Germany begins powering down its last three nuclear plants(npr.org)
npr.org
Germany begins powering down its last three nuclear plants
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/15/1170244609/germany-begins-powering-down-nuclear-plants
74 comments
As a German, to me it feels like a direct result of realistic cold war fears regarding nuclear war (by association) and actually living through the consequences of Chernobyl... https://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/closed-off...
https://newsroom.iza.org/en/archive/research/how-the-chernob...
https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/accident-management/emergen...
The biggest problem I personally have with nuclear energy is that I don't trust companies nor states to deal with radioactive substances responsibly, especially with a rapidly aging population (see also https://youtu.be/ZSRHeXYDLko ). Do you? Theoretical safety is irrelevant when it comes to people. Just think about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accide...
The biggest problem I personally have with nuclear energy is that I don't trust companies nor states to deal with radioactive substances responsibly, especially with a rapidly aging population (see also https://youtu.be/ZSRHeXYDLko ). Do you? Theoretical safety is irrelevant when it comes to people. Just think about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accide...
Opposing nuclear energy is the same as supporting climate change because the only alternative to nuclear base load is coal or gas. This is why Germany emits 6 times more CO2 per kWh than France. If humanity was sane and rational we would have replaced coal with nuclear a long time ago.
Climate change activists opposing nuclear energy is like firefighters opposing water.
Climate change activists opposing nuclear energy is like firefighters opposing water.
> If humanity was sane and rational
That is exactly my point. If humanity was sane and rational I wouldn't be concerned about nuclear energy, because I would trust organizations to deal with it. But I do not trust organizations to handle this. In countries with vast space radioactive waste management might be negligible, but in Europe contamination affects more people immediately.
> Climate change activists opposing nuclear energy is like firefighters opposing water.
No, it's more like firefighters opposing AFFF. https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2021/02/22/firefighters-file-...
That is exactly my point. If humanity was sane and rational I wouldn't be concerned about nuclear energy, because I would trust organizations to deal with it. But I do not trust organizations to handle this. In countries with vast space radioactive waste management might be negligible, but in Europe contamination affects more people immediately.
> Climate change activists opposing nuclear energy is like firefighters opposing water.
No, it's more like firefighters opposing AFFF. https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2021/02/22/firefighters-file-...
Your concern over the risks of nuclear energy should be inversely proportional to how severe you think the risk of climate change caused by CO2 emissions is going to be.
This is a false dichotomy.
Then why is Germany emitting 6 times the CO2 per kWh than France is?
Because Germany chose the wrong technologies at the wrong time. Water, Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Gas, Coal is probably a good priority list...
THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR NUCLEAR for powering a country with low CO2 electricity. All the countries with the the lowest CO2 per kWh of electricity generated use nuclear and/or hydro. That isn't an accident. Germans just refuse to accept this due to their almost religious hatred of nuclear energy.
Country where the Chernobyl actually is has no problem with continuing to use nuclear power. Hell, the Chernobyl itself was still working till 2000.
When you look at these countries right now, this does not reassure me.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/close-call-ukrainian-nu...
> How did Germany evolve to be so anti-nuclear? Given the alternatives nuclear seems the way to go.
Nuclear power is currently by far the most expensive way to generate electricity. And this despite the fact that the insurance sum for the power plants is capped and the remaining risk is assumed by the state and the money that was invested for final waste storage will predictably not be sufficient either. Our early attempts for final storage since the 60s have failed and since 2013 we have been planning how to recover hundreds of thousands of barrels from a salt mine from which radioactively contaminated brine is leaking. And we have yet to find a suitable repository where long-term safety can be guaranteed.
Nuclear power is currently by far the most expensive way to generate electricity. And this despite the fact that the insurance sum for the power plants is capped and the remaining risk is assumed by the state and the money that was invested for final waste storage will predictably not be sufficient either. Our early attempts for final storage since the 60s have failed and since 2013 we have been planning how to recover hundreds of thousands of barrels from a salt mine from which radioactively contaminated brine is leaking. And we have yet to find a suitable repository where long-term safety can be guaranteed.
We also does not have sustainable energy storage and that's the reason for burning more coal, while spraying everyone with radioactive ash from coal in the process. I find it so funny when you are worried about waste from nuclear power plants, while there are literal tons of uranium every year being exhaled into the atmosphere and stored on ash heaps under the open air.
> It’s crazy that a country made up of seemingly smart people favor this. How did Germany evolve to be so anti-nuclear? Given the alternatives nuclear seems the way to go.
Well Germany isn't a country of smart people. Was maybe, now it's just a country for crackpot bureaucrats and corrupt politicians.
Well Germany isn't a country of smart people. Was maybe, now it's just a country for crackpot bureaucrats and corrupt politicians.
Moral, or other panic is apparently a German pastime.
Remember they still censor video games? Or are afraid of Google Street View?
Remember they still censor video games? Or are afraid of Google Street View?
In Germany there is still no consent on where to put the nuclear waste. Without that and no other country willing to take our waste, this is a problem. The process e.g. in Switzerland worked much better. It may actually be the very critical thinking that made it impossible to run nuclear plants in Germany. Further the federal structure and the citizen engagement in many decision making processes makes it complicated. Btw, the same problem actually makes a lot of wind power plans stall..
But they all agree on where to put the leftovers of burning coal until 2038... It makes absolutely no sense to me.
They're aiming for 2030 now. Their biggest power producer has already signed up for this. Think there's still some plants in Eastern Germany that don't have finalized plans but they'll probably get there.
https://www.rwe.com/en/press/rwe-power/2023-01-11-five-villa...
https://www.rwe.com/en/press/rwe-power/2023-01-11-five-villa...
In the mean time they intend to build fresh new natural gas power plants by 2030 in order to reach 50 GW, up from current capacity of 21 GW. That will be a doubling of natural gas power plants from today.
That's a perfectly sensible thing to do as part of a decarbonization plan. You seem to be suggesting it's a bad thing, but you don't say why.
Here's a 100% renewables plan for Germany that involves building gas capacity of 60% of peak demand and using it and synthetic gas made with renewables as "storage":
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bb...
They also provide numbers for doing it just with batteries, and suggest it would only be 2x as expensive. The numbers are a few years old now, so prices and tech have moved on since.
Other people now suggest massive oversupply of wind and solar combined with mass EV rollout will make it cheaper to just use batteries, which I generally lean towards:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bb...
But either way, it's not unexpected or weird to build gas capacity when trying to wean yourself of fossil fuels and energy imports. What's important is details like how much you use, whether you capture the carbon, and how you source the gas and whether you are rolling out renewables, heat pumps and EVs sufficiently fast.
Here's a 100% renewables plan for Germany that involves building gas capacity of 60% of peak demand and using it and synthetic gas made with renewables as "storage":
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bb...
They also provide numbers for doing it just with batteries, and suggest it would only be 2x as expensive. The numbers are a few years old now, so prices and tech have moved on since.
Other people now suggest massive oversupply of wind and solar combined with mass EV rollout will make it cheaper to just use batteries, which I generally lean towards:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bb...
But either way, it's not unexpected or weird to build gas capacity when trying to wean yourself of fossil fuels and energy imports. What's important is details like how much you use, whether you capture the carbon, and how you source the gas and whether you are rolling out renewables, heat pumps and EVs sufficiently fast.
Increasing burning of natural gas might have been sensible before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Today it makes the German energy grid one of Europe most expensive grid, and the amount of subsidizes the German government is spending makes practically everything else cheap in comparison. The German government are paying their citizens bills, lower taxes and subsidize most of the construction and operational cost of fossil fuel power plants. Just because the government is paying the bill does not make it cheap. How many more winters with government bailouts can people take before enough is enough?
Germany is not going to reach the European climate goals if they continue with building new natural gas power plants. They will also not reach the Paris agreement. It is "a bad thing" to continue burning fossil fuels!
There is a lot of technology that exists and future tech that they could be using. The German has instead chosen to use fossil fuels. If we are discussing what they could be doing, what they could make a political decision that when they ban production of new fossil fuel cars they also ban the construction of new fossil fuel power plants. This would be much more real than politician talking about solar and wind while at the same time building tons of natural gas power plants in the backyard.
Germany is not going to reach the European climate goals if they continue with building new natural gas power plants. They will also not reach the Paris agreement. It is "a bad thing" to continue burning fossil fuels!
There is a lot of technology that exists and future tech that they could be using. The German has instead chosen to use fossil fuels. If we are discussing what they could be doing, what they could make a political decision that when they ban production of new fossil fuel cars they also ban the construction of new fossil fuel power plants. This would be much more real than politician talking about solar and wind while at the same time building tons of natural gas power plants in the backyard.
You seem to be intentionally missing the point that 'gas plant' and 'burning fossil fuels' are two seperate, though related concepts.
https://www.equinor.com/news/20230105-equinor-rwe-cooperatio...
> Construction of new gas power plants (CCGTs), contributing to Germany’s phase-out roadmap for coal. Equinor and RWE will jointly own the CCGTs which initially will be fueled with natural gas and then gradually use hydrogen as fuel with the ambition of fully to be run on hydrogen when volumes and technology are available.
> Building production facilities in Norway to produce low carbon hydrogen from natural gas with CCS. More than 95 percent of the CO2 will be captured and stored safely and permanently under the seabed offshore Norway.
> Export of hydrogen by pipeline from Norway to Germany.
> Joint development of offshore wind farms that will enable production of renewable hydrogen as fuel for power and other industrial customers in the future.
https://www.equinor.com/news/20230105-equinor-rwe-cooperatio...
> Construction of new gas power plants (CCGTs), contributing to Germany’s phase-out roadmap for coal. Equinor and RWE will jointly own the CCGTs which initially will be fueled with natural gas and then gradually use hydrogen as fuel with the ambition of fully to be run on hydrogen when volumes and technology are available.
> Building production facilities in Norway to produce low carbon hydrogen from natural gas with CCS. More than 95 percent of the CO2 will be captured and stored safely and permanently under the seabed offshore Norway.
> Export of hydrogen by pipeline from Norway to Germany.
> Joint development of offshore wind farms that will enable production of renewable hydrogen as fuel for power and other industrial customers in the future.
Hydrogen as fuel are expected to start to be used in the energy grid by the start of 2050 as earliest and more likely by 2080. They are not part for the actually strategy of the 2030 or the 2050 goal, and they are not part of the strategy to reach the Paris climate agreement. Their use is currently limited to only green steel production, and for now only in very limited trial runs which are heavily government subsidized.
The plans for carbon capture is also very far into the future, more likely to have a significant role in next century than this one. The only party that talks a lot of carbon capture is the fossil fuel industry, and according to them they would need around 150 billions in government subsidizes in order create the technology.
In both cases the cost is overwhelming too high. No one is investing into this except for government funded trial run. The ambition is obviously to use it in the future(tm). That sounds nice and is something politicians use, but its a fantasy if people think it will actually be used to reach the climate goals of 2030.
side note Language like "You seem to be intentionally missing the point" is pointless. You insult me, I insult you, it will just sound like children talking. Please skip it. If you have to address the author rather than the content, then simply don't write anything.
The plans for carbon capture is also very far into the future, more likely to have a significant role in next century than this one. The only party that talks a lot of carbon capture is the fossil fuel industry, and according to them they would need around 150 billions in government subsidizes in order create the technology.
In both cases the cost is overwhelming too high. No one is investing into this except for government funded trial run. The ambition is obviously to use it in the future(tm). That sounds nice and is something politicians use, but its a fantasy if people think it will actually be used to reach the climate goals of 2030.
side note Language like "You seem to be intentionally missing the point" is pointless. You insult me, I insult you, it will just sound like children talking. Please skip it. If you have to address the author rather than the content, then simply don't write anything.
Hydrogen fuel is basically here already. It will be used for grids shortly. And saying that it will be 2080 before it happens is the same thing as saying no (real) climate change policy will happen until 2080. Even Tesla admits we will need it for grid energy storage. It is no longer something anyone can deny anymore.
One of current biggest project of green hydrogen in EU is the green steel project in Sweden. They received around 50 millions so far from the Swedish government and more from the EU funds. Their expected date of finishing is set to around 2045.
The experts involved in that project was asked this winter if and when they expected to see green hydrogen in the European energy grid in order to replace natural gas, and their reply was around 2080 and earliest 2050 before any hydrogen energy will be burned in order to generate electricity. It takes a lot of time to build up production, storage and pipelines, and even longer to go from small scale experiments to full industry scale. The current technology is still much more expensive than natural gas when producing hydrogen, estimated to be about 10% more per unit even after you include tax rebates and green credits. Their project wouldn't have been started unless they had received those government subsidizes, and the news reporting on it are predicting that the final price tag for the government will be a few hundred millions before its fully up and running.
But lets ignore that and look at the European Commission climate package in 2021. For the small price of €2 trillions of European subsidies then maybe in 2050 we would see the European grid being supply with enough hydrogen to make a difference in the climate goals. That was however before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and a lot of the money intended to go into renewables energy has instead gone to pay for even more fossil fuels. Since then there hasn't been much talk about those trillions intended to be invested in green hydrogen, nor much proof that it was anything more than just talk.
Political talk is cheap.
The experts involved in that project was asked this winter if and when they expected to see green hydrogen in the European energy grid in order to replace natural gas, and their reply was around 2080 and earliest 2050 before any hydrogen energy will be burned in order to generate electricity. It takes a lot of time to build up production, storage and pipelines, and even longer to go from small scale experiments to full industry scale. The current technology is still much more expensive than natural gas when producing hydrogen, estimated to be about 10% more per unit even after you include tax rebates and green credits. Their project wouldn't have been started unless they had received those government subsidizes, and the news reporting on it are predicting that the final price tag for the government will be a few hundred millions before its fully up and running.
But lets ignore that and look at the European Commission climate package in 2021. For the small price of €2 trillions of European subsidies then maybe in 2050 we would see the European grid being supply with enough hydrogen to make a difference in the climate goals. That was however before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and a lot of the money intended to go into renewables energy has instead gone to pay for even more fossil fuels. Since then there hasn't been much talk about those trillions intended to be invested in green hydrogen, nor much proof that it was anything more than just talk.
Political talk is cheap.
Sweden has already producing green steel: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-...
Large scale production is slated to happen before the end of the decade: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64538296
Everything seems to be happening way faster than what you are claiming.
Large scale production is slated to happen before the end of the decade: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64538296
Everything seems to be happening way faster than what you are claiming.
Nuclear waste only requires a fraction of the space of what a single large coal mine? It’s still irrational to put you energy security at risk because it’s “nuclear”, especially while wanting green electricity.
Also a bit darker thought, but you’d think the chance of nuclear fallout zones that’d keep humans out would be adored by more hardcore environmentalists.
I think the sort of environmentalism on display there is more people rallying against what they don’t “comprehend”.
Also a bit darker thought, but you’d think the chance of nuclear fallout zones that’d keep humans out would be adored by more hardcore environmentalists.
I think the sort of environmentalism on display there is more people rallying against what they don’t “comprehend”.
If you could convert the waste into co2 and put it into the sky, that would be better. Right?
This is a solved problem. You bury the waste deep underground, preferably after reprocessing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
We tried to bury the waste deep underground in the 60s and 70s already. Let's say it didn't work out so well and now we are still planning how to retrieve it since the decision was made in 2013.
We have not yet found a geologically suitable site in Germany. In contrast to the less disturbed granites of Finland and Sweden, the formations occurring in Germany are more fractured and thus less suitable. Currently, several salt and clay blocks are being investigated for their suitability as repositories, but they have other problems. (Water solubility for salt and lower stability for clay).
"According to the report of the Repository Commission, the final disposal of highly radioactive waste in Germany will drag on well into the 22nd century. The commission expects the end of emplacement to occur between the years 2075 and 2130, while the "state of a sealed repository mine should be reached between 2095 and 2170 or later." Accordingly, highly radioactive waste could be housed in interim storage facilities until after 2100. At the same time, final storage costs are projected to range from about 49 billion to 170 billion euros; significantly more than the 23 billion euros in payments transferred by nuclear power plant operators to the government for this purpose on July 3, 2017."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endlager_(Kerntechnik)#Weltwei...
We have not yet found a geologically suitable site in Germany. In contrast to the less disturbed granites of Finland and Sweden, the formations occurring in Germany are more fractured and thus less suitable. Currently, several salt and clay blocks are being investigated for their suitability as repositories, but they have other problems. (Water solubility for salt and lower stability for clay).
"According to the report of the Repository Commission, the final disposal of highly radioactive waste in Germany will drag on well into the 22nd century. The commission expects the end of emplacement to occur between the years 2075 and 2130, while the "state of a sealed repository mine should be reached between 2095 and 2170 or later." Accordingly, highly radioactive waste could be housed in interim storage facilities until after 2100. At the same time, final storage costs are projected to range from about 49 billion to 170 billion euros; significantly more than the 23 billion euros in payments transferred by nuclear power plant operators to the government for this purpose on July 3, 2017."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endlager_(Kerntechnik)#Weltwei...
Watching Germany do anything related to nuclear energy or waste is like the people in in infomercials failing to do very basic tasks. Get your act together.
I tend to agree. However, turning them off is partially exactly getting the act together.
The very big problem is that at the same time particularly southern German states fail to support renewables and power distribution lines.
So while there was a time line. One part of the time line was missed. So everyone decided to rather count on Russian gas as an intermediary solution with the known geopolitical consequences that followed.
PS: Strange twist: There is a German company that now wants to produce fuel elements for Russian nuclear power plants...
The very big problem is that at the same time particularly southern German states fail to support renewables and power distribution lines.
So while there was a time line. One part of the time line was missed. So everyone decided to rather count on Russian gas as an intermediary solution with the known geopolitical consequences that followed.
PS: Strange twist: There is a German company that now wants to produce fuel elements for Russian nuclear power plants...
> turning them off is partially exactly getting the act together.
Only from an old-school deeply irrational fear of nuclear energy perspective. Now that we know how catastrophic climate change could be the rational choice would be to replace all coal and gas with nuclear. Germans also really need to understand just how critical cheap and reliable electricity is to quality of life and GDP. Germany is making very bad decisions for deeply ideological reasons divorced from any understanding of real world technological limitations.
The time line was never realistic.
Only from an old-school deeply irrational fear of nuclear energy perspective. Now that we know how catastrophic climate change could be the rational choice would be to replace all coal and gas with nuclear. Germans also really need to understand just how critical cheap and reliable electricity is to quality of life and GDP. Germany is making very bad decisions for deeply ideological reasons divorced from any understanding of real world technological limitations.
The time line was never realistic.
> In Germany there is still no consent on where to put the nuclear waste
Dig a deep hole, put waste there. This problem has been solved for decades. Germany has no seismic activity either, so that should not be a problem there.
Dig a deep hole, put waste there. This problem has been solved for decades. Germany has no seismic activity either, so that should not be a problem there.
We did that indeed for decades and then it turned out that the site was unsuitable, because of water inflows, and now we have been planning since 2013 how to recover the barrels again. The beginning of the recovery is planned to start in 2033 and is estimated to last for decades.
It's not true that Germany has no seismic activity btw.
It's not true that Germany has no seismic activity btw.
… but you can always build gas plants I’m sure. Same thing is true in parts of the US. Gas somehow doesn’t face the opposition of pretty much anything else.
Right? Nuclear power is some of the cleanest energy we have. With research developments, strong safety regulations, and a plan for storing the waste it produces, nuclear is a much better option than continuing to rely on fossil fuels.
What poor timing, too. With the war in Ukraine going on, now is not the time to be increasing your independence on fossil fuels, even if temporarily.
What poor timing, too. With the war in Ukraine going on, now is not the time to be increasing your independence on fossil fuels, even if temporarily.
Don’t know if anyone can compare the impact of fuel wars vs impact of nuclear waste&fallout. Though I agree the former currently has a much higher effect.
Worrying about the 'risk' of nuclear waste while we emit so much CO2 into the atmosphere is like worrying about a hangnail while you have a huge tumor on your neck. Modern reactors have very thick containment shells and have zero risk of "fallout".
If the hangnail causes a sepsis, it’s fatal in short time albeit the risk might have been low. But what if the skin is dry and weak?
The German reactors were running on low maintenance because of the shutdown, anticipated for last December. Hence the risk of continued operation is worse than typical.
A large overhaul would be necessary to ensure usual safety.
The German reactors were running on low maintenance because of the shutdown, anticipated for last December. Hence the risk of continued operation is worse than typical.
A large overhaul would be necessary to ensure usual safety.
Why is germany being so incredibly stupid about this?
Same question could be asked in the aftermath of an incident. The argumentation is not so straightforward if looked upon in detail.
Of course the question is if the reactors could have been „saved“ earlier on, but those decisions were made in 2010.
In the meantime, wind, solar and gas plants were built. Gas plants were intended to offset low output times in solar and wind. Gas plants can be quickly turned on and off unlike nuclear plants. Thats the reasoning.
What would you recommend?
Of course the question is if the reactors could have been „saved“ earlier on, but those decisions were made in 2010.
In the meantime, wind, solar and gas plants were built. Gas plants were intended to offset low output times in solar and wind. Gas plants can be quickly turned on and off unlike nuclear plants. Thats the reasoning.
What would you recommend?
Obviously that you should have replaced all coal and gas with nuclear. That is why France emits 1/6 the CO2 per kWh as Germany does.
Propoganda for childen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Wolke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Wolke
Lol. Die woke. Maybe.
Solar and wind are better alternatives today. They got developed to the point they are because of those same smart, sensible Germans investing in them early on.
Solar and wind could be better alternatives in the future. Today, Germany is among the European countries with least clean power thanks to coal and natural gas use — https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE.
Principally nuclear countries like Finland, France, and Sweden produce a kWh of power with 5x-20x less carbon emissions. The figures are even better in countries relying more on hydro energy.
The nuclear waste is a real problem, but a nearly inconsequential one compared to global warming and carbon emissions from coal and natural gas. We have geological storage and reprocessing methods for nuclear waste. Fast Breeder Reactors and Molten Salt Reactors can consume what's considered nuclear waste and the latter can produce short-lived waste (dangerous for 300 years instead of thousands), which we can definitely store.
The biggest challenges for nuclear reactors are political, both because people are against the reactors as they were unsafe/used for WMD production in the past, and because having nuclear energy tips the energy and power balance (countries like Russia would rather see Europe depending on their energy). The engineering and safety challenges are irrelevant in comparison.
Principally nuclear countries like Finland, France, and Sweden produce a kWh of power with 5x-20x less carbon emissions. The figures are even better in countries relying more on hydro energy.
The nuclear waste is a real problem, but a nearly inconsequential one compared to global warming and carbon emissions from coal and natural gas. We have geological storage and reprocessing methods for nuclear waste. Fast Breeder Reactors and Molten Salt Reactors can consume what's considered nuclear waste and the latter can produce short-lived waste (dangerous for 300 years instead of thousands), which we can definitely store.
The biggest challenges for nuclear reactors are political, both because people are against the reactors as they were unsafe/used for WMD production in the past, and because having nuclear energy tips the energy and power balance (countries like Russia would rather see Europe depending on their energy). The engineering and safety challenges are irrelevant in comparison.
you might want to google carbon emission of germany instead of reading fake news. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/10/23/germany-coal...
The fact that the shutdown of nuclear energy in Germany is based on irrational ideological fearmongering and that it's doubly stupid to do so BEFORE having finished building up sufficient renewable energy generation and storage capacity, thus leading, at least temporarily, to a de-facto replacement of a sizeable proportion of the part previously held by nuclear energy with fossil energies like coal that are far more dirty (with CO₂ and other pollutants)…
… doesn't in any way change the fact that Germany has indeed been massively investing in renewable energies and has built up enormous capacities in that domain that account for a much higher percentage of renewables in the energy mix than the overwhelming majority of developed countries… and that those early and continuous massive investments by Germany have played a major role in bringing these renewable energies to the much improved viability, maturity and price level they now have.
There is no contradiction between those two facts.
… doesn't in any way change the fact that Germany has indeed been massively investing in renewable energies and has built up enormous capacities in that domain that account for a much higher percentage of renewables in the energy mix than the overwhelming majority of developed countries… and that those early and continuous massive investments by Germany have played a major role in bringing these renewable energies to the much improved viability, maturity and price level they now have.
There is no contradiction between those two facts.
renewable energy in a country such as germany need non renewable energy to work when there is no wind or sun. figure out if its better then to have nuclear or coal
Shutting down nuclear energy doesn't change the fact of Germany's investment in renewables but it DOES make it pretty pointless. They spent hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve zero reduction in CO2 per kWh.
I prefer GHG emmisions of the entire economy per dollar of GDP, as this doesn't just cherry pick one sector:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-emissions-and-gdp-per...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-emissions-and-gdp-per...
And, apart from a covid blip, generally looks positive for most economies, and France and Germany don't seem much different, despite the differences in their electricity production.
Another view on similar data:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity?tab=chart&t...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-emissions-and-gdp-per...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-emissions-and-gdp-per...
And, apart from a covid blip, generally looks positive for most economies, and France and Germany don't seem much different, despite the differences in their electricity production.
Another view on similar data:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity?tab=chart&t...
I would respect such goals much more if they issued a ban against building new fossil fuel capacity, rather than having the opposite goal of building new fossil fuel power plants in order to provide energy when solar and wind has non-optimal weather conditions.
Such ban would go well in hand with the decision to phase out cars that run on fossil fuels in 2035.
Such ban would go well in hand with the decision to phase out cars that run on fossil fuels in 2035.
> Solar and wind are better alternatives today.
YOu understand that Germany has been investing into wind and solar for decades by now and it's still extremely far from meeting its energy production goals, even though you wind farms everywhere in the country when you drive there? That should tell you something about the viability of this initiative.
YOu understand that Germany has been investing into wind and solar for decades by now and it's still extremely far from meeting its energy production goals, even though you wind farms everywhere in the country when you drive there? That should tell you something about the viability of this initiative.
Nuclear is a MUCH better alternative to coal, which Germany still gets about 1/3 of its electricity from. It would have made a LOT more sense to replace all coal electricity with nuclear.
> Environmental groups planned to mark the day with celebrations outside the three reactors and rallies in major cities, including Berlin.”
They should be celebrating right next ash heaps from coal power plants
They should be celebrating right next ash heaps from coal power plants
Are they celebrating the fact that Germany emits 6 times more CO2 per kWh than France? They should be ashamed of themselves.
Climate change activists opposing nuclear energy is like firefighters opposing water.
Extinguishing any fire with water is like saving the environment with nuclear energy. It might work, but if the fire turns out to be a metal or grease fire, you have a problem just like when the final waste repositories later turn out to be unsuitable.
The risk of climate change is approximately infinite times worse than any risk of deeply buried nuclear waste.
Shutting down nuclear reactors while building more coal power plants is incredibly stupid. Germany emits 6 times more CO2 per kWh than France.
This tells me that Germany, despite all their talk to the contrary, are really just deniers of the seriousness of Climate Change.
If you really believed the science on the seriousness of Climate Change, you would see that powering down existing nuclear plants is one of the stupidest things you could do. Even a Chernobyl every decade would be preferable to the consequences of increased CO2 output.
If you really believed the science on the seriousness of Climate Change, you would see that powering down existing nuclear plants is one of the stupidest things you could do. Even a Chernobyl every decade would be preferable to the consequences of increased CO2 output.
Exactly, Germany shutting down nuclear reactors and burning a huge amount of coal is like a person saying they are extremely opposed to anabolic steroids but winning Mr Olympia 5 times.
As long as they have the renewable to offset generation capacity, it's all good.
Nuclear is better than FF, but not without associated long-term burdens. (Trading nuclear for FFs would be dumb.)
The goal has to be to get off FF as fast as possible, with an emphasis on reducing imports.
Nuclear is better than FF, but not without associated long-term burdens. (Trading nuclear for FFs would be dumb.)
The goal has to be to get off FF as fast as possible, with an emphasis on reducing imports.
> As long as they have the renewable to offset generation capacity, it's all good.
by keeping the nuclear for a few more years they could have phased out the coal instead
and making it ever worse: that coal is lignite, the shittiest possible coal
it's hard to overstate quite how stupid Germany is here
by keeping the nuclear for a few more years they could have phased out the coal instead
and making it ever worse: that coal is lignite, the shittiest possible coal
it's hard to overstate quite how stupid Germany is here
Hopefully, the negative energy output will get displaced appropriated with RNG.
These are the same people that laughed at Trump when he raised the dangers of dependence on Russian oil. That worked out well.
Date and source for that claim?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg
the German foreign secretary at the time, Heiko Maas
the German foreign secretary at the time, Heiko Maas
Four years ago Germans laughed when Trump warned of reliance on Russian energy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg
Wow! You really showed…”some people”!
Environmental groups planned to mark the day with celebrations outside the three reactors and rallies in major cities, including Berlin.”
It’s crazy that a country made up of seemingly smart people favor this. How did Germany evolve to be so anti-nuclear? Given the alternatives nuclear seems the way to go.