6 ms·

German Greens are pushing for renewable energies. Nuclear is expensive to build [0]. It is expensive operate, even with the massive subsidies of insurance and

German Greens are pushing for renewable energies. Nuclear is expensive to build [0]. It is expensive operate, even with the massive subsidies of insurance and waste deposit costs by the taxpayer. On top of that Germany has no exploitable Uranium deposits any more (after delivering Uranium to the USSR for decades, mine was closed 1990), so Germany would need to import nuclear fuel, e.G. from Russia (as the US does [1]). I don't think depending on Russia for energy security is a good idea. [Edit] Hard coal and ignite usage is down https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig1-installed-net-power-generation-capacity-germany-2002-2023.png https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... [0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c... [1] https://kyivindependent.com/german-customs-detains-ship-loaded-with-sanctioned-russian-uranium-lumber/ https://kyivindependent.com/german-customs-detains-ship-load...

LunaSea 3y ago
> On top of that Germany has no exploitable Uranium deposits any more, so Germany would need to import nuclear fuel, e.G. from Russia (as the US does) This is incorrect. Uranium is quite common and could be supplied by Canada, Australia, Kazakstan, Niger and a few other countries.
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  It's also the fact that unlike with e.g. gas or coal, the uranium fuel is only a small factor in the overall energy production cost. Given the miniscule amount needed, you can stock up on it to protect against supply shocks. But it doesn't matter. It's not possible to lead a factual discussion on nuclear energy in Germany. Since the 1970s it has been mainly an emotional / ideological matter.
  - KingOfCoders 3y ago
    Fuel is ~15-20% of operating costs, ~15-20% are other operating costs, ~60-70% is construction costs. The 15% would go down to ~10% if nuclear plant operators would pay market rate waste deposit and insurance costs as part of operations.
  - fundatus 3y ago
    Nuclear energy was phased down because of emotional / ideological decisions (by all parties!) and it will not come back because it can't compete economically with renewables nowadays. It's as simple as that.
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      > It's as simple as that. You got the mindset exactly, thank you for the demonstration. It's not a matter of parameters, policy, economies of scale etc. Nuclear cannot be made economical, it's a "mathematical fact".
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  "e.G. from Russia (as the US does)" What is incorrect about "for example from Russia, like the US imports uranium from Russia"?
_flux 3y ago
Is it really the case that running an existing nuclear powerplant is less cost-effective than the alternatives, so much so that closing plants is a good idea from green energy point of view?
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  The minimal costs of operating nuclear are around the same as the investment costs of solar parks, around $30/Mwh (building nuclear power plants is around $200/Mwh). For example a nuclear power plant has employed 700 people. A solarpark does not need a lot of FTE employees to operate (+ low maintanance). That does not include waste deposit costs for hundreds of years and real insurance costs without subsidies by tax payers.
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    That's no excuse for shutting them down and burning coal. They should be kept online until firmed renewables have completely displaced fossil fuels and only then be shut down.
    - KingOfCoders 3y ago
      ([Edit] I would also not shut them down it I wasn't clear on this) There is also no excuse for gasoline powered cars. But gasoline powered cars are the majority of sales. Or diesel powered trains, which are the majority of trains in the US. Or eating meat. Or flying in planes. The US is burning more coal than Germany, and probably should build more nuclear plants to replace burning coal. But the US doesn't. People do whatever they like, not things they should do.
      - hajile 3y ago
        The US is also much larger than Germany and is in the process of building more nuclear plants. If you care about the environment, nuclear is the only sustainable option at the moment. The plant costs have a very long time to recoup. Lots of plants built in the 80s seem perfectly capable of going until at least the 2050s without any danger and have requested license renewals to do exactly that. Each additional year further drives down the total cost of ownership. I'll also note that people stupidly think only in terms of CO2. The truth is that a lot of the "forever" chemicals used in tho construction of wind an solar (along with loads of other toxic sludge) pose a much higher risk to the planet. If life on the planet starts getting killed off by the chemicals we spread everywhere, the temperature increases in a few hundred years don't matter in the slightest. We'll last way longer fighting CO2 than we will against the dangerous chemicals we're pumping out.
andsoitis 3y ago
> Germany would need to import nuclear fuel, e.G. from Russia (as the US does [1]). I don't think depending on Russia for energy security is a good idea. U.S. nuclear power plants imported about 12% of their uranium from Russia in 2022, compared to 27% from Canada and 25% from Kazakhstan, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And a bill was passed in 2023 to ban imports from Russia - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-passes-bill-banning-uranium-imports-russia-2023-12-11/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-passes-bill-bannin...
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  Not sure what your comment wants to say, that yes, the US is importing uranium from Russia, or yes, it is importing uranium from Russia, but more from other countries?
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    The relatively smaller share plus the ban means the US isn't dependent on Russia for Uranium, which is what was implied.
    - KingOfCoders 3y ago
      Has the ban been signed by Biden yet?
      - andsoitis 3y ago
        It first has to be taken up by the Senate. Shifts like these have to happen in a strategic and deliberate manner, with tradeoffs that can be diametrically opposed to one's other geopolitical positions. "The United States last month announced a $2.7 billion plan to boost domestic production of uranium fuel, while France last year announced a big increase in its own ability to turn raw uranium into usable nuclear fuel." - https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/04/us-nuclear-reactors-russian-uranium/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/04/us-nuclear-reactors-rus...

LunaSea 3y ago

> On top of that Germany has no exploitable Uranium deposits any more, so Germany would need to import nuclear fuel, e.G. from Russia (as the US does) This is incorrect. Uranium is quite common and could be supplied by Canada, Australia, Kazakstan, Niger and a few other countries.

The_Colonel 3y ago
It's also the fact that unlike with e.g. gas or coal, the uranium fuel is only a small factor in the overall energy production cost. Given the miniscule amount needed, you can stock up on it to protect against supply shocks. But it doesn't matter. It's not possible to lead a factual discussion on nuclear energy in Germany. Since the 1970s it has been mainly an emotional / ideological matter.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  Fuel is ~15-20% of operating costs, ~15-20% are other operating costs, ~60-70% is construction costs. The 15% would go down to ~10% if nuclear plant operators would pay market rate waste deposit and insurance costs as part of operations.
- fundatus 3y ago
  Nuclear energy was phased down because of emotional / ideological decisions (by all parties!) and it will not come back because it can't compete economically with renewables nowadays. It's as simple as that.
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    > It's as simple as that. You got the mindset exactly, thank you for the demonstration. It's not a matter of parameters, policy, economies of scale etc. Nuclear cannot be made economical, it's a "mathematical fact".
KingOfCoders 3y ago
"e.G. from Russia (as the US does)" What is incorrect about "for example from Russia, like the US imports uranium from Russia"?

_flux 3y ago

Is it really the case that running an existing nuclear powerplant is less cost-effective than the alternatives, so much so that closing plants is a good idea from green energy point of view?

KingOfCoders 3y ago
The minimal costs of operating nuclear are around the same as the investment costs of solar parks, around $30/Mwh (building nuclear power plants is around $200/Mwh). For example a nuclear power plant has employed 700 people. A solarpark does not need a lot of FTE employees to operate (+ low maintanance). That does not include waste deposit costs for hundreds of years and real insurance costs without subsidies by tax payers.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  That's no excuse for shutting them down and burning coal. They should be kept online until firmed renewables have completely displaced fossil fuels and only then be shut down.
  - KingOfCoders 3y ago
    ([Edit] I would also not shut them down it I wasn't clear on this) There is also no excuse for gasoline powered cars. But gasoline powered cars are the majority of sales. Or diesel powered trains, which are the majority of trains in the US. Or eating meat. Or flying in planes. The US is burning more coal than Germany, and probably should build more nuclear plants to replace burning coal. But the US doesn't. People do whatever they like, not things they should do.
    - hajile 3y ago
      The US is also much larger than Germany and is in the process of building more nuclear plants. If you care about the environment, nuclear is the only sustainable option at the moment. The plant costs have a very long time to recoup. Lots of plants built in the 80s seem perfectly capable of going until at least the 2050s without any danger and have requested license renewals to do exactly that. Each additional year further drives down the total cost of ownership. I'll also note that people stupidly think only in terms of CO2. The truth is that a lot of the "forever" chemicals used in tho construction of wind an solar (along with loads of other toxic sludge) pose a much higher risk to the planet. If life on the planet starts getting killed off by the chemicals we spread everywhere, the temperature increases in a few hundred years don't matter in the slightest. We'll last way longer fighting CO2 than we will against the dangerous chemicals we're pumping out.

andsoitis 3y ago

> Germany would need to import nuclear fuel, e.G. from Russia (as the US does [1]). I don't think depending on Russia for energy security is a good idea. U.S. nuclear power plants imported about 12% of their uranium from Russia in 2022, compared to 27% from Canada and 25% from Kazakhstan, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And a bill was passed in 2023 to ban imports from Russia - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-passes-bill-banning-uranium-imports-russia-2023-12-11/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-passes-bill-bannin...

KingOfCoders 3y ago
Not sure what your comment wants to say, that yes, the US is importing uranium from Russia, or yes, it is importing uranium from Russia, but more from other countries?
- andsoitis 3y ago
  The relatively smaller share plus the ban means the US isn't dependent on Russia for Uranium, which is what was implied.
  - KingOfCoders 3y ago
    Has the ban been signed by Biden yet?
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      It first has to be taken up by the Senate. Shifts like these have to happen in a strategic and deliberate manner, with tradeoffs that can be diametrically opposed to one's other geopolitical positions. "The United States last month announced a $2.7 billion plan to boost domestic production of uranium fuel, while France last year announced a big increase in its own ability to turn raw uranium into usable nuclear fuel." - https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/04/us-nuclear-reactors-russian-uranium/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/04/us-nuclear-reactors-rus...