4 ms·

> lack of developed nuclear power Well, Germany had a few (remaining) nuclear power plants, and the lasts were shut down this year for political reasons. Appar

> lack of developed nuclear power Well, Germany had a few (remaining) nuclear power plants, and the lasts were shut down this year for political reasons. Apparently, it's better to import gas from Qatar and burn coal in the meantime while enjoying a (partially) self inflicted recession.

hef19898 3y ago
Besides some random commenters on the internet, nobody swriously links the complex nuclear exit in Germany to the current recession.
- asah 3y ago
  ? Sorry why?
  - 411111111111111 3y ago
    The nuclear power plants that were shut down would’ve needed extremely expensive maintenance to keep them running. It’s a really complicated issue, with lots of misinformation floating around on both sides of the discussion. After all, nuclear power plants aren’t actually economically viable either without heavy subsidisation and socialising the trash management (at least the ones we’ve had in Germany). While I can’t say wherever Germany should’ve built more nuclear power plants… I’m however certain that most online discussions about the topic are extremely misinformed. The biggest reason for this situation is probably corruption, some of which has been proven and reported on going back decades with Schroeder for example.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      That kind of corruption goes bavk to the likes of Strauss. Otherwise, fully agree.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      > The nuclear power plants that were shut down would’ve needed extremely expensive maintenance to keep them running. That's false. The reason for the shot down was not economical but political. We pay an extremely high price for our nuclear delusions.
      - 411111111111111 3y ago
        It’s both true. Their maintenance was delayed for years because of that political decision to shut them down, which worsened the situation. And for the record: I never claimed that the decision to shut them down wasn’t politically motivated, I just pointed out multiple reasons why it wasn’t completely bonkers. The way you phrased your point also makes it pretty transparent why misinformation campaigns work so well. You once heard one part of the story and now believe to understand a very multilayered situation.
        cubefox 3y ago
        Calling the situation multilayered is just an excuse to partly justify this terrible mistake. There is no doubt that the cost of shutting them down far exceeds the cost of letting them run, so the remark about "extremely expensive" maintenance is just false.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        hef19898 3y ago
        Maintenance to keep them running would have been prohibitively expensive, because non was done in last years due the decision to shut them down. So yes, the cost of getting them back into running shape was prohibitive due to that maintenance backlog. Different question so, instead of complaining about spoiled milk, what is your proposal for the future? A realistic one please takong into account project lead times for new power plants.
        baridbelmedar 3y ago
  - oezi 3y ago
    The remaining nuclear power plants just had 4GW of output. Just this year alone 12 GW of renewables will come online.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      That's a dishonest comparison as wind and solar are extremely volatile and can't replace a stable power source. You need something like coal for that.
      - oezi 3y ago
        You need peaking power plants such as Gas to cover volatility. The comparison is a bit dishonest because it doesn't include the capacity factor of either technology: Solar ~11% Wind ~21% Nucear ~90%
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
gregman1 3y ago
The lost generations of nuclear engineers in Germany is a concerning issue. Training a nuclear engineer requires a long-term commitment, from sparking interest in the field to building new plants in Europe. Without a new generation of nuclear engineers, Germany will struggle to maintain its nuclear power plants and develop new ones. It's crucial to invest in education and training programs to attract and retain young talent in the nuclear industry. Doing it today may result in a new power plant in like… 60-100 years.

hef19898 3y ago

Besides some random commenters on the internet, nobody swriously links the complex nuclear exit in Germany to the current recession.

asah 3y ago
? Sorry why?
- 411111111111111 3y ago
  The nuclear power plants that were shut down would’ve needed extremely expensive maintenance to keep them running. It’s a really complicated issue, with lots of misinformation floating around on both sides of the discussion. After all, nuclear power plants aren’t actually economically viable either without heavy subsidisation and socialising the trash management (at least the ones we’ve had in Germany). While I can’t say wherever Germany should’ve built more nuclear power plants… I’m however certain that most online discussions about the topic are extremely misinformed. The biggest reason for this situation is probably corruption, some of which has been proven and reported on going back decades with Schroeder for example.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    That kind of corruption goes bavk to the likes of Strauss. Otherwise, fully agree.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    > The nuclear power plants that were shut down would’ve needed extremely expensive maintenance to keep them running. That's false. The reason for the shot down was not economical but political. We pay an extremely high price for our nuclear delusions.
    - 411111111111111 3y ago
      It’s both true. Their maintenance was delayed for years because of that political decision to shut them down, which worsened the situation. And for the record: I never claimed that the decision to shut them down wasn’t politically motivated, I just pointed out multiple reasons why it wasn’t completely bonkers. The way you phrased your point also makes it pretty transparent why misinformation campaigns work so well. You once heard one part of the story and now believe to understand a very multilayered situation.
      - cubefox 3y ago
        Calling the situation multilayered is just an excuse to partly justify this terrible mistake. There is no doubt that the cost of shutting them down far exceeds the cost of letting them run, so the remark about "extremely expensive" maintenance is just false.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        hef19898 3y ago
        Maintenance to keep them running would have been prohibitively expensive, because non was done in last years due the decision to shut them down. So yes, the cost of getting them back into running shape was prohibitive due to that maintenance backlog. Different question so, instead of complaining about spoiled milk, what is your proposal for the future? A realistic one please takong into account project lead times for new power plants.
        baridbelmedar 3y ago
- oezi 3y ago
  The remaining nuclear power plants just had 4GW of output. Just this year alone 12 GW of renewables will come online.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    That's a dishonest comparison as wind and solar are extremely volatile and can't replace a stable power source. You need something like coal for that.
    - oezi 3y ago
      You need peaking power plants such as Gas to cover volatility. The comparison is a bit dishonest because it doesn't include the capacity factor of either technology: Solar ~11% Wind ~21% Nucear ~90%
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

gregman1 3y ago

The lost generations of nuclear engineers in Germany is a concerning issue. Training a nuclear engineer requires a long-term commitment, from sparking interest in the field to building new plants in Europe. Without a new generation of nuclear engineers, Germany will struggle to maintain its nuclear power plants and develop new ones. It's crucial to invest in education and training programs to attract and retain young talent in the nuclear industry. Doing it today may result in a new power plant in like… 60-100 years.