4 ms·

All of these should have been shut down (by now). The mistake was not building new ones to replace them.

SilverElfin 9mo ago
Why shut them down? Older generation reactors? A lot of other countries are extending the lives of older reactors successfully and with far less cost and delay than a brand new plant. Except China, who is good at building them.
- amarant 9mo ago
  To get political points from the anti nuclear crowd, which is huge in Europe. I think proximity to Chernobyl is probably the reason why that movement has grown so badly out of proportion
  - Eji1700 9mo ago
    It’s a shockingly strong movement even still in the US. A lot of education growing up was about how nuclear sludge would ruin everything and basically every “green” movement would still fight nuclear tooth and nail through all sorts of scare tactics. It’s only in the post climate change world that some are coming around to the reality that France exists and isn’t a smoking radioactive crater.
    - eru 9mo ago
      The German Green party, which has taken part in national governments and is the biggest party in several states, has basically founded to oppose nuclear power.
- smitty1e 9mo ago
  Why? To appease those with extreme environmentalist views.
  - slfreference 9mo ago
    Have you seen lately, that in order to win AI race, nobody [big tech especially] cares about climate anymore?
    - smitty1e 9mo ago
      Why, yes! Yes, I have. And just wait until quantum superconductive block chain artifical general intelligence ushers in the Glorious Future!
UltraSane 9mo ago
Why? How old were they? Reactors can easily last 60 years.
- chmod775 9mo ago
  I believe the very last ones of those shut down early would have been scheduled for shut down by 2020, so in that case about 9 years earlier than their planned lifetime. Some were shut down mere months before the planned date. Their average age in 2020 would have been around 45 years. They were shut down at ~35 instead. Younger reactors Germany left running until they also reached around 35 years.
  - UltraSane 9mo ago
    Shutting down reactors that age is very stupid if their is nothing wrong with them. Reactors are commonly being certified for 60 to even 80 years.
    - eru 9mo ago
      And the (original) certification itself isn't all that important: You can check what needs to be fixed with them now (if anything) and do the renovations to keep them working. As long as the basic design is still considered save today, and as long as maintenance and running costs are well below the revenue you make. The biggest expense in nuclear power is building them. And a really big part of that exploding cost is in all the dark rituals you have to engage in to placate public opinion. (Like excessively long safety reviews and whatnot.) If you take an existing nuclear reactor, the status quo works in your favour. Even in the unlikely scenario where your renovation essentially replaces the whole thing (so from an engineering point of view, you might as well build it from scratch), renovation might still be the wise choice exactly because of status quo bias in the population.
  - gregbot 9mo ago
    I highly doubt german reactors were designed to only last 35 years. Most gen II light water reactors in the US are expected to operate for 60-80 years. Edit: ah i reread and see what you meant but my point still stands that 45 years is abnormally short for the type of reactors they had
energy123 9mo ago
Nuclear is high capex and low opex. From a LCOE perspective, it's ~always bad to shut down nuclear plants early (due to capex being a sunk cost), but it's also usually bad to make new ones (due to high capex) relative to contemporary alternatives.
- chmod775 9mo ago
  Huh? It would have not have been early. All of those shut down early in 2011 would have reached their planned shutdown dates by now (which doesn't rule out overhauls/recertification at that time though).
mtoner23 9mo ago
These same reactors lasted a lot longer in the us with some small infrastructure investment in them. Past their original date
eru 9mo ago
> All of these should have been shut down (by now). Why? > The mistake was not building new ones to replace them. Why not keep the old ones, as long as they are still save and profitable, _and_ build new ones?

Why shut them down? Older generation reactors? A lot of other countries are extending the lives of older reactors successfully and with far less cost and delay than a brand new plant. Except China, who is good at building them.

amarant 9mo ago
To get political points from the anti nuclear crowd, which is huge in Europe. I think proximity to Chernobyl is probably the reason why that movement has grown so badly out of proportion
- Eji1700 9mo ago
  It’s a shockingly strong movement even still in the US. A lot of education growing up was about how nuclear sludge would ruin everything and basically every “green” movement would still fight nuclear tooth and nail through all sorts of scare tactics. It’s only in the post climate change world that some are coming around to the reality that France exists and isn’t a smoking radioactive crater.
  - eru 9mo ago
    The German Green party, which has taken part in national governments and is the biggest party in several states, has basically founded to oppose nuclear power.
smitty1e 9mo ago
Why? To appease those with extreme environmentalist views.
- slfreference 9mo ago
  Have you seen lately, that in order to win AI race, nobody [big tech especially] cares about climate anymore?
  - smitty1e 9mo ago
    Why, yes! Yes, I have. And just wait until quantum superconductive block chain artifical general intelligence ushers in the Glorious Future!

UltraSane 9mo ago

Why? How old were they? Reactors can easily last 60 years.

chmod775 9mo ago
I believe the very last ones of those shut down early would have been scheduled for shut down by 2020, so in that case about 9 years earlier than their planned lifetime. Some were shut down mere months before the planned date. Their average age in 2020 would have been around 45 years. They were shut down at ~35 instead. Younger reactors Germany left running until they also reached around 35 years.
- UltraSane 9mo ago
  Shutting down reactors that age is very stupid if their is nothing wrong with them. Reactors are commonly being certified for 60 to even 80 years.
  - eru 9mo ago
    And the (original) certification itself isn't all that important: You can check what needs to be fixed with them now (if anything) and do the renovations to keep them working. As long as the basic design is still considered save today, and as long as maintenance and running costs are well below the revenue you make. The biggest expense in nuclear power is building them. And a really big part of that exploding cost is in all the dark rituals you have to engage in to placate public opinion. (Like excessively long safety reviews and whatnot.) If you take an existing nuclear reactor, the status quo works in your favour. Even in the unlikely scenario where your renovation essentially replaces the whole thing (so from an engineering point of view, you might as well build it from scratch), renovation might still be the wise choice exactly because of status quo bias in the population.
- gregbot 9mo ago
  I highly doubt german reactors were designed to only last 35 years. Most gen II light water reactors in the US are expected to operate for 60-80 years. Edit: ah i reread and see what you meant but my point still stands that 45 years is abnormally short for the type of reactors they had

energy123 9mo ago

Nuclear is high capex and low opex. From a LCOE perspective, it's ~always bad to shut down nuclear plants early (due to capex being a sunk cost), but it's also usually bad to make new ones (due to high capex) relative to contemporary alternatives.

chmod775 9mo ago
Huh? It would have not have been early. All of those shut down early in 2011 would have reached their planned shutdown dates by now (which doesn't rule out overhauls/recertification at that time though).

mtoner23 9mo ago

These same reactors lasted a lot longer in the us with some small infrastructure investment in them. Past their original date

eru 9mo ago

> All of these should have been shut down (by now). Why? > The mistake was not building new ones to replace them. Why not keep the old ones, as long as they are still save and profitable, _and_ build new ones?