4 ms·

Lifetime extensions do not result in additional capacity. Regarding the Energiewende, the initial plan from the SPD-Green government was decent. It was then re

by hef19898 3y ago

Lifetime extensions do not result in additional capacity. Regarding the Energiewende, the initial plan from the SPD-Green government was decent. It was then revised, before being rushed in again by a CDU/CSU-FDP government after Fukushima. By the way, no new reactors were planned during that time anyway. And please, do everyone a favour, look up the numbers of reactors under construction, reactors planned and proposed, the number of planned shut downs, the corresponding capacities and then compare those to the nameplate capacity of other sources going online. And yes, I know the load factor for solar and wind is lower. But what these numbers tell you is, that the money does not go nuclear, not even close. And all that is before we talk actual costs, construction times and delays.

mpweiher 3y ago
"out 14 of which are scheduled to be decommissioned in the 2030s or before. " That was the start of the post I replied to.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Lets put it in a formula: - comparison of net additional capacities: total name plate capacity of new NPPs being build + total nameplate capacity of new NPPs planned and proposed - nameplate capacity going offline vs. new solar + wind capacity being installed, do that on a yearly basis intil, say, 2035 Run the math, provide sources for the numbers, come back and share the result and your interpretation of it. Takes about max. an hour if you don't where to look for input data yet, much less if you do already.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    Why should I do that? The policy shift was announced was announced December 2nd of this year. So 26 days ago. And your counter is "so where are all the new nuclear plants, I don't see them". Seriously?
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Glad we agree that so far there was no nuclear build out, anywhere! Edit: COP28 agreed on triplong renewable capacity to 11 TW by 2030. If we consider pledges for future NPPs, I think it is just fair to do the same when it comes to renewables, right?
      - mpweiher 3y ago
        Also incorrect. There was quite a bit of nuclear built. For example France nuclearized its electricity grid. In the last 20 years, policy shifted away from nuclear and there was very little built. This hasn’t been in dispute in the least bit. Just now we have witnessed a policy shift by most countries where nuclear is or was relevant back towards nuclear. To argue that this policy shift hasn’t happened because we didn’t see its effects in the last 20 years seems weird, unless there was some important time travel news I missed. To argue that the policy shift hasn’t happened because we haven’t seen new nuclear plants pop up since the few weeks or months since the shifts happened and were announced is also…odd. And you seem to be under this impression that for nuclear to be built up, renewables must somehow be reduced. This is simply not the case.
        hef19898 3y ago
        There was no real build out since the, what, 80s? And no projection I have found hinted at one in the future. If those policy changes are supossed to any effect by 2035, those new NPPs would have to be at least in planning stage by now, which they are not. Unless you assume all those future reactors are magically planned, approved, built and connected at a fraction of the time all others are. In which case, please specify how exactly that is aupposed to happen. Otherwise, all you have is claims, unfounded ones at that, and pipedreams.
        mpweiher 3y ago
        The projections you read are the ones that precede the current policy shift. > If those policy changes are supossed to any effect by 2035 They are not. 2050 is the target date for tripling. > those new NPPs would have to be at least in planning stage by now, which they are not A lot of the policy changes just happened this year. Some announcements were made this month. OK, no new plants were built in the last 3 weeks. You win.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  How long are these lifetime extensions? A solid 20 year extension still has them closing by ~2050s which is about how far the construction plans I listed go.

mpweiher 3y ago

"out 14 of which are scheduled to be decommissioned in the 2030s or before. " That was the start of the post I replied to.

hef19898 3y ago
Lets put it in a formula: - comparison of net additional capacities: total name plate capacity of new NPPs being build + total nameplate capacity of new NPPs planned and proposed - nameplate capacity going offline vs. new solar + wind capacity being installed, do that on a yearly basis intil, say, 2035 Run the math, provide sources for the numbers, come back and share the result and your interpretation of it. Takes about max. an hour if you don't where to look for input data yet, much less if you do already.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  Why should I do that? The policy shift was announced was announced December 2nd of this year. So 26 days ago. And your counter is "so where are all the new nuclear plants, I don't see them". Seriously?
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Glad we agree that so far there was no nuclear build out, anywhere! Edit: COP28 agreed on triplong renewable capacity to 11 TW by 2030. If we consider pledges for future NPPs, I think it is just fair to do the same when it comes to renewables, right?
    - mpweiher 3y ago
      Also incorrect. There was quite a bit of nuclear built. For example France nuclearized its electricity grid. In the last 20 years, policy shifted away from nuclear and there was very little built. This hasn’t been in dispute in the least bit. Just now we have witnessed a policy shift by most countries where nuclear is or was relevant back towards nuclear. To argue that this policy shift hasn’t happened because we didn’t see its effects in the last 20 years seems weird, unless there was some important time travel news I missed. To argue that the policy shift hasn’t happened because we haven’t seen new nuclear plants pop up since the few weeks or months since the shifts happened and were announced is also…odd. And you seem to be under this impression that for nuclear to be built up, renewables must somehow be reduced. This is simply not the case.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        There was no real build out since the, what, 80s? And no projection I have found hinted at one in the future. If those policy changes are supossed to any effect by 2035, those new NPPs would have to be at least in planning stage by now, which they are not. Unless you assume all those future reactors are magically planned, approved, built and connected at a fraction of the time all others are. In which case, please specify how exactly that is aupposed to happen. Otherwise, all you have is claims, unfounded ones at that, and pipedreams.
        mpweiher 3y ago
        The projections you read are the ones that precede the current policy shift. > If those policy changes are supossed to any effect by 2035 They are not. 2050 is the target date for tripling. > those new NPPs would have to be at least in planning stage by now, which they are not A lot of the policy changes just happened this year. Some announcements were made this month. OK, no new plants were built in the last 3 weeks. You win.
matthewdgreen 3y ago
How long are these lifetime extensions? A solid 20 year extension still has them closing by ~2050s which is about how far the construction plans I listed go.