[looping__lui]

Renewables are not an option to rely on entirely with an industrialized nation consuming a lot of electricity 24/7. They look financially attractive if storage and grid flexibility aren’t factored in.

Full disclosure: I deliver more electricity to the grid with my PV than I consume.

[lispm]

I would think that the region where I live (north Germany) could be driven two-three times with renewable energy. Added storage is a matter of time and money. Given that nuclear energy will be slow and extremely expensive to build, we'll better look for alternatives sooner than later. Plus: spent fuel storage / reprocessing costs how much for what option? We have nuclear power since the 50s, but dealing with nuclear waste is still largely unsolved.

> I deliver more electricity to the grid with my PV than I consume.

That's fine. We'll see more people doing it and we'll see many GWh distributed storage capacity added over the next years.

[looping__lui]

> I would think that the region where I live (north Germany) could be driven two-three times with renewable energy.

I suspect not a very economically strong region then?

> Given that nuclear energy will be slow and extremely expensive to build, we'll better look for alternatives sooner than later. Plus: spent fuel storage / reprocessing costs how much for what option? We have nuclear power since the 50s, but dealing with nuclear waste is still largely unsolved.

It’s pick your poison: that or global warming. Japan and Korea are ramping up their nuclear power; Korea gets em up and running in 2 years…

> That's fine. We'll see more people doing it and we'll see many GWh distributed storage capacity added over the next years

PVs are horrible for grids to handle and for every installed PV we also need to have the gas equivalent if PV doesn’t deliver. If we are really optimistic and assume we would only need to cover 3 days we probably need around 3600 GWh or storage which is equal to 12 million tons of batteries assuming 300 Wh per kg of battery (if I got the math right on my phone).

[Gwypaas]

> It’s pick your poison: that or global warming. Japan and Korea are ramping up their nuclear power; Korea gets em up and running in 2 years…

Everytime a nuclear advocate mentions Korea their build time seemingly gets shortened by a year, all the while Flamanville 3 adds another year of delay.

Sadly the South Korean model seems to require falsifying certification documents so following their lead seems supremely unwise.

> In November 2012 it was discovered that over 5,000 small components used in five reactors at Yeonggwang Nuclear Power Plant had not been properly certified; eight suppliers had faked 60 warranties for the parts. Two reactors were shut down for component replacement, which was likely to cause power shortages in South Korea during the winter.[25] Reuters reported this as South Korea's worst nuclear crisis, highlighting a lack of transparency on nuclear safety and the dual roles of South Korea's nuclear regulators on supervision and promotion.[26] This incident followed the prosecution of five senior engineers for the coverup of a serious loss of power and cooling incident at Kori Nuclear Power Plant, which was subsequently graded at INES level 2.[25][27]

> In 2013, there was a scandal involving the use of counterfeit parts in nuclear plants and faked quality assurance certificates. In June 2013 Kori 2 and Shin Wolsong 1 were shut down, and Kori 1 and Shin Wolsong 2 ordered to remain offline, until safety-related control cabling with forged safety certificates is replaced.[28] Control cabling in the first APR-1400s under construction had to be replaced delaying construction by up to a year.[29] In October 2013 about 100 people were indicted for falsifying safety documents, including a former chief executive of Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power and a vice-president of Korea Electric Power Corporation.[30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea#H...

[lispm]

> Japan and Korea are ramping up their nuclear power

Almost.

Before the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake Japan had 54 nuclear reactors with 30% of Japan’s electricity output. Of that only 33 reactors are currently possibly operable and of those only 10 are actually currently online.

The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake was the most devastating event in the nuclear history: a single event caused the shutdown of all 50+ reactors of a country, with much of the nuclear electricity production capacity lost for a decade - and longer.

While the country is spending billions to keep the wrecks under control.

[looping__lui]

And that happens in Germany exactly how often?

Relate that to the 400g/kWh of carbon emissions coal produces or the radioactive fallout from coal plants.

I prefer a nuclear power plant to the coal plants that smog up my air and pollute everything around the Rhine area.

In Japan majority is supporting it again and the articles don’t read like nuclear is on the decline in Japan these days: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/03/06/national/nuclea...

“ Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is one of several world leaders aiming to ramp up the use of nuclear power, with plans to restart more reactors that have been standing idle since the Fukushima crisis.”

So I think what you state is wrong!?

[lispm]

Shutting down all reactors and then a decade later restarting a few is really not a sound strategy to solve climate change problems. Remember, the example of Japan was yours.

[looping__lui]

? So, instead you propose the German strategy to restart coal and double gas capacity to achieve 140 g/kWh of carbon emissions by 2030 (e.g., twice of France)?

So restarting coal plants in Germany is wise in comparison?