3 ms·

The 4 last old nuclear plants which were switched off last year wouldn't have been switched to coal if it wasn't for Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine. Coal

by oezi 3y ago

The 4 last old nuclear plants which were switched off last year wouldn't have been switched to coal if it wasn't for Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine. Coal in Germany will end in 2030 anyway and the renewables are built at a pace to support that.

eru 3y ago
With nuclear power (especially with new plants) Germany could transition off CO2 producing fuels faster. Remember: renewables are not actively good for reducing CO2. They don't suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, they are at best neutral. Renewable are good insofar as they allow us to move away from fossil fuels.
- lysium 3y ago
  It takes decades to build new nuclear plants. This won’t solve anything until they are built. Renewables /are/ good for reducing CO2, as every kW produced by renewable is not produced by CO2-emitting alternative. Plus, they make you independent from foreign energy sources.
  - timthorn 3y ago
    Germany didn't need to build new plants, it already had some. The "it takes decades" argument was used as the reason for not significantly renewing nuclear in the UK - over a decade ago.
    - mk89 3y ago
      You need energy now. Nuclear was phased out. That's it. That was the decision. And in 2021 was "barely" producing 13% of electric energy with the last 6 reactors. So either you follow one approach (= mix between imports and solar/wind) or the other (=import until 2032, then import and produce with nuclear energy), with the first approach being oriented to the long run (=independent from other countries, less co2 emissions, etc.).
  - eru 3y ago
    Yes, it takes decades to build new nuclear plants. And the Greens in Germany (amongst other political parties) have been blocking new nuclear power plants for exactly those decades. More pertinently: those nuclear power plants they shut off were already running. Keeping a plant running takes exactly 0 years. (You can't really blame German politics here: they just deliver what German voters want. Democracy working as intended.) > Renewables /are/ good for reducing CO2, as every kW produced by renewable is not produced by CO2-emitting alternative. Yes, that's exactly what I wrote? > Plus, they make you independent from foreign energy sources. That's a separate discussion. Wind energy in Germany and burning German coal is independent of foreign energy sources. Burning Russian oil or importing electricity from photovoltaic in the Sahara are both foreign energy sources as far as Germany is concerned. As long as you make sure that your foreign imports come from a wide variety of friendly countries, that's not too bad. Eg Germany importing nuclear power from France or wind power from British off-shore farms doesn't seem very concerning to me. (I'm just using Germany as an example here.)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - input_sh 3y ago
    It's Germany, they've already built them. About a decade ago they had 17 reactors in operation powering about a quarter of the country. Three years ago they had 6 in operation responsible for about 13% of produced electricity. The decision to decomission them is a political one, made directly after Fukushima, and fully completed last year. Nothing to do with building them, public was against them and the government listened. My point being when Germany says they're gonna stop using coal and go all in on renewables, there's historical evidence that they'll follow through. It's just gonna take some years to complete.
  - TheChaplain 3y ago
    It does not take decades to build. The largest owner of wind power installations in Sweden is China. The 5 largest producers of electricity from wind power, 3 of them are foreign (Finland, Germany and Norway).
    - bigfudge 3y ago
      But the knowledge and systems for producing wind tech are well distributed. A blockade of Finland would be only a small bump in the road. Not like setting the Middle East on fire is for gas.
- xeyownt 3y ago
  Nuclear doesn't suck CO2 either. Moreover a single nuclear unit costs billions to build, billions to maintain, billions to dismantle, all under control of a single entity/company. Whereas renewable costs are much more spread, can be managed by many different companies, etc.
  - jansan 3y ago
    Those nuclear power plants were already there and running. Also, they were quite modern and safe compared to many other nuclear power plants in Europe.
  - eru 3y ago
    > Nuclear doesn't suck CO2 either. Yes, agreed. > Moreover a single nuclear unit costs billions to build, billions to maintain, billions to dismantle, all under control of a single entity/company. Whereas renewable costs are much more spread, can be managed by many different companies, etc. The government should ask nuclear power companies to post a bond upfront to pay for the dismantling. I don't think the whole 'single entity' thing is that bad. Nuclear power plants are still relatively small compared to the whole power infrastructure of a country. They are not more concentrated than eg hydro-electric generation from dams. Just to be clear: I'm not arguing against renewables here. I'm arguing against turning off nuclear power plants that are already running, and have modern-enough safety features. (Though I would argue against giving direct subsidies to both nuclear power plants and renewables. You should tax emissions, and let the market sort it out. You can even re-distribute the take from that tax to all voters, so that the average person doesn't have any extra tax burden.)
    - onli 3y ago
      In Germany, the government is paying for the dismantling. All external cost of nuclear was and is payed for by the government, safe some small token contributions by the companies in the beginning. Those got the profits instead. Germany had so little nuclear power left that leaving them running had no impact in the roadmap for green energies and energy prices. They had to be shut down anyway soon since they were old and insecure.
    - 3y ago
- hef19898 3y ago
  No, new nuclear plants don't help. Too expensive, too long to built and too little capacity being added.
jansan 3y ago
They were switched off long AFTER the war had started. The situation by then was totally clear for everyone. The only reason why the nuclear power plants were not keept running for another few years was ideology, and it was a mistake.

by oezi 3y ago

eru 3y ago

With nuclear power (especially with new plants) Germany could transition off CO2 producing fuels faster. Remember: renewables are not actively good for reducing CO2. They don't suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, they are at best neutral. Renewable are good insofar as they allow us to move away from fossil fuels.

lysium 3y ago
It takes decades to build new nuclear plants. This won’t solve anything until they are built. Renewables /are/ good for reducing CO2, as every kW produced by renewable is not produced by CO2-emitting alternative. Plus, they make you independent from foreign energy sources.
- timthorn 3y ago
  Germany didn't need to build new plants, it already had some. The "it takes decades" argument was used as the reason for not significantly renewing nuclear in the UK - over a decade ago.
  - mk89 3y ago
    You need energy now. Nuclear was phased out. That's it. That was the decision. And in 2021 was "barely" producing 13% of electric energy with the last 6 reactors. So either you follow one approach (= mix between imports and solar/wind) or the other (=import until 2032, then import and produce with nuclear energy), with the first approach being oriented to the long run (=independent from other countries, less co2 emissions, etc.).
- eru 3y ago
  Yes, it takes decades to build new nuclear plants. And the Greens in Germany (amongst other political parties) have been blocking new nuclear power plants for exactly those decades. More pertinently: those nuclear power plants they shut off were already running. Keeping a plant running takes exactly 0 years. (You can't really blame German politics here: they just deliver what German voters want. Democracy working as intended.) > Renewables /are/ good for reducing CO2, as every kW produced by renewable is not produced by CO2-emitting alternative. Yes, that's exactly what I wrote? > Plus, they make you independent from foreign energy sources. That's a separate discussion. Wind energy in Germany and burning German coal is independent of foreign energy sources. Burning Russian oil or importing electricity from photovoltaic in the Sahara are both foreign energy sources as far as Germany is concerned. As long as you make sure that your foreign imports come from a wide variety of friendly countries, that's not too bad. Eg Germany importing nuclear power from France or wind power from British off-shore farms doesn't seem very concerning to me. (I'm just using Germany as an example here.)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- input_sh 3y ago
  It's Germany, they've already built them. About a decade ago they had 17 reactors in operation powering about a quarter of the country. Three years ago they had 6 in operation responsible for about 13% of produced electricity. The decision to decomission them is a political one, made directly after Fukushima, and fully completed last year. Nothing to do with building them, public was against them and the government listened. My point being when Germany says they're gonna stop using coal and go all in on renewables, there's historical evidence that they'll follow through. It's just gonna take some years to complete.
- TheChaplain 3y ago
  It does not take decades to build. The largest owner of wind power installations in Sweden is China. The 5 largest producers of electricity from wind power, 3 of them are foreign (Finland, Germany and Norway).
  - bigfudge 3y ago
    But the knowledge and systems for producing wind tech are well distributed. A blockade of Finland would be only a small bump in the road. Not like setting the Middle East on fire is for gas.
xeyownt 3y ago
Nuclear doesn't suck CO2 either. Moreover a single nuclear unit costs billions to build, billions to maintain, billions to dismantle, all under control of a single entity/company. Whereas renewable costs are much more spread, can be managed by many different companies, etc.
- jansan 3y ago
  Those nuclear power plants were already there and running. Also, they were quite modern and safe compared to many other nuclear power plants in Europe.
- eru 3y ago
  > Nuclear doesn't suck CO2 either. Yes, agreed. > Moreover a single nuclear unit costs billions to build, billions to maintain, billions to dismantle, all under control of a single entity/company. Whereas renewable costs are much more spread, can be managed by many different companies, etc. The government should ask nuclear power companies to post a bond upfront to pay for the dismantling. I don't think the whole 'single entity' thing is that bad. Nuclear power plants are still relatively small compared to the whole power infrastructure of a country. They are not more concentrated than eg hydro-electric generation from dams. Just to be clear: I'm not arguing against renewables here. I'm arguing against turning off nuclear power plants that are already running, and have modern-enough safety features. (Though I would argue against giving direct subsidies to both nuclear power plants and renewables. You should tax emissions, and let the market sort it out. You can even re-distribute the take from that tax to all voters, so that the average person doesn't have any extra tax burden.)
  - onli 3y ago
    In Germany, the government is paying for the dismantling. All external cost of nuclear was and is payed for by the government, safe some small token contributions by the companies in the beginning. Those got the profits instead. Germany had so little nuclear power left that leaving them running had no impact in the roadmap for green energies and energy prices. They had to be shut down anyway soon since they were old and insecure.
  - 3y ago
hef19898 3y ago
No, new nuclear plants don't help. Too expensive, too long to built and too little capacity being added.

jansan 3y ago

They were switched off long AFTER the war had started. The situation by then was totally clear for everyone. The only reason why the nuclear power plants were not keept running for another few years was ideology, and it was a mistake.