3 ms·

> Who turned off the cheap GHG free Nuclear power? Probably the 100th time I have to say this, but it still seems necessary: Phasing out of nuclear power was a

> Who turned off the cheap GHG free Nuclear power? Probably the 100th time I have to say this, but it still seems necessary: Phasing out of nuclear power was a decision that was made in 2011 (after the Fukushima incident) and even the power companies didn't want to have their reactors run any longer because they were EOL. "cheap" is also not true if you look over to France and their newly built systems.

ckozlowski 2y ago
True, but there was a bit more to it than that. Anti-nuclear sentiment has always run high in Germany, but Fukushima made it more intense. At the time of the accident, campaigning was underway in Germany. Merkel announced the closure as a way to hold off the Left and achieve a win for her party (It worked.) The Greens had always campaigned hard on this, the timing of Fukushima was a godsend for them, and had the potential to swing the election. Merkel had a tough choice: Keep the reactors online and lose the election, or announce a shutdown and take the wind out of The Green's key issue. She chose the latter, and CDU/CSU won. The reactors weren't EOL. "Cheap" (or "costs") can get complicated to calculate as there's more that Europe factors in than simply the costs of running the plants. Europe doesn't have fantastic energy reserves, so that energy has to come from somewhere. Historically, a large percentage has been oil via the Middle East. That has political and military costs such as how they work with the Arab states, support for the U.S. which maintains security of the Persian Gulf, etc. France's choice of nuclear is influenced in part because of security decisions they made in the 50s and their (until recently) ability to source cheap uranium from Mali. Germany phased out their plants in order to stave off a last minute electoral disaster, which worked. But I'd argue that it was before they were ready. Renewables have promise, but have not reached the point where they are cheap and plentiful enough to power the energy-intensive Germany economy. I'm sure they'll get there eventually, but they're going through a painful phase to bridge that gap thanks to Merkel's decision. Good read: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
boringg 2y ago
Cheap is absolutely true if you look at the older assets cost of baseload power providing the core stability of a lot of electrical systems. The only two things that aren't factored into the cheap component (sub 5 cents/kwh produced of baseload) is that you don't properly factor in the externalities -- $/ton of GHG avoided and waste removal properly. I would argue that if we had pollution pricing it would be even cheaper. The new power plants are more expensive since you have all the upfront costs of development but those are long lived assets that as they get to the end of their lives are producing very stable cheap power. And yes Germany absolutely turned off their Nuclear power - your comment agrees 100% with that. It was made by Merkels party and is absolutely tarnishing her legacy.

ckozlowski 2y ago

True, but there was a bit more to it than that. Anti-nuclear sentiment has always run high in Germany, but Fukushima made it more intense. At the time of the accident, campaigning was underway in Germany. Merkel announced the closure as a way to hold off the Left and achieve a win for her party (It worked.) The Greens had always campaigned hard on this, the timing of Fukushima was a godsend for them, and had the potential to swing the election. Merkel had a tough choice: Keep the reactors online and lose the election, or announce a shutdown and take the wind out of The Green's key issue. She chose the latter, and CDU/CSU won. The reactors weren't EOL. "Cheap" (or "costs") can get complicated to calculate as there's more that Europe factors in than simply the costs of running the plants. Europe doesn't have fantastic energy reserves, so that energy has to come from somewhere. Historically, a large percentage has been oil via the Middle East. That has political and military costs such as how they work with the Arab states, support for the U.S. which maintains security of the Persian Gulf, etc. France's choice of nuclear is influenced in part because of security decisions they made in the 50s and their (until recently) ability to source cheap uranium from Mali. Germany phased out their plants in order to stave off a last minute electoral disaster, which worked. But I'd argue that it was before they were ready. Renewables have promise, but have not reached the point where they are cheap and plentiful enough to power the energy-intensive Germany economy. I'm sure they'll get there eventually, but they're going through a painful phase to bridge that gap thanks to Merkel's decision. Good read: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...

boringg 2y ago

Cheap is absolutely true if you look at the older assets cost of baseload power providing the core stability of a lot of electrical systems. The only two things that aren't factored into the cheap component (sub 5 cents/kwh produced of baseload) is that you don't properly factor in the externalities -- $/ton of GHG avoided and waste removal properly. I would argue that if we had pollution pricing it would be even cheaper. The new power plants are more expensive since you have all the upfront costs of development but those are long lived assets that as they get to the end of their lives are producing very stable cheap power. And yes Germany absolutely turned off their Nuclear power - your comment agrees 100% with that. It was made by Merkels party and is absolutely tarnishing her legacy.