Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing really to solve. Dry-cask storage can be used long term. The waste is secure, easily monitored, and if at some point in the future reprocessing makes economic sense that can be done too.
We have a responsibility to future generations. Which is a really long time, considering the half-life involved. "Secure and easily monitored" doesn't account for: Natural disasters, human error or human depravity (sabotage, shooting, terrorism etc). And what if the government breaks down for some reason? If for any reason the "securely and safely monitoring" gets neglected...
Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
361–370 of 480 posts
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#362I live in Berlin. Unpopular decisions cause people to protest. They protest for/against just about anything you can name. Germans love protesting. Berliners doubly so. It's a good way to gauge how they feel about things. As far as I can recall, nobody took to the streets to prevent a nuclear shutdown. That did not happen. Protests against coal and for the environment on the other hand are very frequent. And lately there have been a lot of anti-vaxers out with the inevitable counter protests happening as well. And of course the Ukraine brings out the crowds. Nuclear, not so much. The only nuclear related protests would have been against it. There are a few people in the press arguing it. Politically, it's been a dead topic. Politicians don't like to associate themselves with unpopular topics and they distanced themselves from nuclear years ago. There are exceptions of course but by and large even conservative parties stopped pushing that agenda.
They could have delayed shutting down plants of course. But they've added more renewable capacity in the last few years than they ever had nuclear capacity. And of course they just doubled down on investing in more renewable energy until 2030. There's 200 billion allocated for that. Compared to that the remaining 8GW of nuclear simply does not matter.
Contrary to the popular belief, gas based generation barely grew in Germany after the nuclear shut down started happening more than a decade ago. Neither did coal. Coal has actually been declining; except for lignite/brown coal.
Fraunhofer has some numbers for 2021: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2022/publi...
Wind production was actually down due to poor performance of wind turbines that year apparently (weather basically). The slack was mostly picked up by brown coal.
An issue with wind is actually the lack of cable capacity in Germany. A lot of coal production in the south is needed because they lack the ability to import cheaper wind from the north. A lot of the times when the wind mills are not spinning, they are not broken but deliberately turned off. Over capacity is a problem if you can't move power to where it is needed.
Another issue is that rooftop solar is hard to measure in these statistics. That's very popular in Germany and domestic setups of course feed into the local grid. However, how do you account for that? One thing is certain, rooftop solar continues to be very popular and is growing rapidly. Same for batteries. Both effectively remove demand from the grid. Hard to measure but it must be having some effect. The bit of solar showing up in these statistics would be solar plants; not rooftop solar.
A likely outcome of the Ukrainian conflict is an accelerated move away from gas based heating and power generation. You can see some early signs that governments are starting to think about that. Regardless of whether the Russians go back to something resembling peace, I think many countries have gotten the message that they simply can't be depended on loud and clear. At cop26 last year, countries were talking about 2040-2060 time frames for going carbon neutral. Gas was a big part of those plans. I think Russia single-handedly accelerated the ambition level by about 10-15 years in the last month.
Until a few months ago, the German plan basically was to switch from coal (also exported by Russia) to (Russian) gas by 2030. The remaining nuclear (2 or 3 plants) capacity is not enough to matter here. Restarting already decommissioned plants is unlikely to happen and probably would require a sizable investment as well in addition to probably being not popular. Besides, it would not be enough. But you could argue that keeping the few remaining plants going for a few years is not going to hurt anyone in the grander scheme of things. Either way, the Germans need a plan and nuclear is extremely unlikely to be any part of that plan. Building new gas plants is now a lot less likely. The only real alternative is more renewables. Hence the announced 200 billion budget for that.
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#363What I read in this article is that German government did a thorough analysis, but the author dismisses the conclusions of it because the tolerated risk level there is too low and because it’s done by a minister from the Greens party. If this was written by an expert, that could make some sense, but it is not. Nuclear plant is not a startup, where you can just skip the QA part to release faster or put a not working c…
I am unsure how you came to that conclusion. A cost–benefit analysis need to include the benefit aspect, as otherwise it is by definition not a cost–benefit analysis.
> Everyone thinks that it is as safe as it was in the past
The article explicitly states that the security is just as safe as it was in the past. That is the issue that the German government analysis brings up. The German government has regulations that require plants to be more safe than it was in the past. It need to increase from one accident in 100,000 years, to less than one accident in 100,000 years. The German government analysis do not explain why this is more important than the benefits.
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The problem with nuclear plants is the risk is really unknown. One cannot say it is small. 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 terro…
I think in that sentence, the scary part is not the nuclear reactor part. And my understanding is nuclear plant design includes consideration of missile impacts.
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
> dollar spent on nuclear is a dollar that could have much more effect invested in renewables instead. The real world is made of atoms and people, not dollars. To illustrate: if starting tomorrow, every car produced was electric, it would take 20 years to replace all the cars. Given unlimited money, we could not convert all production of cars to electric in 5 years. The earliest possible switch to all electric cars i…
Even more pessimistically, stopping investment into further nuclear technology (i.e. de-emphasizing it in universities as a possible career path and indicating that demand will be falling in the open market) will accelerate its decline, and likely lead to countries becoming even more reliant on fossil fuels in the short term. The death of tooling, industry knowledge and parts manufacturing capacity specific to that i…
I did the required undergraduate nuclear physics course which at the time was focused on nuclear energy. At the time a very surface level course due to being reduced in size over the years in favor or atomic and quantum physics instead.
I still have Introductory Nuclear Physics [2] sitting in my bookshelf because I never had the chance to sell it, the course was changed to be centered around particle accelerators instead.
That program used to be the prime source of people going into nuclear energy research and development. Today you can't even take it as an master, it died out due to everyone seeing it as a dead end career wise with the advent of renewables.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Sweden
[2]: https://www.amazon.com/Introductory-Nuclear-Physics-Kenneth-...
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
my personal experience living in several places in Germany: the whole appeal to nature argument is unreasonably effective here. Most germans will try an array of homeopathic remedies before taking ibuprofen. Most GP doctors advertise a secondary expertise in some woo or other, be it homeopathy, crystals, or osteopathy. It is downright tricky to find a doctor who will give you evidence based pharmaceuticals for your c…
> I can't tell you how many times I've come home from a doctor to look up the "medicine" they gave me, to find that it's some variant of hyper-diluted rosewater. Non-Germans might be shocked to find that most public/mandatory health insurers actually cover this. Even the language reflect this, since they're called "homeopathic pharmaceuticals".
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh right, nobody ever thought to include the cost and effects of producing the solar panels!! I'm joking of course.
But how green is building a nuclear power plant? I imagine there's a lot of heavy machinery involved and lots of concrete involved.
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article covers this. The electricity that would be produced by the plants is enough to offset 100% of Russian natural gas imports. Gas and electricity are not entirely fungible, but Germany uses enough natural gas to produce electricity to cover the reduced imports.
Gas and electricity are not at all fungible for Germany or the EU. You’ve repeatedly made this claim in the thread and other commenters posted detailed reports showing the use of gas in the German economy. It’s suicidal for the EU to give up gas short or mid term.
It’s possible to produce the required hydrogen using electricity and electrolysis, but not at a moments notice. You can’t just easily replace gas in electricity production by using nuclear- gas power plants are used for peak load, nuclear power plants for base load.
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This risk is hard to quantify, it can materialize in unexpected ways (just like nobody expected Chernobyl or Fukushima) and it will cost such rich and densely populated country as Germany trillions. You know everyone who died from Fukushima died from the evacuation not radiation, right? You know more people are killed in Germany every year from coal pollution than have died as a result of Chernobyl in total?
So what if they died of the evacuation, the nuclear accident caused the evacuation. I find this argument mind-boggling, because people didn't die directly of radiation exposure it is somehow ok that Japan had to evacuate a significant population? If this would happen e.g. to Krümmel you'd have to evacuate the second largest city in Germany, that's 2 million people.
Large evacuations are rare but they aren't that uncommon. It just doesn't get the news attention. It is a bit like traffic deaths, which might also be a significant portion of the deaths caused by the evacuation. Force 180,000 to take to the road and some will not return back alive.
Living downstream of a hydro power dam is actually more dangerous than living near a nuclear plant. The destructive forces of a dam is barely being maintained by a thin layer of concrete, and it only takes a bit of human mistakes and bad weather to cause mayhem and death.
Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open
#370Earlier 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…
Measuring expertise is particularly tricky with the nuclear industry. Is it enough to be an expert in the underlying physics? Should you be an engineer with experience in any one of the dozens of disciplines? Do you need to be familiar with the specific design of a reactor (that is probably confidential)? Everyone is an expert but no one has a holistic view of everything. It's complicated!