4 ms·

> Germany could have decarbonized faster by maintaining its nuclear power Precisely. > but only to a limited extent because the bulk of the coal (especially l

> Germany could have decarbonized faster by maintaining its nuclear power Precisely. > but only to a limited extent because the bulk of the coal (especially lignite, a high CO2 emitter) is burned to generate electricity in the former East German regions, Huh? Not shutting down the existing nuclear plants is a pure positive and does not prevent you from doing other things. Such as building out renewables and/or nuclear plants in the east. For the money we wasted on intermittent renewables so far, we could have built at least 50 reactors even at the inflated cost of the EPR prototype at Olkiluoto 3. Or 100 inflation-adjusted Konvois. So way more than enough. Nuclear power is well-suited for district heating and industrial heat applications, unlike solar and wind. > To claim that Germany shut down its reactors for no reason Nobody claimed that. Germany shut down its reactors for idiotic reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia All West German reactors would have survived the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami perfectly fine had they been at the site of Fukushima. And we don't have Tsunamis in Germany. How does shutting down those plants make sense again? When answering, consider that Japan is reactivating its nuclear plants. It's time for Germany to admit its mistake on nuclear energy https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2024/12/26/world/germany-nuclear-energy/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2024/12/26/world/ger... > or that only a minority of environmentalists decided to do so is misleading as, Again, such a good thing that that claim wasn't made in this thread. Or are you misleadingly claiming that it was? > misleading as, in Germany, all political parties close reactors, and most reactors were not closed by "Greens". Who "closed" reactors, now that actually is misleading for a change. The law that required nuclear reactors to be closed was passed by the Red/Green coalition in 2002. Germany happens to be a country with the rule of law, so successor governments can't just act on whim, they are bound by the law of the land. Oh, and it was the Greens who made the Atomausstieg the primary condition for their coalition with the SPD. So while it is correct that all parties are somewhat to blame, to claim that they are equally to blame is ahistorical nonsense and quite misleading. > Furthermore, this nuclear potential would result in higher costs and dependency That is also not true.

natmaka 1y ago
> Not shutting down the existing nuclear plants is a pure positive Ask Japan, and especially Fukushima's residents, about this. > building out renewables and/or nuclear plants in the east. Germany chose renewables and cannot quickly phase out its huge coal industry. > For the money we wasted on intermittent renewables so far Source (with investments' perimeters and maturities)? > Nuclear power is well-suited for district heating and industrial heat applications If, and only if, it is designed for it, and with the appropriate networks. France nuclear does nearly 0 district heating and 0 industrial heat. > Germany shut down its reactors for idiotic reasons: Reason: "Fukushima" > All West German reactors would have survived the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake In Japan until 2011, officially "all reactors will survive..." > we don't have Tsunamis in Germany Tsunamis are not the sole cause potentially triggering a nuclear accident. > How does shutting down those plants make sense again? Refusing nuclear-induced challenges (risk of major accident, waste, dependency towards uranium, difficult decommissioning, risk of weapon proliferation...) while another approach (renewables) is now technically adequate makes sense. > Japan is reactivating its nuclear plants. Some sing this song since 2015. In the real world Japan, just like China, massively invests on... renewables! Surprise! And very few reactors were reactivated: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2008..latest&country=~JPN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa... >> or that only a minority of environmentalists decided to do so is misleading as, > Again, such a good thing that that claim wasn't made in this thread It is nearly always made, in a form or another, in each and every thread about nuclear energy. In this very post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45230099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45230099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228712 > Who "closed" reactors Read on: https://x.com/HannoKlausmeier/status/1784158942823690561 https://x.com/HannoKlausmeier/status/1784158942823690561 > The law that required nuclear reactors to be closed was passed by the Red/Green coalition in 2002. Don't omit anything: "The phase-out plan was initially delayed in late 2010, when during the chancellorship of centre-right Angela Merkel, the coalition conservative-liberal government decreed a 12-year delay of the schedule." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Changes_to_phase-out_schedule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Chang... Then the Fukushima accident changed it all. Exactly what I described. >> Furthermore, this nuclear potential would result in higher costs and dependency > That is also not true. Germany burns its own coal, and by doing so maintains a huge sector. By letting reactors run it would have had to phase coal our more quickly, leading to massive unemployment and dependency towards uranium. This is sad but true.
uecker 1y ago
The money Germany "wasted" on renewables brought down prices a lot, triggering massive investments, which was the plan. My prediction is that even France will scale down nuclear power for fiscal reasons alone - they would need to build new reactors now as a long-term replacement - but it does not look too good.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  France keeps talking about the EPR2 program but the government just collapsed because they are underwater in debt and can't agree on any cuts or increases in taxation. At this moment to go on a massive spending spree for a dead-end nuclear project is not a very sane policy.
  - seec 1y ago
    Investing in the futur when you have a hard time creating more value than you consume is exactly what you need to do. Reducing investment is precisely the way to reinforce the downward feedback loop. If they want to keep taxing the common man, they need them to create more value otherwise to are just taking larger and larger share of vanishing small value. France does have money; it's just all concentrated in the boomer generation who is fighting hard to keep control. A large share of the debt is generated to keep this gerontocracy confortable at the expense of the youth and future.
    - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
      Which means you need a return on the investment for it to work. Creating self sustaining industries that don’t need subsidies. Tossing an absolutely mindbogglingly large subsidy to the 70 year old nuclear industry which never has delivered competitive products is not a good use of money. It is like saying we create value by going around breaking windows and paying people to fix it. France’s problem is that if they don’t fix the spending issue on their own the bond market will do it for them. Maintaining the debt will be a larger and larger portion of the budget until the only option is solving the issue. Cutting spending will lower GDP and push up debt as a percent of GDP. But it wasn’t real income when the debt you took on did not lead to productive outcomes. Just polishing a pig.

natmaka 1y ago

> Not shutting down the existing nuclear plants is a pure positive Ask Japan, and especially Fukushima's residents, about this. > building out renewables and/or nuclear plants in the east. Germany chose renewables and cannot quickly phase out its huge coal industry. > For the money we wasted on intermittent renewables so far Source (with investments' perimeters and maturities)? > Nuclear power is well-suited for district heating and industrial heat applications If, and only if, it is designed for it, and with the appropriate networks. France nuclear does nearly 0 district heating and 0 industrial heat. > Germany shut down its reactors for idiotic reasons: Reason: "Fukushima" > All West German reactors would have survived the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake In Japan until 2011, officially "all reactors will survive..." > we don't have Tsunamis in Germany Tsunamis are not the sole cause potentially triggering a nuclear accident. > How does shutting down those plants make sense again? Refusing nuclear-induced challenges (risk of major accident, waste, dependency towards uranium, difficult decommissioning, risk of weapon proliferation...) while another approach (renewables) is now technically adequate makes sense. > Japan is reactivating its nuclear plants. Some sing this song since 2015. In the real world Japan, just like China, massively invests on... renewables! Surprise! And very few reactors were reactivated: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2008..latest&country=~JPN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa... >> or that only a minority of environmentalists decided to do so is misleading as, > Again, such a good thing that that claim wasn't made in this thread It is nearly always made, in a form or another, in each and every thread about nuclear energy. In this very post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45230099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45230099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228712 > Who "closed" reactors Read on: https://x.com/HannoKlausmeier/status/1784158942823690561 https://x.com/HannoKlausmeier/status/1784158942823690561 > The law that required nuclear reactors to be closed was passed by the Red/Green coalition in 2002. Don't omit anything: "The phase-out plan was initially delayed in late 2010, when during the chancellorship of centre-right Angela Merkel, the coalition conservative-liberal government decreed a 12-year delay of the schedule." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Changes_to_phase-out_schedule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Chang... Then the Fukushima accident changed it all. Exactly what I described. >> Furthermore, this nuclear potential would result in higher costs and dependency > That is also not true. Germany burns its own coal, and by doing so maintains a huge sector. By letting reactors run it would have had to phase coal our more quickly, leading to massive unemployment and dependency towards uranium. This is sad but true.

uecker 1y ago

The money Germany "wasted" on renewables brought down prices a lot, triggering massive investments, which was the plan. My prediction is that even France will scale down nuclear power for fiscal reasons alone - they would need to build new reactors now as a long-term replacement - but it does not look too good.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
France keeps talking about the EPR2 program but the government just collapsed because they are underwater in debt and can't agree on any cuts or increases in taxation. At this moment to go on a massive spending spree for a dead-end nuclear project is not a very sane policy.
- seec 1y ago
  Investing in the futur when you have a hard time creating more value than you consume is exactly what you need to do. Reducing investment is precisely the way to reinforce the downward feedback loop. If they want to keep taxing the common man, they need them to create more value otherwise to are just taking larger and larger share of vanishing small value. France does have money; it's just all concentrated in the boomer generation who is fighting hard to keep control. A large share of the debt is generated to keep this gerontocracy confortable at the expense of the youth and future.
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    Which means you need a return on the investment for it to work. Creating self sustaining industries that don’t need subsidies. Tossing an absolutely mindbogglingly large subsidy to the 70 year old nuclear industry which never has delivered competitive products is not a good use of money. It is like saying we create value by going around breaking windows and paying people to fix it. France’s problem is that if they don’t fix the spending issue on their own the bond market will do it for them. Maintaining the debt will be a larger and larger portion of the budget until the only option is solving the issue. Cutting spending will lower GDP and push up debt as a percent of GDP. But it wasn’t real income when the debt you took on did not lead to productive outcomes. Just polishing a pig.