Germany mulls extending nuclear plants' life-span(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Germany mulls extending nuclear plants' life-span
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-mulls-extending-nuclear-plants-life-span-economy-minister-2022-02-27/
169 comments
You mixed up the first quote I think:
"It is part of my ministry's tasks to answer this question. I would not reject it on ideological grounds - but the preliminary examination has shown that it does not help us."
But your point is absolutely true: Germany doesn't mull it at all.
"It is part of my ministry's tasks to answer this question. I would not reject it on ideological grounds - but the preliminary examination has shown that it does not help us."
But your point is absolutely true: Germany doesn't mull it at all.
Many news outlets don’t hold headlines to editorial standards. They’re considered marketing, not journalism.
I’m flagging the article because of this. The headline gives a false impression
I know this article isn't great, but is there anyone on HN who lives in Germany who could explain why there's such a scepticism of Nuclear power there? I'm from the UK and we have largely transitioned away from Nuclear for one clear reason - there was no political appetite to spend a tonne of money on an expensive form of energy that wasn't likely to pay off in the current parliamentary term. The german response to Nuclear seems to have been far more extreme though.
Off the top of my head :
German multinationals (in the energy sector such as Siemens, Wintershall) have removed it from their strategies because Nuclear technologies inefficient and bear a lot of risks. New reactor types don't work as promised.
Government does not want Nuclear Energy because it needs enormous amounts of subsidies, and still there are regular cost overruns just as enormous. And Consortias still demand price guarantees. Worldwide the number of operational reactors is decreasing anyway. Nuclear reactors need a lot of protection (physical security) . Instead a decentralised infrastructure is envisioned.
The German general public does not want nuclear waste, and not even nuclear transports across the country. It's a form of NIMBYism, but the point is valid.
The German anti-nuclear movement is very old, covers 2-3 generations.
Germany is densely populated and the prospect of entire countries becoming inhabitable after a single disaster of a nuclear power plant is feared and despised by many people.
German multinationals (in the energy sector such as Siemens, Wintershall) have removed it from their strategies because Nuclear technologies inefficient and bear a lot of risks. New reactor types don't work as promised.
Government does not want Nuclear Energy because it needs enormous amounts of subsidies, and still there are regular cost overruns just as enormous. And Consortias still demand price guarantees. Worldwide the number of operational reactors is decreasing anyway. Nuclear reactors need a lot of protection (physical security) . Instead a decentralised infrastructure is envisioned.
The German general public does not want nuclear waste, and not even nuclear transports across the country. It's a form of NIMBYism, but the point is valid.
The German anti-nuclear movement is very old, covers 2-3 generations.
Germany is densely populated and the prospect of entire countries becoming inhabitable after a single disaster of a nuclear power plant is feared and despised by many people.
This is essentially it.
Nuclear power has been economically inefficient for a long time.
This is true for many, many economies. Even in places like Japan and South Korea, nuclear energy is more expensive than seaborn LNG.
The reason that nuclear energy has been supported is the "unspoken" externality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
Having a "peaceful" nuclear plant, means you can throw together a bomb pretty quickly if needed.
Hence countries like Japan/Korea, with active space and rocketry programs as well as a thriving domestic nuclear power industry, have been considered "quasi-nuclear powers" by many. Their "time to slap together an atom bomb," given a large national supply of nuclear physicists is not that long.
Germany, is very supporting of pacifism.
Hence, since the German approach to foreign policy is fundamentally "we don't want nuclear weapons because we really don't want to engage in warfare, because warfare is immoral." They don't want nuclear power.
Nuclear power has been economically inefficient for a long time.
This is true for many, many economies. Even in places like Japan and South Korea, nuclear energy is more expensive than seaborn LNG.
The reason that nuclear energy has been supported is the "unspoken" externality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
Having a "peaceful" nuclear plant, means you can throw together a bomb pretty quickly if needed.
Hence countries like Japan/Korea, with active space and rocketry programs as well as a thriving domestic nuclear power industry, have been considered "quasi-nuclear powers" by many. Their "time to slap together an atom bomb," given a large national supply of nuclear physicists is not that long.
Germany, is very supporting of pacifism.
Hence, since the German approach to foreign policy is fundamentally "we don't want nuclear weapons because we really don't want to engage in warfare, because warfare is immoral." They don't want nuclear power.
> Germany, is very supporting of pacifism.
I'd say that pacifism only works as long as nobody cares to attack you, or you have someone else around, much stronger than yourself, to protect you.
That is, it works as long as you don't have to face any real evil. I'm afraid it's not a realistic long-term policy.
I'd say that pacifism only works as long as nobody cares to attack you, or you have someone else around, much stronger than yourself, to protect you.
That is, it works as long as you don't have to face any real evil. I'm afraid it's not a realistic long-term policy.
Germany was told to be supporting of pacifism by the Americans after WW2.
But with the Americans signaling that they are no longer willing to play world police, a shift in that attitude is a matter of time.
> That is, it works as long as you don't have to face any real evil.
Also, lets not conflate national interests with good and evil. That's the propaganda talking.
> That is, it works as long as you don't have to face any real evil.
Also, lets not conflate national interests with good and evil. That's the propaganda talking.
I think the sentiment that pacifism externalises the costs of dealing with violence to others, is spot on in both a personal and country context.
Whether it's a good idea or not doesn't matter.
Germany practices it.
Germany practices it.
There is enough spent fuel stored in America and around the world to reprocess and enrich fuel for thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads. There is also enough energy in spent fuel already stored that, if reprocessed, could fuel existing reactors for decades. Jimmy Carter broke the fuel cycle when he outlawed spent fuel reprocessing using the reasoning that it risked nuclear proliferation.
> in America
Yeah, and didn't you realise most countries in the world despise America?
Keep in mind the non-American perspective.
Yeah, and didn't you realise most countries in the world despise America?
Keep in mind the non-American perspective.
isn't the equipment to produce weapon-grade fissile materiel kinda different from those used in power production? So the time "time to slap together an atom bomb" would still be quite long. Also when talking talking about nuclear's price vs LNG, another factor to take into consideration is energy dependence on foreign suppliers
Germany spends already around 1.5% of their GDP on energy subsidies, and is the 8th largest in term of subsidies per GDP, and in absolute numbers, the highest one by 200% to the nearest country. €50 billions is spent each year, with a bit over 50% going to renewables and around 30% going to fossil fuels.
I can understand in some ways that they do not want to spend more than €50 billions a year on subsidies. It is already a lot of tax money. The question however is what they are getting for those €50 billions they are already spending, and if the result is a desirable one. Being dependent on Russian gas and oil is a pretty high price to pay, especially when it help fund invasion forces into EU.
(Source: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/annex_to_the...)
I can understand in some ways that they do not want to spend more than €50 billions a year on subsidies. It is already a lot of tax money. The question however is what they are getting for those €50 billions they are already spending, and if the result is a desirable one. Being dependent on Russian gas and oil is a pretty high price to pay, especially when it help fund invasion forces into EU.
(Source: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/annex_to_the...)
Ukraine has a significant potential for gas and shale fields. One of the reasons the EU has been getting friendly with Ukraine. Putin knows his way of life, and the Russian budget to consider doing something like this, is gone when those become active.
The thing that's a little crass to say right now, is that: Russia imploding to focus internally, Putin gone, Ukraine integrating further into the EU, is like a full bingo card of items that was strictly in the 'keep dreaming' section 3 months ago.
Now it is the best outcome for the EU. Still unlikely, but not categorically impossible.
The thing that's a little crass to say right now, is that: Russia imploding to focus internally, Putin gone, Ukraine integrating further into the EU, is like a full bingo card of items that was strictly in the 'keep dreaming' section 3 months ago.
Now it is the best outcome for the EU. Still unlikely, but not categorically impossible.
> Worldwide the number of operational reactors is decreasing anyway
Really? I thought China (and maybe India) was building many more.
Really? I thought China (and maybe India) was building many more.
China is building some, and saying they will build more. But they are not obliged to follow through. We should only count the ones that are actually under construction.
> German multinationals (in the energy sector such as Siemens, Wintershall) have removed it from their strategies because Nuclear technologies inefficient and bear a lot of risks. New reactor types don't work as promised.
Do you mean NuScale or Hitachi BWRX-300?
Do you mean NuScale or Hitachi BWRX-300?
I'm not an expert in reactors, but I mean the European Pressurized Water Reactor EPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) built by French Company Areva and, previously, Siemens. It has a lot of problems from what I hear. I don't know anything about the other ones you mentioned.
Those are significant problems that politicians, businesses, and the public have correctly identified.
Is the perception that Germany will be better off with the problems that dropping nuclear creates, or are those not acknowledged?
Is the perception that Germany will be better off with the problems that dropping nuclear creates, or are those not acknowledged?
I'd estimate 15-20% of the German population to be pro-nuclear (mainly those leaning to the political right), 50% are indifferent, and 30-35% against nuclear energies. Of course you'll find some conservatives against it (e.g. wealthy homeowners), and you'll find a few leftist technologists that support nuclear energy.
Now the political agenda is (and has been for more than 20 years) to promote renewables. For baseline demand (that renewables cannot reliably provide) Germany is betting on Biogas and better storage mechanisms.
The current administration is left-leaning. The Green Party was founded in the 1980s by environmentalists which made it their mission to get rid of nuclear.
I'd say that the public knows that these types of energy supply have problemens too. And the debate is ongoing.
Now the political agenda is (and has been for more than 20 years) to promote renewables. For baseline demand (that renewables cannot reliably provide) Germany is betting on Biogas and better storage mechanisms.
The current administration is left-leaning. The Green Party was founded in the 1980s by environmentalists which made it their mission to get rid of nuclear.
I'd say that the public knows that these types of energy supply have problemens too. And the debate is ongoing.
German here, but I'll be a bit lazy and refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany . I quickly skimmed over it and I think it touches the history well.
From my personal perspective, I can definitely relate being nuclear skeptic due to Chernobyl (I was 7 years old at the time) and basically constant demonstrations/problems with the end storage facility subject - for as long as I remember.
Also, at least in my memory around ~2000 it became clear that nuclear was not economically viable vs going green and that was also when the Atomausstieg was sealed by the new Schröder government which had the Greens in the coalition.
Merkel (conservative) wanted to prolong the run times but when Fukushima happened all those plans quickly turned over.
Happy to answer any questions about it.
From my personal perspective, I can definitely relate being nuclear skeptic due to Chernobyl (I was 7 years old at the time) and basically constant demonstrations/problems with the end storage facility subject - for as long as I remember.
Also, at least in my memory around ~2000 it became clear that nuclear was not economically viable vs going green and that was also when the Atomausstieg was sealed by the new Schröder government which had the Greens in the coalition.
Merkel (conservative) wanted to prolong the run times but when Fukushima happened all those plans quickly turned over.
Happy to answer any questions about it.
> and that was also when the Atomausstieg was sealed by the new Schröder government which had the Greens in the coalition
And after that, Schröder got his deserved chair on Nordstream AG and later Rosneft and Gazprom.
And after that, Schröder got his deserved chair on Nordstream AG and later Rosneft and Gazprom.
This is what rubs me most about the decision. Thanks to Germany the whole of Europe is now dependant on Russian gas, but at least a few politicians got promotions out of it right?
When my country joined the EU they were forced to decommission an old nuclear power plant. Before that we were a net exporter of electricity. There was talk about building a new plant to ensure energy security in the region and reduce dependence on Russia, but it never materialised.
If Germany - which most of the smaller countries look up to - did not make this decision our energy landscape would look very different today. Over the last winter we have seen energy prices go up 50% or more (electricity comes from Russian gas, and heating comes from Russian gas) and inflation in general is up over 10%. Maybe in rich Germany this is not such a big deal, but here where people do not earn so much it is.
When my country joined the EU they were forced to decommission an old nuclear power plant. Before that we were a net exporter of electricity. There was talk about building a new plant to ensure energy security in the region and reduce dependence on Russia, but it never materialised.
If Germany - which most of the smaller countries look up to - did not make this decision our energy landscape would look very different today. Over the last winter we have seen energy prices go up 50% or more (electricity comes from Russian gas, and heating comes from Russian gas) and inflation in general is up over 10%. Maybe in rich Germany this is not such a big deal, but here where people do not earn so much it is.
Was this a nuke plant that resembled the one at Chernobyl?
> Also, at least in my memory around ~2000 it became clear that nuclear was not economically viable vs going green
That would be surprising. I would have said that renewables (without comparing massively subsidised and unproven renewables costs with unsubsidised and well understood practical nuclear costs) would only be relatively recently even in the same ballpark as nuclear. And even then, only when the sun's shining/wind's blowing.
That would be surprising. I would have said that renewables (without comparing massively subsidised and unproven renewables costs with unsubsidised and well understood practical nuclear costs) would only be relatively recently even in the same ballpark as nuclear. And even then, only when the sun's shining/wind's blowing.
"Nuclear power in Europe benefits mainly from massive tax breaks, subsidies and other financial assistance for construction, maintenance and disposal (in Germany a total of about 187 billion euros over the past forty years)"
Is that excluded from the total cost calculations of nuclear power?
Depends on who you ask. Power plant companies usually omit these costs.
Okay, but given you quoted that point above, what are you saying in relation to what I said?
> Also, at least in my memory around ~2000 it became clear that nuclear was not economically viable vs going green and that was also when the Atomausstieg was sealed by the new Schröder government which had the Greens in the coalition.
And yet, Germany has twice the emissions of France because it relies heavily on gas and coal. Very sad to see that global warming is considered more economically viable than nuclear energy.
And yet, Germany has twice the emissions of France because it relies heavily on gas and coal. Very sad to see that global warming is considered more economically viable than nuclear energy.
That's because politicians like Altmaier sabotaged the expansion of wind and solar energy.
> nuclear was not economically viable vs going green
This is such a strange statement as nuclear is the greenest power source.
This is such a strange statement as nuclear is the greenest power source.
Regarding numbers like CO2 emission per MW that is definitely true.
However, the highly destructive, scary and dangerous trash that it does produce is like a comical epitome of the kind of visible pollution the first generation green movement was fighting. There is a reason that dystopian sci-fi trash heap illustrations always feature a leaking nuclear barrel.
Combined with the fact that Germany is just (fairly) densely populated everywhere, criticism of storage solutions are not about endangered desert lizard species, but about radiation spikes in elementary schools.
I'm both German and would like to re-establish nuclear here as a necessary evil, but I get the contra points. I hope this gives some perspective :)
However, the highly destructive, scary and dangerous trash that it does produce is like a comical epitome of the kind of visible pollution the first generation green movement was fighting. There is a reason that dystopian sci-fi trash heap illustrations always feature a leaking nuclear barrel.
Combined with the fact that Germany is just (fairly) densely populated everywhere, criticism of storage solutions are not about endangered desert lizard species, but about radiation spikes in elementary schools.
I'm both German and would like to re-establish nuclear here as a necessary evil, but I get the contra points. I hope this gives some perspective :)
The entirely of the nuclear waste produced by the United States since the beginning of its atomic program could fit in a couple of olympic sized swimming pools. And water does such a good job of stopping the radiation that is actually a pretty good way of storing it.
And that's without considering fuel reprocessing, which would not only drastically reduce the raw fuel need (and therefore increase the green value of nuclear power), but would reduce the final waste product to something that could fit in a broom closet.
The scale of the nuclear waste problem is seriously, seriously oversold.
And that's without considering fuel reprocessing, which would not only drastically reduce the raw fuel need (and therefore increase the green value of nuclear power), but would reduce the final waste product to something that could fit in a broom closet.
The scale of the nuclear waste problem is seriously, seriously oversold.
> The entirely of the nuclear waste produced by the United States since the beginning of its atomic program could fit in a couple of olympic sized swimming pools.
Hanford alone has enough liquid nuclear waste to fill 80. Does that waste not count?
Hanford alone has enough liquid nuclear waste to fill 80. Does that waste not count?
I meant from the civil power program, not weapons development.
> criticism of storage solutions are not about endangered desert lizard species, but about radiation spikes in elementary school
Note that storage solution for radioactive waste is necessary even without nuclear reactors, as there are plenty of radiocative waste from radiology/radiotherapy devices and also associated accidents, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident .
Note that storage solution for radioactive waste is necessary even without nuclear reactors, as there are plenty of radiocative waste from radiology/radiotherapy devices and also associated accidents, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident .
[deleted]
It doesn't produce any power until 10 years after you secure the money, usually costs much more than budgeted, and then has very high operating cost.
Each euro earmarked for a nuke plant is a euro not spent building out solar, wind, and storage that would yield much more power than the nuke, almost immediately, and have extremely low operating cost. So, not green, because it competes with actually green for capital.
Each euro earmarked for a nuke plant is a euro not spent building out solar, wind, and storage that would yield much more power than the nuke, almost immediately, and have extremely low operating cost. So, not green, because it competes with actually green for capital.
That is largely because due to green lobbyists making sure that nuclear is subjected to greater regulatory oversight and financial barriers than other sources of energy.
I'm sorry that I'm not that familiar with the German regulatory situation, but here in the USA for example new nuclear plants are required to pre-fund their decommissioning costs upfront before they are ever turned on, and have insurance against accidents, etc. Which is probably a good thing and I'm not arguing against--except that literally no other source of energy is subject to the same requirements. And so when people say "nuclear is expensive!" they are comparing apples-to-oranges.
A coal or natural gas plant generates literal tonnes of environmental waste that they don't need to pay to clean up, and they aren't required to have insurance or bonds against the much more likely industrial accidents their workers and community members will suffer.
Same for solar, which would be a heck of a lot more expensive if solar installation companies had to insure millions of dollars against their workers falling off roofs, or pre-pay the costs of smelting solar panels that reach end of life so their parts don't end up in land fills.
Nuclear isn't expensive. The nuclear energy and regulatory environment is. As it was designed to be by people who don't want nuclear power.
I'm sorry that I'm not that familiar with the German regulatory situation, but here in the USA for example new nuclear plants are required to pre-fund their decommissioning costs upfront before they are ever turned on, and have insurance against accidents, etc. Which is probably a good thing and I'm not arguing against--except that literally no other source of energy is subject to the same requirements. And so when people say "nuclear is expensive!" they are comparing apples-to-oranges.
A coal or natural gas plant generates literal tonnes of environmental waste that they don't need to pay to clean up, and they aren't required to have insurance or bonds against the much more likely industrial accidents their workers and community members will suffer.
Same for solar, which would be a heck of a lot more expensive if solar installation companies had to insure millions of dollars against their workers falling off roofs, or pre-pay the costs of smelting solar panels that reach end of life so their parts don't end up in land fills.
Nuclear isn't expensive. The nuclear energy and regulatory environment is. As it was designed to be by people who don't want nuclear power.
No. Nuclear is inherently expensive.
It is expensive because any large unit of capital in a public works context is expensive. (A clear majority of this cost is in unavoidable structural corruption tax.) On top of that, operating a nuke is very expensive: this is where fuel cycle costs come in, including mining, refining, processing, and disposing, as well as others like fixing turbines and guarding access. On top of that, shutting one down is expensive. None of these costs are falling, while alternative cost are, so, relatively, they are all sharply increasing.
(Coal, oil, and gas are also expensive, mainly in environmental effects, and their costs are also increasing, relative to renewables. They do not count here, except in how they contribute to renewables construction cost, where they fall as their contribution to that cost does.)
Insurance for construction accidents, and disposal costs, are figured in: silicon panels and wind turbine blades are inert, so cheap to dispose of. CdTe panels and rare-earth magnets are valuable, already-refined chemicals, and are reclaimed.
Each cost alone makes nukes more expensive than alternatives. All added up, they make nukes ruinously expensive.
It is expensive because any large unit of capital in a public works context is expensive. (A clear majority of this cost is in unavoidable structural corruption tax.) On top of that, operating a nuke is very expensive: this is where fuel cycle costs come in, including mining, refining, processing, and disposing, as well as others like fixing turbines and guarding access. On top of that, shutting one down is expensive. None of these costs are falling, while alternative cost are, so, relatively, they are all sharply increasing.
(Coal, oil, and gas are also expensive, mainly in environmental effects, and their costs are also increasing, relative to renewables. They do not count here, except in how they contribute to renewables construction cost, where they fall as their contribution to that cost does.)
Insurance for construction accidents, and disposal costs, are figured in: silicon panels and wind turbine blades are inert, so cheap to dispose of. CdTe panels and rare-earth magnets are valuable, already-refined chemicals, and are reclaimed.
Each cost alone makes nukes more expensive than alternatives. All added up, they make nukes ruinously expensive.
>That is largely because due to green lobbyists making sure that nuclear is subjected to greater regulatory oversight and financial barriers than other sources of energy.
Even if this was true (which I don't think it is) then what are you proposing? Relaxing the regulations?
Even if this was true (which I don't think it is) then what are you proposing? Relaxing the regulations?
So how did plans to import natural gas via NS1/NS2 fit into these plans?
My understanding was that Natural gas in Europe is used for house heat, and industrial processes that have never been electrified. I was not aware of using it (at a wide scale) for electricity generation. (definitely not an expert though)
Natural gas is a major source of electricity in many European countries (and in some countries, the biggest source). Natural gas is considered preferable to burning coal because it creates significantly less air pollution and CO2 emissions for each unit of electricity.
Here's a neat map where you can view the current electricity generation mix for countries in real-time:
https://app.electricitymap.org/map
Here's a neat map where you can view the current electricity generation mix for countries in real-time:
https://app.electricitymap.org/map
How is the renewable energy sector ? useless ? stable ? growing ?
Massive, and growing rapidly. The second derivative is debatable (i.e. the growth may be slowing) and it may not be fast enough, but Germany heavily subsidized renewables both through subsidies and minimum prices for renewable energy generation very early (which is one of the reason for the absolutely perverse electricity prices, which ironically make gas heating more attractive).
Random quote I found: "In 2020 renewable energy sources produced more electricity than all fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) together and now provide 45.3 percent of German electricity demand."
Electricity demand is just a part of energy demand though, so getting all heating to e.g. heat pumps will be a major effort.
Random quote I found: "In 2020 renewable energy sources produced more electricity than all fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) together and now provide 45.3 percent of German electricity demand."
Electricity demand is just a part of energy demand though, so getting all heating to e.g. heat pumps will be a major effort.
> "I'm from the UK and we have largely transitioned away from Nuclear"
While the UK's nuclear power capacity is well down on its 1990s peak, it's hardly correct to say the UK has "largely" transitioned away from nuclear. A major new nuclear plant (Hinkley Point C) is under construction, and two more (Sizewell C and Bradwell B) seem to still be moving ahead.
If all three are completed, they would represent 8.6 GW of new nuclear capacity, significantly more than the combined capacity of all UK nuclear power stations today!
While the UK's nuclear power capacity is well down on its 1990s peak, it's hardly correct to say the UK has "largely" transitioned away from nuclear. A major new nuclear plant (Hinkley Point C) is under construction, and two more (Sizewell C and Bradwell B) seem to still be moving ahead.
If all three are completed, they would represent 8.6 GW of new nuclear capacity, significantly more than the combined capacity of all UK nuclear power stations today!
Not to mention recent funding for small modular reactors (SMR) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-backs-new-small-nuclea...
It's associated with waste that no one wants and nuclear weapons that no one wants either.
Germany had a SPD/Greens coalition. They decided to not renew the contracts with the nuclear power plants and phase them out (afaik they are allowed to run 25 years, then they need to renew that, sorry missing some vocubaulry here). The next government was CDU/FDP (Merkel 1), who decided to renew the contracts again and cancel the rpior government phase out plans. Couple of weeks later Fukushima happened. Merkel stood in front of parliament and said: "On a day like today, we can not say that nuclear power plants are safe. They are safe." That is a direct quote of her speech. In the de speech she annoinced that Germany will stop using nuclear power.
Because they had just signed the renewed contracts, the power plant companies sued Germany for the lost profit. Funnily enough, when Merkel decided to renew the contracts, they also introduced a tax on nuclear fuel, however the law had mistakes which made it unconstitutional and Germany had to pay back the taxes.
I still to this day believe that Schäuble messed up the law on purpose. It happened back during the economic crisis, when there were spending cuts on normal people stuff, and this tax was a part of the media circus of "the big corps also have to do their part". That first part is 100% fact, this last part is just my pet conspiracy theory tough :D
Germany had a SPD/Greens coalition. They decided to not renew the contracts with the nuclear power plants and phase them out (afaik they are allowed to run 25 years, then they need to renew that, sorry missing some vocubaulry here). The next government was CDU/FDP (Merkel 1), who decided to renew the contracts again and cancel the rpior government phase out plans. Couple of weeks later Fukushima happened. Merkel stood in front of parliament and said: "On a day like today, we can not say that nuclear power plants are safe. They are safe." That is a direct quote of her speech. In the de speech she annoinced that Germany will stop using nuclear power.
Because they had just signed the renewed contracts, the power plant companies sued Germany for the lost profit. Funnily enough, when Merkel decided to renew the contracts, they also introduced a tax on nuclear fuel, however the law had mistakes which made it unconstitutional and Germany had to pay back the taxes.
I still to this day believe that Schäuble messed up the law on purpose. It happened back during the economic crisis, when there were spending cuts on normal people stuff, and this tax was a part of the media circus of "the big corps also have to do their part". That first part is 100% fact, this last part is just my pet conspiracy theory tough :D
Yeah, nothing to do with russian gas, dirty money and lobbyists....
https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-former-chancellor-gerhard-sch...
https://www.politico.eu/article/outrage-germany-ex-chancello...
https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-former-chancellor-gerhard-sch...
https://www.politico.eu/article/outrage-germany-ex-chancello...
I retold the history, not the motivations.
Also, Schröder and Merkel are from different parties, so it's hard to see how Schröders corruption influenced Merkel.
Also, Schröder and Merkel are from different parties, so it's hard to see how Schröders corruption influenced Merkel.
In our globalized capitalist world nothing matters more than the economy, money and inertia takes care of everything, no matter which party you're from. You need a literal war at your door to slap some sense in them.
Corruption that you know about...
Probably a lot on the Merkel side that the public doesn't know. The people or groups who you don't think would ever be corrupt are some of the best to be corrupt in the first place.
Probably a lot on the Merkel side that the public doesn't know. The people or groups who you don't think would ever be corrupt are some of the best to be corrupt in the first place.
Small correction: the CDU/FDP government was the second Merkel cabinet (of four), and the only one where the FDP was involved. In fact it was so "successful" that at the next elections the FDP fell below the 5% threshold and wasn't represented in the Bundestag for the next four years.
Thanks for the correction.
Why would germany worry about making nukes themselves although?
We still have mushrooms that radiate more than normal due to Chernobyl. Then we witnessed the Fukushima catastrophe from afar but with great shock. And we have no state who wants to store the nuclear waste. We believe the future is renewables and we invest heavily into it.
The future is renewables but without storage (or fusion, which is realistically 40y out _if_ it works) then we're screwed and that's a couple of decades more development away. We need fission to bridge that gap or we're left relying on fossil fuels and missing our targets massively on GHG emissions (or we maintain Lockdown level restrictions .. and still have a short fall).
It's not like there are no options for storage, pumped hydrostorage works well in Germany, and building pumped storage plus solar makes more financial sense than fission. Nuclear plants just take too long to plan and build, and are extremely expensive to build and tear down.
Nothing stops Germany from building pumped hydrostorage rather than gas pipelines.
Every time nuclear get discussed people jump between either hydrostorage or green hydrogen, but when people start discussing turning off the gas from Russia, there seems to be very little interests to actually replace gas with storage. The few calculations I have read over hydrostorage is that the amount of damns and land needed to replace all the gas plant capacity is unrealistic, and green hydro is almost 100 times more expensive than natural gas. Nuclear is expensive, but its not that expensive.
There is a strange thing with hydrostorage. To my knowledge there does not exist a single example of a commercial operation that buys renewables to pump water and then generate energy to sell when the price goes up. There does exist one commercial operation that I know where an energy company uses storage to balance their fleet of (mostly) fossil fuel plants when they need to spin down/up. It keeps their operations more stable, and they said something to the point of "In the future we might use this to buy renewables when the price is low and sell when the energy is needed".
Every time nuclear get discussed people jump between either hydrostorage or green hydrogen, but when people start discussing turning off the gas from Russia, there seems to be very little interests to actually replace gas with storage. The few calculations I have read over hydrostorage is that the amount of damns and land needed to replace all the gas plant capacity is unrealistic, and green hydro is almost 100 times more expensive than natural gas. Nuclear is expensive, but its not that expensive.
There is a strange thing with hydrostorage. To my knowledge there does not exist a single example of a commercial operation that buys renewables to pump water and then generate energy to sell when the price goes up. There does exist one commercial operation that I know where an energy company uses storage to balance their fleet of (mostly) fossil fuel plants when they need to spin down/up. It keeps their operations more stable, and they said something to the point of "In the future we might use this to buy renewables when the price is low and sell when the energy is needed".
Germany is not Austria nor Switzerland. There are no mountains to pump up the water to. The heights are ridiculous here. 9-15m, compared to 200-800m
I mean our southerly neighbors were nice enough to share some of the mountains, leading to things like Schluchsee[1], which is definitely the most aesthetically pleasing battery I have seen far.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schluchsee
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schluchsee
There are deep cavities that water could be pumped out of, and drained back into. You could even store hydrogen in them at the same time.
though the gas from Russia (and everywhere else) isn't just used in power plants, but also to directly heat homes. So gas supply isn't just a matter of producing enough electricity to compensate
Pumped hydro has very specific geological restrictions and take because of ecological snd safety risks even longer to build than nuclear. Both way too long.
The vision of the European Union is that the future is renewables + hydrogen. Initially I was skeptical, but recently I realized that it does make a lot of sense.
You can start by first converting coal power plants to natural gas. That will cut the emissions by at least a factor of 2. Then, when the hydrogen infrastructure is built up, you replace the natural gas with hydrogen. Initially it can be "brown" hydrogen, but then you can transition to "blue" hydrogen, and finally with green hydrogen [1].
[1] https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/hydrog...
You can start by first converting coal power plants to natural gas. That will cut the emissions by at least a factor of 2. Then, when the hydrogen infrastructure is built up, you replace the natural gas with hydrogen. Initially it can be "brown" hydrogen, but then you can transition to "blue" hydrogen, and finally with green hydrogen [1].
[1] https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/hydrog...
From what I understand the current plan to store renewable energy is to convert it to hydrogen - this hydrogen can either be used to power vehicles, or in power plants (converted natural gas power plants or plants that have been designed from the outset to operate flexibly with hydrogen or natural gas)
We still have not found a place to store the waste. No one wants to live near a reactor so there are not really any place to build them (NIMBY). It also turns out that it is quite expensive when considering all costs like dismantling and insurance. Germany also does not mine uranium any more since 2021, so needs to buy them from other countries so you will have again dependencies on other countries. And then there is the historical experience of Chernobyl.
The historical experience of Chernobyl is not remotely relevant to modern reactors that are (by design) unable to melt down.
Look at the pebble bed reactors, or the smr reactors from nuscale, or the chinese molten salt reactor designs. These are all using new technology to make meltdown next to or completely impossible. Nuscale is calling their smr reactors "walk away safe" in that you could just abandon them and they're unable to melt down.
Saying we shouldn't consider nuclear energy due to Chernobyl is equivalent to saying we shouldn't use airplanes because of the hindenburg. It entirely ignores the massive amount of materials and nuclear science improvements since Chernobyl was built in 1970. I'm ALL FOR solar power (and have 48 x 440W bifacial solar panels aka 21.1kW on my barn), but it is not a holy grail. Safe modern nuclear energy could massively improve Europe's energy situation and end Russian energy dependence.
Look at the pebble bed reactors, or the smr reactors from nuscale, or the chinese molten salt reactor designs. These are all using new technology to make meltdown next to or completely impossible. Nuscale is calling their smr reactors "walk away safe" in that you could just abandon them and they're unable to melt down.
Saying we shouldn't consider nuclear energy due to Chernobyl is equivalent to saying we shouldn't use airplanes because of the hindenburg. It entirely ignores the massive amount of materials and nuclear science improvements since Chernobyl was built in 1970. I'm ALL FOR solar power (and have 48 x 440W bifacial solar panels aka 21.1kW on my barn), but it is not a holy grail. Safe modern nuclear energy could massively improve Europe's energy situation and end Russian energy dependence.
What about Fukushima?
And modern reactors have to be built first. How long does it take if we look how long the berlin airport took or Stuttgart 21 will take.
And modern reactors have to be built first. How long does it take if we look how long the berlin airport took or Stuttgart 21 will take.
> What about Fukushima?
All safety protocols and safeguards were utterly ignored for profit. Here is an unbiased source on how spectacularly bad this was:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-p...
The Fukushima reactor as it was deployed would have never passed inspection in the US or EU, for literally the reasons that caused the unfortunate event to pass. It is like building an automobile in 2022 with no airbags, antilock-brakes, power steering, and seat belts. It just doesn't make any sense.
All safety protocols and safeguards were utterly ignored for profit. Here is an unbiased source on how spectacularly bad this was:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-p...
The Fukushima reactor as it was deployed would have never passed inspection in the US or EU, for literally the reasons that caused the unfortunate event to pass. It is like building an automobile in 2022 with no airbags, antilock-brakes, power steering, and seat belts. It just doesn't make any sense.
Better technology doesn't exclude corruption and botch.
There are to many examples in the past where profit resulted in security protocol and standards not being adhered to.
There are to many examples in the past where profit resulted in security protocol and standards not being adhered to.
Fukushima is older than Chernobyl; it was commissioned and running before Chernobyl's construction began. Both were managed incompetently.
>Both were managed incompetently.
That won't change even with modern reactors.
That won't change even with modern reactors.
The difference being that incompetent management of a modern reactor cannot lead to a meltdown.
> How long does it take if we look how long the berlin airport took or Stuttgart 21 will take.
Pointing out outliers isn't productive. What's the average time to completion of projects on that scale in Germany?
Pointing out outliers isn't productive. What's the average time to completion of projects on that scale in Germany?
[deleted]
> reactors that are (by design) unable to melt down.
I believe part of the problem is that nuclear power proponents were claiming that nuclear power is safe before Chernobyl. Then Chernobyl happened.
Then proponents were claiming that that happened due to the way Chernobyl was designed, that the Western designs were entirely different, and that it couldn't happen.
Then it did happen in Fukushima. People don't care about "but the Tsunami" when what they heard before was "it cannot happen under any circumstance". (And even though that may not have been what was said I'm pretty sure that's how the claims were perceived).
After feeling that they have been lied to twice, it doesn't matter whther the new reactors are actually unable to melt down or not - people are not willing to take the chance that they're being lied to again.
I believe part of the problem is that nuclear power proponents were claiming that nuclear power is safe before Chernobyl. Then Chernobyl happened.
Then proponents were claiming that that happened due to the way Chernobyl was designed, that the Western designs were entirely different, and that it couldn't happen.
Then it did happen in Fukushima. People don't care about "but the Tsunami" when what they heard before was "it cannot happen under any circumstance". (And even though that may not have been what was said I'm pretty sure that's how the claims were perceived).
After feeling that they have been lied to twice, it doesn't matter whther the new reactors are actually unable to melt down or not - people are not willing to take the chance that they're being lied to again.
They literally ignored all of the guidance on safely operating a nuclear reactor and many who told them so. Fukushima was a tragedy, but it also would not have passed inspection in the US or Europe due to blatant disregard for safeguards.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-p... here is an unbiased source on this and how it was utterly preventable.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-p... here is an unbiased source on this and how it was utterly preventable.
The problem is that people no longer believe that there is no risk of a similar document being written in the future, similarly saying that it would have been preventable, only bearing the name of their home town.
That’s fair and understandable. If you look at the safety claims of the past as equivalent to the claims of today it makes sense to be mistrustful. I think it’s fairly tragic and misguided to conclude that, though. The new plants are actually quite different (at least that’s what it appears; I’m not a nuclear engineer, so I’m trusting what seem like qualified nuclear engineers to describe the new systems).
The big difference is the need for active cooling in both Fukushima and Chernobyl. The new ones don’t need that.
I know that sounds like the same thing as “an rbmk reactor cannot explode”, but that’s very dismissive of decades of work since then by people completely unrelated to those responsible for past disasters. All major nuclear disasters or near disasters like three mile island were from old systems which used active cooling.
The energy output of nuclear is unmatched, its safer than it used to be, and I’m pretty sure most of the expense comes from red tape. I think its good to have learned some hubris from past mistakes, but abandoning that technology would be like abandoning spaceflight. The star trek motto is not “to responsibly stay where we already are.”
When it comes down to the raw physics, I don’t see how most renewables can compete. It seems like the cost effectiveness is being distorted by subsidies for renewables and red tape for nuclear. If renewables actually are cost competitive now or close too it and can legitimately be used without requiring energy rationing and causing grid problems, thats great, but I don’t really see how that’s possible.
At the end of the day I don’t really care whats generating power, I just think it’s foolish to not try to have as much as possible, and I don’t see how something as energy dense as nuclear wouldn’t be massively beneficial.
The big difference is the need for active cooling in both Fukushima and Chernobyl. The new ones don’t need that.
I know that sounds like the same thing as “an rbmk reactor cannot explode”, but that’s very dismissive of decades of work since then by people completely unrelated to those responsible for past disasters. All major nuclear disasters or near disasters like three mile island were from old systems which used active cooling.
The energy output of nuclear is unmatched, its safer than it used to be, and I’m pretty sure most of the expense comes from red tape. I think its good to have learned some hubris from past mistakes, but abandoning that technology would be like abandoning spaceflight. The star trek motto is not “to responsibly stay where we already are.”
When it comes down to the raw physics, I don’t see how most renewables can compete. It seems like the cost effectiveness is being distorted by subsidies for renewables and red tape for nuclear. If renewables actually are cost competitive now or close too it and can legitimately be used without requiring energy rationing and causing grid problems, thats great, but I don’t really see how that’s possible.
At the end of the day I don’t really care whats generating power, I just think it’s foolish to not try to have as much as possible, and I don’t see how something as energy dense as nuclear wouldn’t be massively beneficial.
It's worth pointing out (again) that Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station is older than Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station. It's not at all surprising that they would both fail in much the same manner, even in the face of promises that newer reactors can't.
It did not, in fact, fail the same manner, except insofar as it melted down as every failed reactor did.
They failed in much the same manner being the incompetence of their management.
In Chernobyl's case, it was inadequate training of their staff for a test procedure (including various side effects that this test procedure might cause) and some overrides of safety systems (in gross violation of existing regulations).
In Fukushima Daiichi's case, it was management ignoring the very real risk of tsunamis, even in the face of plenty of evidence that the station was vulnerable to such (a handful of other stations around the world had been damaged by tsunamis in the preceding dozen or so years, and only fared much better because of more redundancies in their emergency systems).
In Chernobyl's case, it was inadequate training of their staff for a test procedure (including various side effects that this test procedure might cause) and some overrides of safety systems (in gross violation of existing regulations).
In Fukushima Daiichi's case, it was management ignoring the very real risk of tsunamis, even in the face of plenty of evidence that the station was vulnerable to such (a handful of other stations around the world had been damaged by tsunamis in the preceding dozen or so years, and only fared much better because of more redundancies in their emergency systems).
OK, I'll buy that. Disaster as a consequence of incompetent operation is a failure mode common to all nukes that other systems don't have.
> I believe part of the problem is that nuclear power proponents were claiming that nuclear power is safe before Chernobyl. Then Chernobyl happened.
Because it was and still is safe. Planes crash too, does that mean they're not safe?
Nothing is 100% safe, that'd be ridiculous. The point is that nuclear energy is the safest, by a huge margin.
> people are not willing to take the chance that they're being lied to again.
Well yes, the general public is irrational. We need politicians with balls that will do the right thing regardless of the ignorant public perceptions.
Because it was and still is safe. Planes crash too, does that mean they're not safe?
Nothing is 100% safe, that'd be ridiculous. The point is that nuclear energy is the safest, by a huge margin.
> people are not willing to take the chance that they're being lied to again.
Well yes, the general public is irrational. We need politicians with balls that will do the right thing regardless of the ignorant public perceptions.
> The historical experience of Chernobyl is not remotely relevant to modern reactors that are (by design) unable to melt down.
Look at the pebble bed reactors, or the smr reactors from nuscale, or the chinese molten salt reactor designs.
The problem is these modern reactors you mention, the ones that do actually exist in the real world and are not just designs, are not really all that modern. Consider every nuclear power reactor ever brought online, ever. Nearly all of them were built awhile ago and are of the early design where if the plant loses power, yada yada yada, when the batteries run dry, the plant is at risk of meltdown. Towards the end of the nuclear boom, changes in design were implemented, and some plants were built in the US that won't break that way... and this was idk like 50 years ago.
The US and UK development of fission power was a very Big Investment, and I think they did a good job because they ferreted out the least expensive method of generating power with a nuclear reaction, which unfortunately for nuclear power, not only because of the relatively recent (last 20 years) much much much much much smaller investments (compared to US&UK investment in developing nuclear power) in renewable energies like solar and wind, electricity generated in the cheapest possible way from a nuclear reaction can not complete any longer in the energy market (and in fact never could, nuclear was always too expensive, but for a while didn't matter [1]), and this is before we take into account the skyrocketing prices of uranium or the cost of long term storage of waste, and this of course is all long before investors ever show up that want to build and run one of the much newer reactor designs that can't melt down and also produce less waste, because those are even more expensive to build than the old designs that make up nearly all of Earth's global fleet of nuclear reactors, which can melt down and btw they are, all of them, at waste storage capacity... for more than 20 years (iow, their "temporary" waste storage is more or less overflowing with nuclear waste, and has been for quite awhile).
We need to solve nuclear power, but this isn't rushing to build new plants, it is instead biting the bullet to tie off the loose ends of all the damn messes already made with nuclear power, which are considerable but not impossible to fix and keep fixed.
Nuclear power isn't dead. Someone could come up with a damn cheap, safe and much simper design, and when that day comes, we'll all have our own little nuclear reactors, and it will be a great day.
[1] The US, for a brief period, needed fuel for nuclear bombs. Someone somewhere vastly overestimated this need, and in this overestimation, there was a lot of money available to build nuclear power plants, and a lot of them... err... all of them... in consideration of how crazy expensive nuclear power just is and always was... that's how and why they got built — and not because some visionaries thought that nuclear power would solve the energy needs of the country. IOW the reason we have the nuclear power plants that we do in the US is because of the vastly mindbogglingly huge overestimation of the need for fuel for nuclear bombs. Many think you can never have enough ammo, but please trust that we have far more than enough now, the nuclear bomb fuel factories aren't doing well, economically speaking, having effectively lost their major client, the US military, who themselves will, btw, continue to build and operate fission nuclear reactors indefinitely, regardless of expense for valid reasons.
The problem is these modern reactors you mention, the ones that do actually exist in the real world and are not just designs, are not really all that modern. Consider every nuclear power reactor ever brought online, ever. Nearly all of them were built awhile ago and are of the early design where if the plant loses power, yada yada yada, when the batteries run dry, the plant is at risk of meltdown. Towards the end of the nuclear boom, changes in design were implemented, and some plants were built in the US that won't break that way... and this was idk like 50 years ago.
The US and UK development of fission power was a very Big Investment, and I think they did a good job because they ferreted out the least expensive method of generating power with a nuclear reaction, which unfortunately for nuclear power, not only because of the relatively recent (last 20 years) much much much much much smaller investments (compared to US&UK investment in developing nuclear power) in renewable energies like solar and wind, electricity generated in the cheapest possible way from a nuclear reaction can not complete any longer in the energy market (and in fact never could, nuclear was always too expensive, but for a while didn't matter [1]), and this is before we take into account the skyrocketing prices of uranium or the cost of long term storage of waste, and this of course is all long before investors ever show up that want to build and run one of the much newer reactor designs that can't melt down and also produce less waste, because those are even more expensive to build than the old designs that make up nearly all of Earth's global fleet of nuclear reactors, which can melt down and btw they are, all of them, at waste storage capacity... for more than 20 years (iow, their "temporary" waste storage is more or less overflowing with nuclear waste, and has been for quite awhile).
We need to solve nuclear power, but this isn't rushing to build new plants, it is instead biting the bullet to tie off the loose ends of all the damn messes already made with nuclear power, which are considerable but not impossible to fix and keep fixed.
Nuclear power isn't dead. Someone could come up with a damn cheap, safe and much simper design, and when that day comes, we'll all have our own little nuclear reactors, and it will be a great day.
[1] The US, for a brief period, needed fuel for nuclear bombs. Someone somewhere vastly overestimated this need, and in this overestimation, there was a lot of money available to build nuclear power plants, and a lot of them... err... all of them... in consideration of how crazy expensive nuclear power just is and always was... that's how and why they got built — and not because some visionaries thought that nuclear power would solve the energy needs of the country. IOW the reason we have the nuclear power plants that we do in the US is because of the vastly mindbogglingly huge overestimation of the need for fuel for nuclear bombs. Many think you can never have enough ammo, but please trust that we have far more than enough now, the nuclear bomb fuel factories aren't doing well, economically speaking, having effectively lost their major client, the US military, who themselves will, btw, continue to build and operate fission nuclear reactors indefinitely, regardless of expense for valid reasons.
> We still have not found a place to store the waste.
Properly designed reactors don't make any waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
> not mine uranium any more since 2021, so needs to buy them
A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor plus the above mentioned technology reduces the need for Uranium by around 98%, so no need to buy any.
This is a solved problem, any issues are financial and emotional, not technical.
Properly designed reactors don't make any waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
> not mine uranium any more since 2021, so needs to buy them
A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor plus the above mentioned technology reduces the need for Uranium by around 98%, so no need to buy any.
This is a solved problem, any issues are financial and emotional, not technical.
The movement was already strong before Chernobyl, and I don't know exactly why it was so much stronger in Germany than elsewhere (and couldn't find a clear explanation on Wikipedia either).
Then Chernobyl happened. Germany was, and is to this day, directly affected by the radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. (Many of the boar hunted in Germany are considered unsafe to eat due to high radiation levels).
People remember when they were wondering if they should abort their pregnancies because they weren't sure if they'd give birth to a child with three arms, or too afraid to drink the milk, etc. - most of these fears turned out to be unfounded, but that doesn't mean that people weren't affected by them and remember them deeply.
The Green movement had also built its entire identity around it, making it hard to go back on it.
Fukushima sealed the deal because nuclear power was advertised as safe, not "well it explodes sometimes but the actual damage is less than from coal", any thus the safety claims lost all credibility.
Then Chernobyl happened. Germany was, and is to this day, directly affected by the radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. (Many of the boar hunted in Germany are considered unsafe to eat due to high radiation levels).
People remember when they were wondering if they should abort their pregnancies because they weren't sure if they'd give birth to a child with three arms, or too afraid to drink the milk, etc. - most of these fears turned out to be unfounded, but that doesn't mean that people weren't affected by them and remember them deeply.
The Green movement had also built its entire identity around it, making it hard to go back on it.
Fukushima sealed the deal because nuclear power was advertised as safe, not "well it explodes sometimes but the actual damage is less than from coal", any thus the safety claims lost all credibility.
After the Fukushima catastrophe, it was clear that the unknown unknows are worse than anticipated.
Sad thing is, Germany should have pumped a whole lotta more money into renewables and their research.
Sad thing is, Germany should have pumped a whole lotta more money into renewables and their research.
Fukushima was not a case of unknown unknowns. That style of reactor requires active cooling to prevent meltdown, and the cooling failed. The consequences of the cooling system failing were known, as were the vulnerabilities of the cooling system. They just didn’t add enough safeguards/didn’t account for the backup failing. There’s an argument that you can’t add enough safeguards to account for all possible ways an active cooling system could fail, which is perfectly reasonable/a good argument. Thats’s why next gen nuclear reactor designs don’t require active cooling.
People citing Chernobyl and Fukushima strikes me as rhe equivalent to people citing the Hindenburg when talking about flying; I’m pretty sure both reactor designs could be thought of as the design equivalent to the hydrogen blimp. People’s minds are stuck on an image of a blimp on fire when thinking about flying even though modern passenger jets exist.
People citing Chernobyl and Fukushima strikes me as rhe equivalent to people citing the Hindenburg when talking about flying; I’m pretty sure both reactor designs could be thought of as the design equivalent to the hydrogen blimp. People’s minds are stuck on an image of a blimp on fire when thinking about flying even though modern passenger jets exist.
Clearly we think alike. Glad to see someone else pointing out to Luddites the folly of comparing modern nuclear tech to the tech of the 1970s. Using the Hindenburg vs airplanes is a perfect equivalent.
"consequences of the cooling system failing were known"
So the problem isn't unknown unknowns, but people simply don't caring enough about potential consequences?
That just makes it worse and nuclear an even less of an option.
So the problem isn't unknown unknowns, but people simply don't caring enough about potential consequences?
That just makes it worse and nuclear an even less of an option.
As my sibling comment describes, this wasn't unknown. TEPCO (the company operating Fukushima) themselves commissioned a report into the suitability of their emergency systems, came to the conclusion that a generator and switchgear room in the basement of a building next to the sea was a bad idea, and then did nothing about it for several years. They were also told this repeatedly by other agencies.
Germany pumps a disproportionate amount of money into renewables though.
The Energiewende makes them one of a tiny handful of countries worldwide that is actively interested in alleviating greenhouse gases.
The Energiewende makes them one of a tiny handful of countries worldwide that is actively interested in alleviating greenhouse gases.
I hope it is enough.
And I hope the Ukraine issue will lead to more and not switching back to nuclear again.
But with the Greens in the government, chances are good.
And I hope the Ukraine issue will lead to more and not switching back to nuclear again.
But with the Greens in the government, chances are good.
Who stands to profit the most from decommissioning them all? I mean besides Schröder and Russia.
Chernobyl disaster, fears stemming from nuclear weapons stationed in Germany, no viable solutions for waste disposal. Mostly that. Of course it's also not economically sensible if you factor in externalised costs.
I'm also concerned about sloppy work and engineering, neglect and human mistake with catastrophic consequences. For example, there is one incident documentend where some idiotic fools drilled a hole into the containment to hang a fire extinguisher. [https://www.badische-zeitung.de/panne-in-leibstadt-arbeiter-...]
However, if it would help to bring down the sick Putin regime in Russia I would support a limited extension.
EDIT: Russian trolls be downvoting me. Idi nahui.
However, if it would help to bring down the sick Putin regime in Russia I would support a limited extension.
EDIT: Russian trolls be downvoting me. Idi nahui.
I’m not against nuclear power but can anyone explain why a similar sized investment in solar+wind+geothermal+battery storage would not work?
Because the land needed for equivalent solar and wind would be massive. There would be no room for NIMBY. Imagine someone you love would lose their home so that a windmill could be constructed. Every city park would need to have a huge windmill, and every roof would need solar panels. That is assuming that we can even locate the material and manpower needed to build so much. This would be at least 2 orders of magnitude more than equivalent power from nuclear.
> and every roof would need solar panels
That's already coming to Germany, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solare_Baupflicht. Not legislated in the whole country yet, but that's just a matter of time now.
That's already coming to Germany, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solare_Baupflicht. Not legislated in the whole country yet, but that's just a matter of time now.
Are you sure about that? The general figures I see are that around 2% of land for wind energy should be very sufficient, which would not need displacing of existing housing and certainly no construction in city parks.
There is absolutely no need to devote land to exclusively solar or wind use.
Farm and pasture land shared with solar panels yield more than without. Wind turbines can also be placed in farm and pasture land, displacing very little production.
As I understand it, Germany already has a great deal of wind power installed.
Farm and pasture land shared with solar panels yield more than without. Wind turbines can also be placed in farm and pasture land, displacing very little production.
As I understand it, Germany already has a great deal of wind power installed.
Interesting question. I had thought batteries were still orders of magnitude more expensive than nuclear, but just looked up some numbers to try and get an idea. Caveat, these are just numbers I've looked up; they look reasonable to me, but I'm no expert, so could well be making a mistake here. Also I'm just looking at capital costs, not operation.
From what I can find, the capital cost of a new nuclear plant is somewhere on the order of $6M-9M/MW.
On the other hand, a 3MWh grid battery from Tesla runs about $1M. So ignoring cloudy days and just considering providing power overnight (in the winter), you'd need about 14 hours of capacity, so about $14M to provide 3MW, or roughly $5M/MW.
So, in terms of initial capital cost, just the battery portion to handle the overnight gap in solar production would be roughly equivalent to the cost of nuclear, but of course that doesn't account for the cost of the solar panels, nor for the fact that there will be other periods when generation is low. (Although these can be partially dealt with by over-building the renewable generation and using wind as well as solar.) However, the other issue is that the lifespan of grid-connected lithium ion batteries appears to be about 5-15 years, whereas nuclear plants should generally last several decades at least.
So, batteries + renewables are more expensive in terms of capital than nuclear plants, which are themselves quite expensive, but I must admit I'm surprised that the difference isn't even greater. I expect part of the problem is production capacity. You can build a 1100MW nuclear plant, but I expect it would be nearly impossible to buy a 14GWh of grid batteries because the capacity to build them in that scale just doesn't exist, yet at least. Also, as others have mentioned, you'd need a lot of space.
There are other methods of storage that are used, pumped hydro being the most common in large scale, but requiring specific geography. There are other options like gravitational storage with shafts and weights or carts on tracks or what have you, but they're all expensive and/or difficult to scale.
From what I can find, the capital cost of a new nuclear plant is somewhere on the order of $6M-9M/MW.
On the other hand, a 3MWh grid battery from Tesla runs about $1M. So ignoring cloudy days and just considering providing power overnight (in the winter), you'd need about 14 hours of capacity, so about $14M to provide 3MW, or roughly $5M/MW.
So, in terms of initial capital cost, just the battery portion to handle the overnight gap in solar production would be roughly equivalent to the cost of nuclear, but of course that doesn't account for the cost of the solar panels, nor for the fact that there will be other periods when generation is low. (Although these can be partially dealt with by over-building the renewable generation and using wind as well as solar.) However, the other issue is that the lifespan of grid-connected lithium ion batteries appears to be about 5-15 years, whereas nuclear plants should generally last several decades at least.
So, batteries + renewables are more expensive in terms of capital than nuclear plants, which are themselves quite expensive, but I must admit I'm surprised that the difference isn't even greater. I expect part of the problem is production capacity. You can build a 1100MW nuclear plant, but I expect it would be nearly impossible to buy a 14GWh of grid batteries because the capacity to build them in that scale just doesn't exist, yet at least. Also, as others have mentioned, you'd need a lot of space.
There are other methods of storage that are used, pumped hydro being the most common in large scale, but requiring specific geography. There are other options like gravitational storage with shafts and weights or carts on tracks or what have you, but they're all expensive and/or difficult to scale.
Lithium batteries are the most expensive storage alternative, and would compete with automotive use anyway. There are many others, and the only real question is which will be cheapest to deploy. Hydrogen is attractive despite its currently abysmal round-trip efficiency because hydrogen is so massively useful otherwise; the capital equipment for hydrogen production will never be idle even when the underground cavities hydrogen is stored in are considered full. (They never really get full, as such; the pressure just increases.) Efficiency will only ever improve.
Practical alternatives to underground hydrogen include liquified air (also industrially useful after the tanks fill), anhydrous ammonia, underground compressed air (again, compressed hydrogen is even more useful), pumped underground hydro, pumped undersea hydro, iron-air batteries (which are extremely cheap, and safe) and even deep mine-shaft gravitational (again, also compatible with hydrogen, compressed air, and compressed hydrogen).
Underground hydro is even more attractive than the mountaintop variety because the head may be thousands of meters.
Practical alternatives to underground hydrogen include liquified air (also industrially useful after the tanks fill), anhydrous ammonia, underground compressed air (again, compressed hydrogen is even more useful), pumped underground hydro, pumped undersea hydro, iron-air batteries (which are extremely cheap, and safe) and even deep mine-shaft gravitational (again, also compatible with hydrogen, compressed air, and compressed hydrogen).
Underground hydro is even more attractive than the mountaintop variety because the head may be thousands of meters.
It's also just not a matter of cost but supply. Even if you had the money for enough batteries to meet storage requirements for a fully green grid there is almost no chance you could manufacture enough cells.
For the forseeable future all cell production is going to go into cars because Tesla has fat enough margins to absorb increases in battery costs while utility scale storage can't.
For the forseeable future all cell production is going to go into cars because Tesla has fat enough margins to absorb increases in battery costs while utility scale storage can't.
Tesla is putting significant new investment into their energy business. Since they now have almost every major battery manufacturer globally doing business with them, they can shift to the less automotive grade chemistry for their stationary energy storage (power packs and mega packs).
Elon’s literal words mention this: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/musk-vows-to-accelerate-tes...
Elon’s literal words mention this: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/musk-vows-to-accelerate-tes...
Just because they will start using LFP for stationary storage doesn't mean they also won't consume all of the LFP capacity for cars and starve out stationary storage again. They already used LFP for all the China built M3s and started shipping those same M3s to non-Chinese markets. Right now all signs point to this continuing. Margins on cars are much better, right now cell supply is so constrained but demand for Teslas is so high they only manufacture the highest spec SKUs. If there are more cells they will go into producing first lower spec cars and then finally stationary packs will get whatever is left (if any).
Hey, I'm just parroting what the literal CEO of Tesla said, but you're fully entitled to your own opinion.
Wiring up the grid globally makes more sense than trying to store energy overnight.
We sat on our arses too long and essentially our skills for producing nuclear faded away and now we need to rely on Japan and France if we want nuclear but it seems like we're out of the loop. I thought w had a couple of new nuclear facilities in progress, Sizewell C [0] and somewhere else (and plans are afoot for an experimental fusion reactor which is the most forward thinking I've seen in the UK in a decade so perhaps that's being driven by EDF? [as well??]).
[0] https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/...
[0] https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/...
It’s a knee jerk reaction to Fukushima.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
It's not. These plans have been in motion since way before that, as your link probably confirms. Merkel was going to delay the closing, but when Fukushima came along she couldn't do that anymore.
It is cemented by Fukushima. From wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
> Within days of the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, large anti-nuclear protests occurred in Germany. Protests continued and, on 29 May 2011, Merkel's government announced that it would close all of its nuclear power plants by 2022.[7][8] Political writer David Frum characterized Merkel's decision as a political move to improve her approval ratings which had sagged after the post 2008 financial crisis bailout of southern Europe by Germany.
Regardless if things were in motion before, the decision to phase out was for a political gain. The rest of the story one can write themselves.
It put the country on the course we have today. It will be very interesting to see how the greens trot around that.
> Within days of the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, large anti-nuclear protests occurred in Germany. Protests continued and, on 29 May 2011, Merkel's government announced that it would close all of its nuclear power plants by 2022.[7][8] Political writer David Frum characterized Merkel's decision as a political move to improve her approval ratings which had sagged after the post 2008 financial crisis bailout of southern Europe by Germany.
Regardless if things were in motion before, the decision to phase out was for a political gain. The rest of the story one can write themselves.
It put the country on the course we have today. It will be very interesting to see how the greens trot around that.
Let me rephrase. They were supposed to close by 2022, Merkel delayed this by 12 years in 2010 but had to backpedal because of Fukushima. So the decision to close the plants was not a kneejerk reaction to Fukushima, it simply reverted back to the original decision.
VisualPolitik EN has a take on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYagGAgHfQ0 (12 mins)
And there is this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germa...
And there is this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germa...
My take is this: after Chernobyl, the risk was talked down by proponents as "happened because communism". And the other side got even more entrenched in their positions. Then Fukushima happened and "because communism" proponents suddenly stood without pants.
It would be still worth doing even if it's only helping 2 years from now. One can't expect gas to flow smoothly maybe ever anymore. One can go with coal and LNG for a while.
Completely new nuclear plants take many years even for the permits and a decade to build.
Completely new nuclear plants take many years even for the permits and a decade to build.
Here's better, more numerate coverage: https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1498005296299622408
Also the whole thread covers other nuclear topics the press is a bit lost on. Remember, the number of nuclear engineers at reuters is 0.
Also the whole thread covers other nuclear topics the press is a bit lost on. Remember, the number of nuclear engineers at reuters is 0.
“As Energy Ministries across the EU become "ecology" Ministries led by people who don't even know the units used to quantify energy, Finance Ministries become the adults.”
This is not more numerate coverage, it’s semi-informed snark.
This is not more numerate coverage, it’s semi-informed snark.
Here's the CV:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-w-nelson-484b0713
Considerably more numerate coverage, it's WELL-informed snark.
Is snark the exclusive domain of journalists? They are certainly the world's main supplier of it. But it seems like everyone else should get to play too.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-w-nelson-484b0713
Considerably more numerate coverage, it's WELL-informed snark.
Is snark the exclusive domain of journalists? They are certainly the world's main supplier of it. But it seems like everyone else should get to play too.
"Weather: famously indifferent to German wartime needs."
Ouch.
Ouch.
I really like that line too.
Keep in mind that this persons appears to be a pro nuclear industry lobbyist. So the number of objective nuclear opinions on this twitter account is 0.
When someone becomes an expert in something and goes professional, they can no longer be trusted to have any objective thoughts or statements.
[deleted]
When Putin was first elected two decades ago, a lot of my Austrian friends correctly saw in him a threat to Europe. I don't buy it that the German government didn't know him better than the average citizen did. They are just trying to ride whichever wave presents itself at any given moment. In the days of the Fukushima crisis, being against nuclear would get you the most votes. In the days of the Ukraine crisis, being against gas would get you the most votes. While Germany is the one looking bad here, it's actually a structural problem of every democracy in the world.
The other option is to put too much trust in the hands of dictators. Over the course of hundreds of years, that actually seems to work less well (eg: China - given their potential, they should have never had to play catch up). But every once in a while, there are a few decades where an individual comes along that plays all of their cards right and engages in a long game that vastly outperforms the 4-year back and forth circus of democracies.
But I don't trust myself to reliably recruit a front desk colleague, let alone someone with nuclear codes. So democracies it is.
The other option is to put too much trust in the hands of dictators. Over the course of hundreds of years, that actually seems to work less well (eg: China - given their potential, they should have never had to play catch up). But every once in a while, there are a few decades where an individual comes along that plays all of their cards right and engages in a long game that vastly outperforms the 4-year back and forth circus of democracies.
But I don't trust myself to reliably recruit a front desk colleague, let alone someone with nuclear codes. So democracies it is.
Finally! I really hope this will happen.
It will in fact most definitely not happen, as the article makes pretty clear.
Not that it would be a good idea, at all.
Not that it would be a good idea, at all.
Extending the life of low-carbon baseload power that is being prematurely shut down for purely political reasons wouldn't be a good idea in light of the climate crisis and this new wartime threat?
Surely a better idea than building LNG terminals.
Pretty smart ;-) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30426934#30427548
Not so simple though to restart the ones that are already down.
[deleted]
Will the energy suppliers then also pay back the compensation they received because of the (deliberately) badly done exit from exit from the nuclear phase-out?
Maybe Germany can fund TerraPower's travelling wave research and leapfrog Gen IV and -V conventional reactor technology.
I guess, "greens" in the coalition will be really "happy" about that.
This will be a big change in policy. I suspect that it is related to current war in Ukraine. Could be that finally Germany has seen the true face of Putin? I speculate but in relation to other big announcements today by the EU (providing fighter jets to Ukraine, promising Ukraine accession to the EU), it only makes sense.
woodpanel(1)
I don't get it. A nuclear accident halfway across the world and Germany decides to shut down. A war halfway across the continent and it decides to keep on?
Both threats (nuclear accident and Putin's madness) have always existed.
What changed? Did they suddenly discover Putin is not trustworthy to depend on for half of your energy supply?
Both threats (nuclear accident and Putin's madness) have always existed.
What changed? Did they suddenly discover Putin is not trustworthy to depend on for half of your energy supply?
Half way across the continent? Lwiw is closer to Berlin than Paris. But its not about the distance but the impact on the energy supply as the trade with Russia is falling apart. Yet, I don't think there will be a major swing to nuclear. First, it is very expensive and secondly, nuclear doesn't work well in combination with renewables, as nuclear power plants are very slow to change power output. Thats the big bonus of gas. The most reasonable solution is, to source gas elsewhere and push for renewables.
What changed is that to move away from nuclear the dependency on Gas has increased. This alleviated the immediate stress levels generated from the nuclear disasters around the world. Then a more immediate threat popped up by Russia invading Ukraine. This makes the gas dependency a liability again. This makes the far away risk of something might go very wrong with nuclear palatable again compared to the gas is risky right now.
Large scale nuclear plants - whether alive or dead are important strategic and tactical elements in modern warfare
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/02/26/conflict-betwe...
Small nuclear reactors are the answer imo. Russia has poured funding into opposing fracking for natural gas and encouraging european green initiatives arguably to increase their grip on euopean energy supplies
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14972531398371901...
Small nuclear reactors are the answer imo. Russia has poured funding into opposing fracking for natural gas and encouraging european green initiatives arguably to increase their grip on euopean energy supplies
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14972531398371901...
In a democracy, you need public support for this sort of thing.
The anti-nuclear movement has been behind the shutdowns. With Russia invading Ukraine, nuclear proponents might be able to sway public opinion in the opposite direction for once.
The anti-nuclear movement has been behind the shutdowns. With Russia invading Ukraine, nuclear proponents might be able to sway public opinion in the opposite direction for once.
This is like Brexit, the populous are too easily led away from reason when nuclear power is mentioned. I'm not sure what the solution is.
People were freaking the F out in South Wales, UK, because sand from Sizewell development (near Bristol) was being dumped a mile offshore, sand with one or two banana-equivalent doses per tonne (IIRC). Like maybe if you spend every day at the beach eating sand then you might be able to cause yourself some harm but there's no beach in Cardiff, the sand is way offshore and UK needs more non-fossil baseline power sources.
I think perhaps the public information giving preparedness guidance for nuclear war did a number on us in the 80s. Chernobyl didn't exactly help, mind you.
People were freaking the F out in South Wales, UK, because sand from Sizewell development (near Bristol) was being dumped a mile offshore, sand with one or two banana-equivalent doses per tonne (IIRC). Like maybe if you spend every day at the beach eating sand then you might be able to cause yourself some harm but there's no beach in Cardiff, the sand is way offshore and UK needs more non-fossil baseline power sources.
I think perhaps the public information giving preparedness guidance for nuclear war did a number on us in the 80s. Chernobyl didn't exactly help, mind you.
Never mind that they live right next door to the most active user of nuclear power in Europe France. So likelihood of a nuclear accident not affecting them is close to zero.
So just go with it and multiply the risk further? It's like saying, my partner smokes cigarettes, so me also doing so, will not raise my cancer risk.
Nuclear plants have net saved some million of lives by displacing air pollution, even when considering the risks of radiation accidents. Germany could shut down coal and leave nuclear on and save 1000 people per year. Not to mention climate change.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.057
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.057
That might be true, the risk still multiplies rendering the original comment nonsense.
Not just right next door, but downwind
I see sub $1m revenue businesses doing supply chain risk analysis. Surprised that a great nation such as Germany could justify 50% of it's energy coming from Russia.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
"It is part of my ministry's tasks to answer this question. I would not reject it on ideological grounds - but the preliminary examination has shown that it does not help us."
"Because the preparations for the shutdowns are already so far advanced that the nuclear power plants could only continue to operate under the highest safety concerns and possibly with fuel supplies that have not yet been secured," Habeck said."
Unexpectedly, I feel like I have to call fake news on Reuters for this.
The headline looks nothing like what the quotes in the body imply.