3 ms·
That's dishonest. They had three month to reverse the decision on the first three in time of an energy crisis but refused to do it; they took another year not t
by JanSt 3y ago
That's dishonest. They had three month to reverse the decision on the first three in time of an energy crisis but refused to do it; they took another year not to switch off the next three. The decision HAD to be revised because of the energy crisis and lack of gas. They didn't.
The production has NOT been compensated. We just produce less and import more. It will take years to compensate the six reactors - a lot of time and CO2 emitted.
- _ph_ 3y agoIt is dishonest to claim the decision could have been reverted in the last 3 months. They were in no shape to be kept running. First of all, the fuel rods were spent and would have to be ordered and would have had long delivery times. But the biggest concern would have been maintenance. The maintenance schedule was of course planned with the scheduled shut-down in mind. So a lot of maintenance and refurbishment would have had to be done. So we are talking about a possible several-year downtime at least. Which makes the whole idea very questionable. If a prolonging the life-time of the reactors would have been desired, the previous government should have done it. Then the necessary steps could have been done without a long downtime. And mind you: they were shut down so early because the previous government hat decided to do so. The initial plan allowed for much longer run times.
- JanSt 3y agoThere would have been NO road blocks for extending the lifetime. Westinghouse offered fuel rods which would have been delivered in time. They had all the normal maintenance (every 2 years) and were in pristine condition, much better than most other nuclear reactors on this planet. Only the 10 year interval was pushed out, but it's just an additional check to further increase safety over the long term. No downtime would have been required, especially no multi-year downtime. The previous government did not know that Russia was to attack Ukraine and gas flow was about to stop with all the effects on energy availability and prices.
- _ph_ 3y agoNo, that is not true. Maintenance was done with the respect to the planned life time. They couldn't just have kept running. That the previous government didn't knew about the Russian war onto Ukraine makes no difference. Gas prices have recovered to pre-war levels, so there is no extra need for the nuclear plants compared to before the war.
- JanSt 3y agoThis is simple not true. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/politik-steffi-lemke-gruene-akw-kernkraft-offener-brief-zur-atomkraft-sicherheitsexperten-der-regierung-widersprechen-umweltministerin-li.263141 https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/politik... You still pay teice the price for gas as before because we had 30yr low costs (below spot) contracts with Gazprom.
- _ph_ 3y agoThe article is about shutting down the reactors at the 31.12.22. As you know, they were not shut down at that date but ran some months more. That doesn't say anything about the long term maintenance requirements. And in any case they would have to be inspected before any further decisions to be taken as the article only states "they might be able to run further". But that was only an opinion, not a result of a inspection.