3 ms·

German energy policy baffles me. The were once the leader in nuclear energy. They really should have kept that lead, and built more nuclear plants and aggressi

German energy policy baffles me. The were once the leader in nuclear energy. They really should have kept that lead, and built more nuclear plants and aggressively switched to electric first solutions such as heat pumps, EVs etc. Instead, they are winding down their nuclear power plants, and increasing their reliance on fossil fuels in the near to mid term, at the very least, which means issues like this will plague them for some time. No idea why they didn't pursue more energy independence when they had the chance

lazide 3y ago
It boils down to feeling good about helping the planet, without doing the math or recognizing the hard realities IMO. When the policy was started, the USSR had fallen, the world was on the upswing, etc. etc. optimism, enthusiasm, etc. These issues were all called out at the time.
jupp0r 3y ago
Nuclear is just not competitive anymore if compared to renewables and storage. I'm not saying that this was the primary reason for Germany for shutting down their plants, but keep in mind that they didn't start construction of new reactors after Chernobyl.
- yodelshady 3y ago
  Literally nobody runs storage, not at the required volumes for a North European country. To claim otherwise is just a fucking lie. Just... what is your plan with this? The reality is, North European countries are now wholly reliant on there not being a cold winter again. If you check three simple things: the number of MW of heating demands, the lithium prices for a MWh, and the god damn ninety-fifth percentile worst weeks for wind+solar at >45 degrees North, to get the number of hours. You can do this, and ask people with money in the game whilst you're at it. The answer is not ambiguous, and it is no where fucking near regardless of what a Twitter bro with 50 MWh in a desert will prat on about. So why. The Fuck. Haven't you?
  - jupp0r 3y ago
    I'm not sure what you are implying. Cost of nuclear power plant projects have been well documented in the past and there are lots of current projects to look at. The initial investment costs, cost overruns and high interest rate environment just make it very unattractive economically to build nuclear plants with current designs. There was an excellent podcast episode of The Red Line podcast recently going into details of the capex calculations if you are interested: https://www.theredlinepodcast.com/post/episode-102-the-economic-feasibility-of-nuclear-power https://www.theredlinepodcast.com/post/episode-102-the-econo.... This is not saying that technological advancements like SMRs can't change the economics to be more favorable, but it's really not the case if you wanted to start building a plant right now.
    - lazide 3y ago
      The direct comment you replied to is pointing out that besides fossil fuels, there is not only no plan, but no other real apparent options in these scenarios. Which are real scenarios and will almost certainly occur. So either: 1) we’d need to do massive investment right now (on the order of wartime economic reorganization) for renewables, which no one seems interested in. And while plenty of people seem happy to say things are fine but that don’t even come close to penciling out in reality. 2) maybe actually get better at nuclear. 3) have some non-trivial percentage of the population either freeze to death during some “unexpected” winter storm that was entirely predictable, or go back to fossil fuels (if they can) on an emergency basis. Or, my guess at the most likely outcome; 4) pretend everything is fine until a bunch of people die, then blame those people for their moral failings. Then start panicking.
pgeorgi 3y ago
No new nuclear power plants since 1989. Peak electricity grid contribution by nuclear power plants: ~30%, while oil and natural gas were used for heating (so replacing that with nuclear power means doubling NPP output, roughly). So Germany still would have had to increase its nuclear power plant capacity 6-fold to go all in. Compared to France (70% from nuclear power, natural gas for heating in only ~1/3 of homes) this hardly looks like leadership. As for the reasons: There has been a series of events where nuclear reactors weren't properly handled and where politics colluded with the operators to sweep it under the rug. No matter how safe the technology _could_ be, its management was horrendous. One such example was a "passively safe" reactor that by now is a glowing mess for 40 years already, and will remain so for another 60-80 years before it can be dismantled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor Key quote from that Wikipedia article: "The report listed hidden or downplayed events and accidents and described serious concealed problems and wrongdoings. For example, in 1978 operators bypassed reactor shutdown controls to delay an emergency shutdown during an accident for six days." As long as people argue about the merits of the technology, they miss the German discourse on nuclear power completely.
mikewarot 3y ago
Groups that would benefit from the shutdown of nuclear funded the Green movement, which then essentially lead to the country shooting itself in the foot.

lazide 3y ago

It boils down to feeling good about helping the planet, without doing the math or recognizing the hard realities IMO. When the policy was started, the USSR had fallen, the world was on the upswing, etc. etc. optimism, enthusiasm, etc. These issues were all called out at the time.

jupp0r 3y ago

Nuclear is just not competitive anymore if compared to renewables and storage. I'm not saying that this was the primary reason for Germany for shutting down their plants, but keep in mind that they didn't start construction of new reactors after Chernobyl.

yodelshady 3y ago
Literally nobody runs storage, not at the required volumes for a North European country. To claim otherwise is just a fucking lie. Just... what is your plan with this? The reality is, North European countries are now wholly reliant on there not being a cold winter again. If you check three simple things: the number of MW of heating demands, the lithium prices for a MWh, and the god damn ninety-fifth percentile worst weeks for wind+solar at >45 degrees North, to get the number of hours. You can do this, and ask people with money in the game whilst you're at it. The answer is not ambiguous, and it is no where fucking near regardless of what a Twitter bro with 50 MWh in a desert will prat on about. So why. The Fuck. Haven't you?
- jupp0r 3y ago
  I'm not sure what you are implying. Cost of nuclear power plant projects have been well documented in the past and there are lots of current projects to look at. The initial investment costs, cost overruns and high interest rate environment just make it very unattractive economically to build nuclear plants with current designs. There was an excellent podcast episode of The Red Line podcast recently going into details of the capex calculations if you are interested: https://www.theredlinepodcast.com/post/episode-102-the-economic-feasibility-of-nuclear-power https://www.theredlinepodcast.com/post/episode-102-the-econo.... This is not saying that technological advancements like SMRs can't change the economics to be more favorable, but it's really not the case if you wanted to start building a plant right now.
  - lazide 3y ago
    The direct comment you replied to is pointing out that besides fossil fuels, there is not only no plan, but no other real apparent options in these scenarios. Which are real scenarios and will almost certainly occur. So either: 1) we’d need to do massive investment right now (on the order of wartime economic reorganization) for renewables, which no one seems interested in. And while plenty of people seem happy to say things are fine but that don’t even come close to penciling out in reality. 2) maybe actually get better at nuclear. 3) have some non-trivial percentage of the population either freeze to death during some “unexpected” winter storm that was entirely predictable, or go back to fossil fuels (if they can) on an emergency basis. Or, my guess at the most likely outcome; 4) pretend everything is fine until a bunch of people die, then blame those people for their moral failings. Then start panicking.

pgeorgi 3y ago

No new nuclear power plants since 1989. Peak electricity grid contribution by nuclear power plants: ~30%, while oil and natural gas were used for heating (so replacing that with nuclear power means doubling NPP output, roughly). So Germany still would have had to increase its nuclear power plant capacity 6-fold to go all in. Compared to France (70% from nuclear power, natural gas for heating in only ~1/3 of homes) this hardly looks like leadership. As for the reasons: There has been a series of events where nuclear reactors weren't properly handled and where politics colluded with the operators to sweep it under the rug. No matter how safe the technology _could_ be, its management was horrendous. One such example was a "passively safe" reactor that by now is a glowing mess for 40 years already, and will remain so for another 60-80 years before it can be dismantled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor Key quote from that Wikipedia article: "The report listed hidden or downplayed events and accidents and described serious concealed problems and wrongdoings. For example, in 1978 operators bypassed reactor shutdown controls to delay an emergency shutdown during an accident for six days." As long as people argue about the merits of the technology, they miss the German discourse on nuclear power completely.

mikewarot 3y ago

Groups that would benefit from the shutdown of nuclear funded the Green movement, which then essentially lead to the country shooting itself in the foot.