issues. Its Gundremmingen plant, which went offline in 2021, “has lost its operating authorization and is in the process of being safely dismantled.” EnBW, which runs the Neckarwestheim plant in Baden-Württemberg, said it was “fully committed” to Germany’s phaseout decision. E.ON has also ruled out an extension of its Isar 2 site in Bavaria. “There is no future for nuclear in Germany, period,” CEO Leon Birnbaum told the Financial Times this month. “It is too emotional. There will be no change in legislation and opinion.” --------------------------------- source: https://www.politico.eu/article/politics-behind-germany-refusal-reconsider-nuclear-phaseout/ https://www.politico.eu/article/politics-behind-germany-refu... another older article from february: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-its-nuclear-plants-running-2022-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-i...

rgbrenner 4y ago

If you cant build new plants, I dont think the solution is to run old plants forever until they fail. Shutting down old plants should have nothing to do with being pro/anti nuclear. Everything has a life span.

tpmx 4y ago
The plants are being shut down because of political concerns. From a technical POV they can keep running. Vattenfall was also forced to retire nuclear plants in Germany way ahead of schedule because of german politics a few years ago. That was stupid.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  It was a political decision to set the shut down date to end of 22, but due to maintenance and fuel concerns, it might not be possible to just keep them running. Of course we can perform all necessary maintenance and order new fuel to have them back in a year or two, but it might be simpler just to push the alternatives. (If it is easily possible to keep them running, of course we should do, but that is not so clear to me)

User23 4y ago

> Let's try to stop Germany from harming itself further via international pressure. Blame and shame. Call them idiots to their faces. Point fingers. They need to shocked. Trump literally did exactly this. Needless to say they doubled down. Classic example of an inability to separate the value of a message from the messenger. The Greens are barking mad though, and not just about nuclear. Parliamentary democracy being what it is, they can sadly inflict that madness on the republic.

tpmx 4y ago
_ph_ 4y ago
The Greens are the one party not responsible for the current mess Germany is is (which is much less than people here think it is). It was the previous government which decided to cut the run time of the power plants short (it didn't have Greens in the government). The previous government didn't start to cut ties with Russia after 2014. The previous government curbed the buildup of renewable energy.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dang 4y ago

Please don't call names or fulminate or do online shaming or nationalistic flamewar on HN—regardless of how wrong other people or you feel they are. You may not owe opposing energy activists better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

tpmx 4y ago
Sorry. I realize I may have gotten a bit carried away here. You're making some good points. I'll read through the guidelines. (Fulminate is an interesting word, btw.)

_ph_ 4y ago

First of all, please don't call people names and please stay to the truth. I will take a deep breath and try to answer some of your claims calmly. Yes, one can debate whether it was a clever idea to decide in 2001 to get rid of nuclear power while there was no end date set for coal. However the plans allowed for 25 years of further run time, enough time for buildup of renewables. And Germany was quite successfull, renewables make up over 50% of the electricity. However, they fell behind the expectations because the Merkel government curbed the roll out of renewables. You can see how solar collapsed after 2012 and wind after 2017: https://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/EE/Redaktion/DE/Bilder/Grafiken_erneuerbare_Energien/Diagramm-18.png https://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/EE/Redaktion/DE/Bilder/G... On top of that, after the Fukushima disaster, it was decided to cut the run times of the nuclear power plants short. Mixing those together wasn't a great thing. Without one or even both, the path to renewables would have been smother and much further ahead. We are talking about only 3 power plants left, whatever we decide, it won't make a huge difference. But as things are, I would also be in favour of keeping them running, if we reasonably can. However that is not a given. Maintenance intervals were of course decide with the final shut down at the end of the year in mind, as was ordering of the nuclear fuel. I really don't know, whether this can be reasonably reversed without higher costs than the possible alternatives. And it is important to mention, that there is no scarcity of electricity in Germany, nor is any expected in the winter. Only 14% of the imported Gas go to electricity production. Ironically German electricity production is espeically high at the moment, as Germany has to keep the European grid up as France is failing to produce enough electricity. About 50% of the French nuclear power plants are down at the moment, they are old and require maintenance. On top of that, the rest has to run at reduced power due to limited cooling in the summer and due to the draught. Germany has for this reason produced an extra 20 TWh of electricity, partially coming from the precious gas reserves. Because the nuclear power plants are not delivering at the moment. So please cut down your flaming of Germany while it keeps the European grid running.

tpmx 4y ago
Based on you previous comments in this submission: I think this is a novel re-interpretation of reality, from the angle that the German Green party was somehow not responsible for the nuclear power shutdown in Germany, and the effects that had on the European power grid.