Do you honestly believe that is a fair summary of the article?
The decision to shut them down happened long ago. They voted against a proposal from the opposition to revert that. The plants were planned to shut down since a long time, there is a lot of unsolved issues around keeping them running, like fuel and personnel. The plants also would impact gas usage only by 1% and electricity isn't a great replacement short term for all the gas used.
In hindsight I think the decision to get out of nuclear was wrong, especially before getting out of coal. But keeping the last 3 running for some more months isn't really a solution for anything.
It seems irrational because that's not what's happening.
Those power plants can't be run next winter.
Contracts have been terminated, replacement parts with long lead times haven't been ordered, maintenance windows have been shifted in anticipation of the shutdown. It's possible to write new contracts and order new parts, so they could be back in operation, maybe sometime late in 2023.
But that would still leave them them down precisely in the period that matters most: Next winter.
I'd be way more worried about the general populations ability to buy groceries and keep the house warm in the winter.
Globally a lot of harvests are falling through because of floods and heat waves. Combined with the inflation that's just starting to take off... Paying for life's necessities will be challenging for a lot of employed workers
A government is a law unto themselves. They have power to do what they need in times of war. Germany shouldn't be pulling a Chamberlain moment while Russia is hot to commit genocide in Europe and roll over whoever they want.
The first person who said words like yours was probably a chieftain long ago who went to his smiths and said "I need my new sword NOW, hurry up with that hardening!"
> Contracts have been terminated, replacement parts with long lead times haven't been ordered, maintenance windows have been shifted in anticipation of the shutdown.
"Excuses"? If you know that your company shuts down one year from now, why would you be ordering spare parts for five years into the future? Especially if you've known that date for twenty years like Germans did?
Sure, sure, but I find difficult to believe that an industrial superpower such as Germany can't find a solution in a couple of months.
The the usual politicians' way of speaking. If there was the political will of having the nuclear power plants works, they would go and find the spare parts in a second. There's no political will (thank you Greens!) so they make up excuses.
Germany's shutting those down because of the Fukushima disaster.
A lot of Germans believe (rightly or wrongly) that Japanese are as quality-conscious and dependable as they themselves. Corollary: if the Japanese can fuck up in the ways that led to Fukushima, then the German operators can fuck up in similar ways.
Now, these people may be wrong. But they made the decision. Until Fukushima, there was a net pro-nuclear vote, after, against, because these people switched.
If you want to argue about safety, I think you might do well do focus on the safety issue that made the significant voter segment change their opinion.
Right. There is no dispute that the Bavarian forests are still strongly contaminated from the Chernobyl disaster and will be for many decades. You still have somewhat to be careful to eat mushrooms from there and especially wild boar.
The problem with nuclear is simply that it is irrelevant to the current situation. Won’t add enough energy to the grid, won’t solve the problem of gas demand at all, so it really doesn’t matter if Germany was right or wrong about it.
No, nobody will admit to that or change their minds, the end of nuclear in Germany will be celebrated as a success for the environment.
No, changing the opinion now would not matter. Germany killed its nuclear industry decades ago. Being right about this would have mattered in the 80s and 90s. You don't get the CO2 or methane that has been emitted back into the ground or the people that died out of the ground by being right in 2022.
It very much matters over the timespan of several decades. That is enough time in which many more nuclear power plants could have been brought online. Just because Germany made the gross error of not building out enough nuclear power to provide for their needs doesn’t mean it is impossible.
No, it doesn't. The nuclear plants were never a substitute for residential gas heaters and the chemical industry consuming copious amounts of natural gas. Any shortfall from the nuclear shutdown can be covered by the underutilized coal plants. It's temporarily inconvenient but doesn't necessitate gas imports in any way.
What is "enough"? If any solution has to solve all the problems to be considered at all, you're going to have trouble noticing solutions that chip away at the problem until it's solved.
The answer for the war is coal and this is exactly what Germany is doing. It is simpler and cheaper to run the existing coal plants at the full capacity or even increase it than try to maintain the nuclear plants long past the original design lifespan and that were planned to be stopped for years.
In retrospect it would be better if Germany did not decide to shutdown the nuclear, but presently this is a rational decision.
It “really goes wrong” only because we've set a really high bar for safety when talking about nuclear risks compared to most other carcinogenic risks: air pollution, pesticides, alcohol, tobacco, etc. If people where living in Prypiat right now, most of their cancer would come from other sources.
Because of the cultural stigma associated with radiations (which itself comes from the very real fear of a world-ending nuclear war during the early cold war) most smokers would refused to live around a nuclear accident site, even though it's quickly (after the most radioactive elements, namely iodine, has decayed away) much less dangerous than the cigarette they knowingly smoke all day.
Fun fact: did you know that in Germany alone the area of what has been destroyed by coal mining is comparable in size to the exclusion zone of Fukushima. This is when things go alright with coal: https://nitter.42l.fr/autommen/status/1538496930262704128#m
And yet we’re all still here and given the number of nuclear power plants and how long we’ve been using them compared to the tiny number of accidents it shows that it is truly the safest form of large scale power generation.
It is also a lot safer today if new reactors are built. The problem are the old reactors need to be shut down because they're based on older designs. We need to start building Pebble Beach reactors where even if there is a containment break, safe small carbon balls with a thin sliver of fissile material just spill out on the floor. These spread out and reduce their combined temperate averting a meltdown. Individually the balls themselves are not dangerous, they're lukewarm and could be held in the hand (not that you would). I think there are some even newer designs that go beyond this in safety. The problem with the anti-nuclear argument is that it is based on the old rod reactors like the one that failed in Fukushima prefect, Chernobyl or 3 mile island. Of course we shouldn't run those older models anymore. You need to start building the new safer reactors before you begin shutting down the old ones so you can logistically switch, however. Instead we're unfortunately heading for a future where we eventually just shut down these old reactors for safety without a real plan for replacing them. Or, we keep running the old models until they become the very cautionary tale that makes everyone nervous about nuclear.
At the moment it seems that the CO2 problem is more pressing and of greater magnitude than the problem of nuclear waste. It sounds like a relevant tradeoff.
You are misjudging the mood regarding nuclear power in Germany completely. You would have to expend so much political capital to keep those running, it‘s simply not worth it. Not for the benefit they provide, not for any communication goals you might have.
It really seems like a foolish decision. Is there any good explanation for why they are shutting these down other than anti-nuclear fears? I mean, it's Germany of all places so I can't imagine they have any concerns about costs to refuel, refurbish or maintain these reactors in the future--it's likely a rounding error in their GDP and budgets.
they stopped maintenance of these nuclear power plants 3 years ago because they "knew" they were out of life. Thus, they don't have the people or the safety measurements in place to go on with nuclear. Also, if the greens have no problem going further with coal, they wouldn't have a problem going on with nuclear (for a little while). So, it's definitely based on facts and not on idealism.
Also (I still don't understand HN's hype for nuclear), let's not forget how often and much the nuclear plants have to stand still because of xyz (e.g. too little cooling water, which was the case in France in the last months).
Sure but this is Germany, a financial and manufacturing powerhouse in the world. If they decided they wanted these plants to keep running I can't imagine they would have any trouble at all doing so.
What you can imagine isn't all that relevant though, once the decision to mothball an installation of this size is made it isn't as though you decide to run your car for another year. This is a massive infrastructure project, with all kind of regulatory hoops they need to jump through to operate safely, including training of employees, gear certification and so on. Starting things back up again could well be a multi-year project.
Germany's GDP is 4 trillion dollars, its government budget is over 400 billion. Refurbing 3 nuke plants is nothing with those resources. The entire manhattan project that pioneered nuclear power only cost about 50 billion in today's money, but they aren't even starting from scratch like that. If they wanted it to happen I can't see any financial or technical blocker.
Sure, but why bother? These 3 plants would only add a tiny bit to the German electricty production. They really won't be missed. And they cannot be used to replace gas, as gas power plants are used for quick responses, not base load.
But it isn't a problem of money. Sure we could pay for it. But that doesn't make things with a 1.5year lead-time appear in 3 weeks. You can buy _more_ but you can't buy _faster_.
So sure, in a year or two we can get these reactors back online. In 10 or 15 years we can even get new ones. But these time scales don't help in the next winter and on those time scales we can come up with solutions that are even better and not at risk at making eating shrooms you find in the forest killing you..
Germany still does not have a solution for the nuclear waste. Nobody wants it. All the pro nuclear people turn into anti nuclear people once their region is looked at for a nuclear waste disposal site.
Recently a former conservative minister got an award for fighting against wind power which is named after a former key figure of the early green movement in Germany, wo later dropped out to figth against wind turbines.
Bavaria is holding back the construction of a crucial north-south connection for electricity, which would bring the power from the wind-rich north to them. But they don't want the power lines messing up their landscape.
Everyone wants electricity, nobody wants to see the infrastructure that makes it.
Freezing to death this winter because your source of fuel oil is now your geopolitical enemy seems like a more pressing problem than the tiny amount of waste 3 plants will generate decades from now.
Please inform yourself before you say things like that. This discussion is already hard even without the constant interjection of uninformed opinions.
The decision to keep these 3 plants running or not is not about the waste, but about the fact that they were planned to shut down for years now, and there is some real hurdles to reversing that now. The impact of keeping them on is also rather small. The effort and money is more effectively spent elsewhere.
To prevent "freezing to death" would require heating, not electricity, which Germany has enough. It is the house heating that is powered by gas. And no one is going to freeze to death, the question is only the impact onto industry.
1. As already noted by other posters, the decision to decommission these plants was made years ago.
2. As a consequence, the plants are in no shape to be run much longer without major refurbishment, rehinring and training personal. Also, the fuel rods are basically spent, new ones would have to be ordered and manufactured which takes quite some time. Want to guess where most fuel rods came from? (spoiler: Russia)
3. Yes, running them longer would have saved burning some coal which would be good for the climate.
4. They wouldn't have saved much, if any, gas burning. Gas power plants are "fast" plants, vs. nuclear plants, which are the slowest to change power output. Nuclear power plants consequently cannot replace gas power plants. On top of that, there are a lot of combined electricity/heating gas plants. They cannot be replaced by nuclear power either.
5. Electricity production is just a small fraction of gas usage, the biggest part goes to private home heating and of course, industrial usage.
So, yes, bad timing. Woulnd't have been a problem but for Putin attacking and utterly destroying parts of the Ukraine. But as things are, the best way to deal with is, to press forward with renewables instead of sinking more money into nuclear. (By the way, the real crisis is that only 50% of France nuclear powerplants are operating. Between heat and repairs, French power supply is under much greater pressure, actually often enough supported by Germany)
> They wouldn't have saved much, if any, gas burning
Compare to coal (that seems to be the tradeoff in Germany) nuclear energy kills 820x more people per produced energy unit. 820x the number of human lives lost.
> Can you back that up? To me it looks like only 5% of uranium is in Russia
It's not about mining. You need to enrich uranium first, and a massive portion of world's industrial capacity for that is in Russia: https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/re... - "Russia had around a 46 percent share of global enrichment capacity in 2018".
You are linking to uranium production, not the production of fuel rods.
And yes, the nuclear power plants produce less CO2 than coal. No doubt about that. But that is the consequence of a decision over 10 years ago. Unfortunately, the same government who decided that, didn't built up renewables at the required speed, actually slowed down the buildup of renewables.
And? What is the relevance of that? Not shutting them off wouldn't in any way influence the industrial and heating heating usages of natural gas in Germany which are the main problem.
You won't heat homes using electricity more efficiently than with direct heaters without significantly redesigning them, so all this would do would be using even more primary energy than before. This is going to happen over time as nZEBs according to the 2010 and 2012 EU directives are going to replace old buildings in the building stock, but you can't make that happen overnight.
Also, since the origin of the electricity doesn't matter in this case, to say that you'd need to not shut down those nuclear plants is clearly wrong since you could just use the currently underutilized coal plants to get exactly the same effect -- except the lack of electricity is clearly not a problem.
We're literally going into an era, where politicians are advising their citizens to "wear a warmer sweater" at home, in one of the strongest economies in the world. Every killowatt of energy helps, and if you're able to switch a percent or two of your people to use electricity for heat, that can save a lot of gas for areas, where there are no alternatives.
Yes, long term we can talk about many alternatives, but it's july... august, september, and it's already cold, space heaters cost ~10eur (2kW) and are still available (atleast more available than the alternatives).
It turned out that "strongest economies in the world" are like that by literally destroying the world's ecosystems. If you have any idea how "wear a warmer sweater" is a bad suggestion until we make it so that the destroying of the world's ecosystems is not necessary, out with it. Energy-efficiency-wise, wearing appropriate clothing is one of the best ideas.
And 30 nuclear reactors are still offline in France. Of the 28 still available, 5 are partially down. Many of these reactors are out of order because of technical issues (mostly unexpected corrosion).
The decision to shut them down happened long ago. They voted against a proposal from the opposition to revert that. The plants were planned to shut down since a long time, there is a lot of unsolved issues around keeping them running, like fuel and personnel. The plants also would impact gas usage only by 1% and electricity isn't a great replacement short term for all the gas used.
In hindsight I think the decision to get out of nuclear was wrong, especially before getting out of coal. But keeping the last 3 running for some more months isn't really a solution for anything.