[Tarsul]

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).

[qbasic_forever]

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.

[jacquesm]

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.

[qbasic_forever]

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.

[_ph_]

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.

[hnaccount_rng]

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..

[kingofpandora]

Why do you assume you know better than experts?

[rasz]

Because those particular experts were on Russian payroll.

[kingofpandora]

Source please.

[ZeroGravitas]

Putting the same effort into ramping up heat pump production would probably help Germany more and hurt Russia more at the same time.

[turbinerneiter]

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.

People are meshugge.

[qbasic_forever]

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.

[turbinerneiter]

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.

[_ph_]

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.

[frosted-flakes]

Electric heat is always an option. If the gas runs out, portable electric heaters could be used, if the electric grid can keep up.

[_ph_]

Sure. And it can. We are talking about 3GW of nuclear on a grid which has like 100GW capacity vs 60-80GW consumption. Much more, if the sun is shining or wind is blowing. Yes, it is absolutely annoying to bring back some coal plants into service and using them more overall, but those 3 plants are only a small drip into the bucket.

If they would be easy to run longer, I would be all for it. But big money is better spent into reducing the gas dependency overall.

[ptr]

“Nobody” is a strong word; Sweden is building a nuclear waste storage site. Strongly supported by the local municipality. https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-approve-nuclear-waste...

[turbinerneiter]

I was talking about Germany. Is Sweden going to store German waste?