[zmix]

> Renewables are not a complete solution, you need a backup for when the wind down't blow and the sun don't shine.

You can't just switch off and oon a nuclear plant. It is not good as a backup solution.

> But turning off perfectly fine reactors that have already been paid for and are producing tons of CO2 free electricity in a so-called "climate emergency" is incompetence that's indistinguishable from malice.

Well, while this is by no means scientifically sound, between 2011 (the year Merkel decided to get rid of the nuclear power plants) and 1954 (the year the first such power plant got available for civilian production) there were two worst accidents and one half. Using this data there was a catastrophic accident every 22.8 years, luckily not in our neighbourhood.

[mpweiher]

> You can't just switch off and oon a nuclear plant. It is not good as a backup solution.

That turns out not to be the case. For example, the French stations are built so they can easily manage a much larger range.

However, this is backwards. Or as I put it elsewhere: if the logical choice in a particular situation is a really stupid choice, you need to examine the decisions that got you in that situation.

Although turning nuclear power plants on and off again is possible, it is stupid. Just keep them running! The illogical choice that gets you in the situation that nuclear is "a bad fit" is making an unreliable, unpredictably intermittent power source your primary. That just makes no sense whatsoever.

> two worst accidents and one half.

1. Even with those accidents, nuclear is still among the safest power sources.

2. The negative effects of the accidents were far less than is generally assumed in the wider public.

3. The Tchernobyl reactor was inherently unstable. We don't have any inherently unstable reactors in the West. And last I checked the RMBK-1000 was retrofitted to no longer have the instability. And Ukraine is not just keeping nuclear power, but is among the states that have pledged to expand it 3-fold.

4. The Fukushima reactor was damaged by an unprecedented Tsunami that killed 15000 people. Whereas the reactor accident itself killed zero. We don't have Tsunmais in Europe, and if we ever get one, the reactors will be our smallest problems. Just like the reactor was the smallest problem with the Tsunami in Japan. Oh, and Japan has also pledged to expand its nuclear generating capacity 3-fold.

5. The deadliest accident of a power-generating technology was a dam that broke in China in 1975. It killed >15000 people, destroyed upwards of 4 million homes and displaced 11 million people. Not only did no country whatsoever get out of hydro-power, the accident is virtually unknown in the West.

6. The Bhopal chemical accident killed upwards of 4000 people and injured half a million. No country disbanded their chemical industry as a result.

[lispm]

> The Fukushima reactor was damaged by an unprecedented Tsunami that killed 15000 people. Whereas the reactor accident itself killed zero. We don't have Tsunmais in Europe, and if we ever get one, the reactors will be our smallest problems. Just like the reactor was the smallest problem with the Tsunami in Japan. Oh, and Japan has also pledged to expand its nuclear generating capacity 3-fold.

A single earthquake took out the ENTIRE Japanese reactor fleet for many years. Even today many of the reactors are not running, have been closed forever or are not save (-> the affected reactors at Fukushima). 12 reactors have resumed operations, out of 54.

If there is a severe earthquake, I bet the surviving people want to have electricity. Zero of the Japanese nuclear power plants produced electricity after the earthquake. Instead they needed electricity&cooling, to not melt. In Fukushima there was not enough cooling, so cores did melt. Now they are needing several decades to keep the melted cores under control. Costs pile up...

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fuku...

The government has a conservative cost estimate of >200 billion USD for the Fukushima accidents.

> Oh, and Japan has also pledged to expand its nuclear generating capacity 3-fold.

The Japanese nuclear generating capacity is very low. Less than 1/4 of their reactors are allowed to run.

"Japan" here means "the Japanese nuclear industry".

"Introducing the current situation in Japan, Uetake (Senior Managing Director of the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF)) said, “Due to the Fukushima Daiichi accident, nuclear power—which had previously accounted for about 30% of total electricity generated in the country—fell to zero percent. However, with 12 years having passed since the accident, some 12 reactors have resumed operations, and another five have passed the new regulatory standards and are preparing to resume operations.” He also pointed out that ten reactors are currently under review, and “if all of them were to be restarted, the total number of reactors in Japan would be 27, or three times the number of nine reactors in operation as of 2020.”"

Where your "3-fold" means far below the state of the nuclear industry before Fukushima. 27 reactors are half the number of what they had operating before Fukushima. They have 54 reactors. "3-fold" just means, that they want to restart some of the old reactors.

[mpweiher]

> single earthquake took out the ENTIRE Japanese reactor fleet for many years.

Comically incorrect.

The Tsunami took out a single reactor.

Human overreaction took out the rest of the reactors. Just like human overreaction took out Germany's accident-free, reliable and cost-effective reactor fleet.

> Japan" here means "the Japanese nuclear industry".

Incorrect. The elected Japanese government.

> "3-fold" also means, that they just want to restart some of the old reactors.

Interesting interpretation of the 3-fold commitment from Japan. I doubt it's actually a correct interpretation.

Let's see:

"Japan adopted a plan on Thursday to extend the lifespan of nuclear reactors, replace the old and even build new ones, ..."

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1144990722/japan-nuclear-powe...

"Build new ones." Guess your interpretation wasn't correct. And that's just one country out of the 22 who signed the pledge. And a bunch didn't sign but are also expanding at a similar rate, for example India and China.

Germany's phase out has been a great advertisement for nuclear power.

[lispm]

> Comically incorrect. The Tsunami took out a single reactor.

If you don't know it, the Fukushima power plant had six reactors. Three reactors had meltdowns. Four of the six reactors were destroyed. The remaining two are in shutdown since then.

The Tsunami was caused by a strong (series of) Earthquake. The Earthquake caused shutdowns of nuclear power plants. throughout the country, not just the Tsunami.

The fact is, and this is not comical, today only 12 of 54 reactors are running. More than a decade later.

> Human overreaction took out the rest of the reactors.

That only shows that you are living in an alternate reality, where you are the expert and you know better than the authorities in a country, where the actual event happened. I doubt that you have any more experience of nuclear technology than the authorities in Japan.

> "Build new ones." Guess your interpretation wasn't correct.

You can't fully read the thing you posted? Look here:

"Under the new policy, Japan will also push for the development and construction of "next-generation innovative reactors" to replace about 20 reactors now set for decommissioning."

So they will lose 20 reactors. They also want to develop a next generation and deploy it. How many? Doesn't say. When? Doesn't say. What technology? Doesn't say. They say "next generation". Clear: 20 reactors will be decommissioned. Unclear: when and how they want to replace them. Many of the reactors to be decommissioned are probably not even running now, since only 12 reactors are online.

My guess: it won't happen. Second guess: if it happens, it'll take >30 years.

The "next generation" (then) EPR in France has cost increase estimations between four and six times. Planning and construction is now ongoing for roughly 25 years. (-> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(Kernkraftwerk)#Beginn_der... -> "Bereits 1998 wurde das grundsätzliche Design der Anlage festgelegt.")

The only thing which is sure: it will be late and extremely expensive. Plus: the decommissioning of 20 reactors will cost > 100 billion USD.

Japan is a fast aging country. Where do they get the engineers for all this from? Japan expected to lose 20% of its population until around 2050.

> And a bunch didn't sign but are also expanding at a similar rate, for example India and China.

In reality China brings two coal power plants per week online. Now. -> https://globalenergymonitor.org/press-release/chinas-coal-po...

India has 3% of electricity production from nuclear. Tripling that over the next decades won't change much. 72% of electricity is generated from coal.

Nuclear is too late, too expensive, ...

You just need to check the existing capacity for various power plants and the newly built capacity for power plants from the last years. The trend is clear: nuclear stagnates and struggles to replace aging capacity. Renewable energy is massively expanding, world wide.

[mpweiher]

> six reactors.

Pardon me: a single power plant. Well, not even a whole power plant. Parts of a single power plant. Doesn't change anything.

> The Earthquake caused shutdowns of nuclear power plants. throughout the country

You are trying to insinuate that the earthquake somehow caused damage to the plants so that they needed to be shut down. This is not the case:

"Though all of Japan's nuclear reactors successfully withstood shaking from the Tohoku earthquake..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

The reactors were fine. The decision to shut them down was a political one, not a technical one.

>> "Build new ones." Guess your interpretation wasn't correct.

> You can't fully read the thing you posted?

Yes I can. Alas, you don't seem to be able to read or remember what you wrote:

>>> "3-fold" just means, that they want to restart some of the old reactors.

This was false and continues to be false. They are building new ones.

> In reality China brings two coal power plants per week online.

Yes, in addition to building out nuclear and renewables, China is als still building coal plants.

Can you explain how that is related to anything? I mean, they als build cities, bridges, railway lines, ships, ...

> Nuclear is too late, too expensive, ...

Citation needed.

Nuclear is quicker than renewables. France converted their electricity to nuclear in 20 years. Germany has taken 20 years so far to try the same with renewables and we are flailing. We have the 2nd most expensive and 2nd dirtiest electricity in the EU. And we haven't even started on the more difficult part yet.

> ...the last years.

The underinvestment into nuclear in the last 10-20 years is a well-known problem that is just now being corrected. Linearly extrapolating the past is ... not wise. Particularly when there has been a massive policy change.

Germany is alone in the world with its Atomausstieg. The rest of the world is looking at us with pity and bemusement while they build reliable, grid-level electricity generating capacity in the form of nuclear reactors.

[lispm]

> Pardon me: a single power plant. Well, not even a whole power plant. Parts of a single power plant. Doesn't change anything.

A large power plant with six reactors. Zero of them are operating anymore. None will. Nothing of that was a political decision.

> The reactors were fine.

Fukushima reactors have three melted cores. They are fine?

> The decision to shut them down was a political one, not a technical one.

Look, you claim that you are knowing it better than the authorities in Japan. This is laughable.