Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open

Post by hedora » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 1:40 AM UTC

andbberger wrote: post #59

Retric wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not completely accurate. Nuclear is less safe than grid solar, it slightly beats rooftop solar because standing on roofs is dangerous and most solar installs are new. Hydroelectric vs nuclear is tricky because large dams save lives and by reducing flooding etc, and installing hydroelectric when building a dam is much safer than building the dam in the first place. Which makes calculating the deaths from hydroe…

the source I was looking at contradicts that, but w/e. a further consideration is that for solar/wind you have to consider energy storage associated mortality as well but I think that's besides the point. they're all on the order of 0.1 deaths/TwH. the public perception is that nuclear energy is dramatically more dangerous than other methods of energy generation. data says, it isn't. there are a lot of reasons why dr…

Post by nradov » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 1:43 AM UTC

photochemsyn wrote: post #145

steve_taylor wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just the German greens. Australia’s greens are staunchly anti-nuclear despite it being the only viable solution to the baseload problem, which renewables haven’t yet solved.

Isn't battery storage the baseload solution for renewable power? And it doesn't have to be lithium batteries, there are cheaper alternatives if you don't need the batteries to be that small.

Post by hedora » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 1:48 AM UTC

KarlKemp wrote: post #144

choeger wrote: post #3

Being anti-nuclear is deeply engrained in the DNA of Germany's green party. Even more so than climate change. In fact, when the anti-nuclear movement started, climate change wasn't even a topic. In other words, the only thing that needs to happen is the German green party to admit a mistake in fighting nuclear power harder than fossile fuels...

At this point, nobody wants to change the policy. Not the greens, not the conservative party, nor the companies that own these power plants. It is simply not possible to run a dozen nuclear reactors on a two-weeks'-notice timescale, at least not in a democracy that respects property rights and safety practices. It's also economically unsound and technologically misguided, since nuclear power cannot replace the role g…

Post by bcrl » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 1:54 AM UTC

andbberger wrote: post #111

gostirig wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear waste is, from my perspective, one of the most discussed aspects of turning off nuclear power in germany. It's a complicated matter, that sparked a lot of controversy between german states. For example Bavaria doesn't want it in their back yard, despite being geologically suited. This is an active research field with many aspects. Unfortunately this wikipedia-link-thing won't do.

it's not a complicated matter, you dig a deep hole and throw it in. don't portray a political problem as a technical one

Post by hedora » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 1:57 AM UTC

photochemsyn wrote: post #149

cycomanic wrote: post #123

Here [1] is an interview with the German president of the BASE (Bundesamts für die Sicherheit der nuklearen Entsorgung) essentially the nuclear safety administration. He essentially calls the arguments about extending the nuclear powerplants difficult to comprehend. He lays out quite clearly why it doesn't work, and while the article addresses some of those points it does not back up any of the assertions with eviden…

Ran that through Google Translate, here's a fundamental point: > "An extension of the service life would not make Germany less dependent on Russian natural gas, since gas is only used to a small extent for electricity production in Germany, adds König. In addition, Russia is an important supplier of uranium and fuel elements, which are absolutely necessary. In view of the fact that the six active nuclear power plants…