Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article argues for a 9 month timescale, not two weeks, and suggests replacing the role Russian gas has in the European grid. It then shows the decommissioned nuclear plants and the gas plants it proposes shutting down have enough capacity to do exactly that.
Gas usage for electricity is insignificant and irrelevant for the discussion at large. What Germany is concerned about is usage of gas for heating and in industry. Turn of the gas and realistically, parts of German industry will be destroyed at a 0.5-6% loss to GDP.
Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
311–320 of 480 posts
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#312If you want to be green then nuclear power is the only logical option. Wind farms kill birds and solar destroys landscapes.
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#313The author first show that gas is mostly used for heating and then claim it can be substituted by turning the centrals back on this year. He skips over the fact that everyone would have to replace their heating infrastructure. He also skips over the fact that heating with electricity is much more expensive than with fossil fuels. Even at a war inflated price.
Only on nights with temperatures below -5 Celsius gas is cheaper.
The problem is that most vendors are sold out.
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think so? To me the argument sounds like: > no one died of radiation, since they were evacuated. The people who did die, because of the evacuation, shouldn’t count because they didn’t die from the radiation. The evacuation wasn’t necessary, which is proven since no one died from radiation. And the notion that more people would have died from the radiation if they didn’t evacuate is just ignored. Well, no o…
The downside of nuclear power is, potentially & in rare circumstances, a large number of people have to move. I don't want to trivialise that - it is a big cost. But it isn't exactly like we're talking a threat to anyone's health and well-being. And when I say "rare" I mean once, globally, every 25 years with 1970s plant designs. It is quite a bit safer now with the absurd safety standards people make nuclear keep. B…
For example, nobody considered that Russia would fire artillery against nuclear reactors. And now a threat of attacks with powerful conventional weapons against nuclear reactors and waste processing/storage has to be considered very seriously.
Similarly we cannot assume that technological progress would not allow a single terrorist with right equipment to trigger another Chernobyl.
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without disagreeing per se, some of the reasoning is dubious. Studying something in grad school likely makes you familiar, not an expert. I would be skeptical of anyone without at least a decade of industry experience. No one becomes an expert by going to grad school; you have to build real things under real constraints. I went through a selective hard sciences program (coincidentally including nuclear chemistry) and…
Do you think the politicians who made the decision were any more qualified?
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The power plant avoided critical damage, but it was very much harmed in the attack." Source? As far as I know and what wikipedia confirms, is that the plant itself was not damaged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla... "During approximately two hours of heavy fighting a fire broke out in a training facility outside of the main complex, which was extinguished by 6:20am,[21][22] though other…
Your Wikipedia link includes this: “The plant lost 1.3 GW of capacity which then was compensated by additional 9 power units in the thermal power station nearby.” From here: https://energo.dtek.com/en/media-center/press/dtek-tpps-comp... * As a result of an armed attack by the invaders on the Zaporozhia NPP, 1.3 GW of capacity generated by nuclear units has been lost.* If the power plant was I damaged it wouldn’t hav…
The link stated it was not damaged, so another explanation would be it was partly shut down. Missing crew, safety precautions, who knows. It is a warzone.
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#317a) Because it's no longer technically feasible not to shut these plants down. b) Because it's not politically tenable. c) Because nuclear energy has long since been a minor part of electricity generation, and it wouldn't make much of a difference now. d) Because it has nothing to do with imports of Russian gas and oil, which is overwhelmingly used for heating, fuel, and industrial purposes. Gas (not just from Russia)…
This is a bogus point, FWIW. Nuclear energy is the only energy source that we expect to substantially internalize its externalities.
All other forms have significant externalities that we just ignore. Some so great, such as coal-- that if we internalized them we wouldn't rightfully think of it as a source of energy at all: Just carbon capture alone will take more energy than burning the coal yielded, and that's before getting into all its other costs such as the considerable mortality due to its pollution and the radioactive emissions that eclipse those of nuclear plants.
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opposition to nuclear power isn't a political ideology. You aren't for or against nuclear power because you don't generally like the people who are against nuclear power. I don't see the major arguments against nuclear power being negated by either climate change or the war in Ukraine. So no, there is no mistake. Nuclear power isn't the right way forward for Germany.
> Opposition to nuclear power isn't a political Sorry, I don't get this. Of course your opposition on something can be based on ideology. That is the case if your opposition is more based on your history and tradition than on current facts. I personally think that there are enough facts to say that nuclear is not really a great option, but I also think that the Green's opposition is based more on ideology (i.e. becau…
Most of the Germans who would vote against nuclear power have nothing to do with any combination of "Greens", "Socialists", "Hippies" or whatever other pejorative you can come up with. Individuals largely decide this on their own and the consensus was reached.
If you think Greens are opposed to nuclear power because "they always been against it", you just never heard them out and just assume that. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, completely unscientific... Like the Russian soldiers who dug trenches in the "red forest" near Tschernobyl, got radiation poisoning and scattered the stuff all over the place where people still have to work to contain the impossible accident that happend decades ago. Yes, things like that and "Oh, from now on nothing will happen, science says so!"scares the shit out of people. Anti-scientific? There is just n…
You realize that this is not a coherent and rational response, yes? You don't address anything, you just throw out oddly random straw men. Maybe I am incorrect but nothing you wrote would contribute to that discussion.
The original article also treats all sources of electricity as interchangable. Some kind of plants are slow to turn on and up (e.g. nuclear plants) whereas others are very fast to turn on, off, up, or down (e.g. natural gas plants). The latter kind of plants is needed to compensate the unpredictability of solar and wind energy. Nuclear plants cannot fulfill that role.
In my opinion Germany should have started to invest way more in the last two decades in synthetization of natural gas from thin air and cheap solar and wind energy. That would provide us with huge storage facilities for energy. And we could make huge amounts of natural gas heating unit eco-friendly without having to replace them. And even ten or fifteen years back it was clear that not being dependend on Russia would be a good thing.
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opposition to nuclear power isn't a political ideology. You aren't for or against nuclear power because you don't generally like the people who are against nuclear power. I don't see the major arguments against nuclear power being negated by either climate change or the war in Ukraine. So no, there is no mistake. Nuclear power isn't the right way forward for Germany.
If you don't think anti-nuclear is political (or propaganda), I have a bridge to sell you. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...
There may indeed a counterargument in that right-wingers and Neonazis are pro-nuclear because they hate those who rationally say no to the risks.