7 ms·

Two days ago the German government voted to to shut off the three remaining nuclear power plants. https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/klima-nachhaltigkeit/bu

Two days ago the German government voted to to shut off the three remaining nuclear power plants. https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/klima-nachhaltigkeit/bundestag-gibt-gruenes-licht-fuer-kohlekraftwerke-als-gas-ersatz-18157912.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/klima-nachhaltigkeit/...

qbasic_forever 4y ago
It really seems like a foolish decision. Is there any good explanation for why they are shutting these down other than anti-nuclear fears? I mean, it's Germany of all places so I can't imagine they have any concerns about costs to refuel, refurbish or maintain these reactors in the future--it's likely a rounding error in their GDP and budgets.
- rasz 4y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-ger...
- Tarsul 4y ago
  they stopped maintenance of these nuclear power plants 3 years ago because they "knew" they were out of life. Thus, they don't have the people or the safety measurements in place to go on with nuclear. Also, if the greens have no problem going further with coal, they wouldn't have a problem going on with nuclear (for a little while). So, it's definitely based on facts and not on idealism. Also (I still don't understand HN's hype for nuclear), let's not forget how often and much the nuclear plants have to stand still because of xyz (e.g. too little cooling water, which was the case in France in the last months).
  - qbasic_forever 4y ago
    Sure but this is Germany, a financial and manufacturing powerhouse in the world. If they decided they wanted these plants to keep running I can't imagine they would have any trouble at all doing so.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      What you can imagine isn't all that relevant though, once the decision to mothball an installation of this size is made it isn't as though you decide to run your car for another year. This is a massive infrastructure project, with all kind of regulatory hoops they need to jump through to operate safely, including training of employees, gear certification and so on. Starting things back up again could well be a multi-year project.
      - qbasic_forever 4y ago
        Germany's GDP is 4 trillion dollars, its government budget is over 400 billion. Refurbing 3 nuke plants is nothing with those resources. The entire manhattan project that pioneered nuclear power only cost about 50 billion in today's money, but they aren't even starting from scratch like that. If they wanted it to happen I can't see any financial or technical blocker.
        _ph_ 4y ago
        Sure, but why bother? These 3 plants would only add a tiny bit to the German electricty production. They really won't be missed. And they cannot be used to replace gas, as gas power plants are used for quick responses, not base load.
        kingofpandora 4y ago
        Why do you assume you know better than experts?
        rasz 4y ago
        Because those particular experts were on Russian payroll.
        kingofpandora 4y ago
        Source please.
turbinerneiter 4y ago
Do you honestly believe that is a fair summary of the article? The decision to shut them down happened long ago. They voted against a proposal from the opposition to revert that. The plants were planned to shut down since a long time, there is a lot of unsolved issues around keeping them running, like fuel and personnel. The plants also would impact gas usage only by 1% and electricity isn't a great replacement short term for all the gas used. In hindsight I think the decision to get out of nuclear was wrong, especially before getting out of coal. But keeping the last 3 running for some more months isn't really a solution for anything.
- baxtr 4y ago
  They could have tried at least. It’s just not a clever thing to do from a communication perspective.
  - WJW 4y ago
    Then communicate better, like turbinerneiter just did. Something not making intuitive sense for the uninitiated does not suddenly make it a good idea.
    - baxtr 4y ago
      That’s a good point. That said I wasn’t convinced by the 1% argument. Europe needs all power it can scramble for the next 2 coming winters.
  - arrrg 4y ago
    You are misjudging the mood regarding nuclear power in Germany completely. You would have to expend so much political capital to keep those running, it‘s simply not worth it. Not for the benefit they provide, not for any communication goals you might have.
    - rasz 4y ago
      It might take one cold winter to change their minds.
sylware 4y ago
If they are consistent, the last oil/gas electricity production plants should be shut down at the same time.
_ph_ 4y ago
1. As already noted by other posters, the decision to decommission these plants was made years ago. 2. As a consequence, the plants are in no shape to be run much longer without major refurbishment, rehinring and training personal. Also, the fuel rods are basically spent, new ones would have to be ordered and manufactured which takes quite some time. Want to guess where most fuel rods came from? (spoiler: Russia) 3. Yes, running them longer would have saved burning some coal which would be good for the climate. 4. They wouldn't have saved much, if any, gas burning. Gas power plants are "fast" plants, vs. nuclear plants, which are the slowest to change power output. Nuclear power plants consequently cannot replace gas power plants. On top of that, there are a lot of combined electricity/heating gas plants. They cannot be replaced by nuclear power either. 5. Electricity production is just a small fraction of gas usage, the biggest part goes to private home heating and of course, industrial usage. So, yes, bad timing. Woulnd't have been a problem but for Putin attacking and utterly destroying parts of the Ukraine. But as things are, the best way to deal with is, to press forward with renewables instead of sinking more money into nuclear. (By the way, the real crisis is that only 50% of France nuclear powerplants are operating. Between heat and repairs, French power supply is under much greater pressure, actually often enough supported by Germany)
- clemensley 4y ago
  > Want to guess where most fuel rods came from? (spoiler: Russia) Can you back that up? To me it looks like only 5% of uranium is in Russia (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/uranium-production-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/uranium-p...) > They wouldn't have saved much, if any, gas burning Compare to coal (that seems to be the tradeoff in Germany) nuclear energy kills 820x more people per produced energy unit. 820x the number of human lives lost. C02 emissions are about 250x higher https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%2C%20for%20example%2C%20results,solar%20are%20just%20as%20safe https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#:~:text=....
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    You are linking to uranium production, not the production of fuel rods. And yes, the nuclear power plants produce less CO2 than coal. No doubt about that. But that is the consequence of a decision over 10 years ago. Unfortunately, the same government who decided that, didn't built up renewables at the required speed, actually slowed down the buildup of renewables. This is going to change now rapidly.
rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
And 30 nuclear reactors are still offline in France. Of the 28 still available, 5 are partially down. Many of these reactors are out of order because of technical issues (mostly unexpected corrosion). France is still paying MWh at far higher price than Germany now (see https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/power/futures#%7B%22snippetpicker%22%3A%22EEX%20French%20Power%20Futures%22%7D https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/power/futures#%7B%22snipp...). This may change with Russia closing the Nord Stream 1 but you can't say nuclear energy is the solution.
jhgb 4y ago
And? What is the relevance of that? Not shutting them off wouldn't in any way influence the industrial and heating heating usages of natural gas in Germany which are the main problem.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  Yes, you can heat homes using electricity, thus saving gas for things, where you cannot use electricity.
  - jhgb 4y ago
    You won't heat homes using electricity more efficiently than with direct heaters without significantly redesigning them, so all this would do would be using even more primary energy than before. This is going to happen over time as nZEBs according to the 2010 and 2012 EU directives are going to replace old buildings in the building stock, but you can't make that happen overnight. Also, since the origin of the electricity doesn't matter in this case, to say that you'd need to not shut down those nuclear plants is clearly wrong since you could just use the currently underutilized coal plants to get exactly the same effect -- except the lack of electricity is clearly not a problem.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      We're literally going into an era, where politicians are advising their citizens to "wear a warmer sweater" at home, in one of the strongest economies in the world. Every killowatt of energy helps, and if you're able to switch a percent or two of your people to use electricity for heat, that can save a lot of gas for areas, where there are no alternatives. Yes, long term we can talk about many alternatives, but it's july... august, september, and it's already cold, space heaters cost ~10eur (2kW) and are still available (atleast more available than the alternatives).
      - jhgb 4y ago
        It turned out that "strongest economies in the world" are like that by literally destroying the world's ecosystems. If you have any idea how "wear a warmer sweater" is a bad suggestion until we make it so that the destroying of the world's ecosystems is not necessary, out with it. Energy-efficiency-wise, wearing appropriate clothing is one of the best ideas.

qbasic_forever 4y ago

It really seems like a foolish decision. Is there any good explanation for why they are shutting these down other than anti-nuclear fears? I mean, it's Germany of all places so I can't imagine they have any concerns about costs to refuel, refurbish or maintain these reactors in the future--it's likely a rounding error in their GDP and budgets.

rasz 4y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-ger...
Tarsul 4y ago
they stopped maintenance of these nuclear power plants 3 years ago because they "knew" they were out of life. Thus, they don't have the people or the safety measurements in place to go on with nuclear. Also, if the greens have no problem going further with coal, they wouldn't have a problem going on with nuclear (for a little while). So, it's definitely based on facts and not on idealism. Also (I still don't understand HN's hype for nuclear), let's not forget how often and much the nuclear plants have to stand still because of xyz (e.g. too little cooling water, which was the case in France in the last months).
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  Sure but this is Germany, a financial and manufacturing powerhouse in the world. If they decided they wanted these plants to keep running I can't imagine they would have any trouble at all doing so.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    What you can imagine isn't all that relevant though, once the decision to mothball an installation of this size is made it isn't as though you decide to run your car for another year. This is a massive infrastructure project, with all kind of regulatory hoops they need to jump through to operate safely, including training of employees, gear certification and so on. Starting things back up again could well be a multi-year project.
    - qbasic_forever 4y ago
      Germany's GDP is 4 trillion dollars, its government budget is over 400 billion. Refurbing 3 nuke plants is nothing with those resources. The entire manhattan project that pioneered nuclear power only cost about 50 billion in today's money, but they aren't even starting from scratch like that. If they wanted it to happen I can't see any financial or technical blocker.
      - _ph_ 4y ago
        Sure, but why bother? These 3 plants would only add a tiny bit to the German electricty production. They really won't be missed. And they cannot be used to replace gas, as gas power plants are used for quick responses, not base load.
      - kingofpandora 4y ago
        Why do you assume you know better than experts?
        rasz 4y ago
        Because those particular experts were on Russian payroll.
        kingofpandora 4y ago
        Source please.

turbinerneiter 4y ago

Do you honestly believe that is a fair summary of the article? The decision to shut them down happened long ago. They voted against a proposal from the opposition to revert that. The plants were planned to shut down since a long time, there is a lot of unsolved issues around keeping them running, like fuel and personnel. The plants also would impact gas usage only by 1% and electricity isn't a great replacement short term for all the gas used. In hindsight I think the decision to get out of nuclear was wrong, especially before getting out of coal. But keeping the last 3 running for some more months isn't really a solution for anything.

baxtr 4y ago
They could have tried at least. It’s just not a clever thing to do from a communication perspective.
- WJW 4y ago
  Then communicate better, like turbinerneiter just did. Something not making intuitive sense for the uninitiated does not suddenly make it a good idea.
  - baxtr 4y ago
    That’s a good point. That said I wasn’t convinced by the 1% argument. Europe needs all power it can scramble for the next 2 coming winters.
- arrrg 4y ago
  You are misjudging the mood regarding nuclear power in Germany completely. You would have to expend so much political capital to keep those running, it‘s simply not worth it. Not for the benefit they provide, not for any communication goals you might have.
  - rasz 4y ago
    It might take one cold winter to change their minds.

sylware 4y ago

If they are consistent, the last oil/gas electricity production plants should be shut down at the same time.

_ph_ 4y ago

1. As already noted by other posters, the decision to decommission these plants was made years ago. 2. As a consequence, the plants are in no shape to be run much longer without major refurbishment, rehinring and training personal. Also, the fuel rods are basically spent, new ones would have to be ordered and manufactured which takes quite some time. Want to guess where most fuel rods came from? (spoiler: Russia) 3. Yes, running them longer would have saved burning some coal which would be good for the climate. 4. They wouldn't have saved much, if any, gas burning. Gas power plants are "fast" plants, vs. nuclear plants, which are the slowest to change power output. Nuclear power plants consequently cannot replace gas power plants. On top of that, there are a lot of combined electricity/heating gas plants. They cannot be replaced by nuclear power either. 5. Electricity production is just a small fraction of gas usage, the biggest part goes to private home heating and of course, industrial usage. So, yes, bad timing. Woulnd't have been a problem but for Putin attacking and utterly destroying parts of the Ukraine. But as things are, the best way to deal with is, to press forward with renewables instead of sinking more money into nuclear. (By the way, the real crisis is that only 50% of France nuclear powerplants are operating. Between heat and repairs, French power supply is under much greater pressure, actually often enough supported by Germany)

clemensley 4y ago
> Want to guess where most fuel rods came from? (spoiler: Russia) Can you back that up? To me it looks like only 5% of uranium is in Russia (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/uranium-production-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/uranium-p...) > They wouldn't have saved much, if any, gas burning Compare to coal (that seems to be the tradeoff in Germany) nuclear energy kills 820x more people per produced energy unit. 820x the number of human lives lost. C02 emissions are about 250x higher https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%2C%20for%20example%2C%20results,solar%20are%20just%20as%20safe https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#:~:text=....
- _ph_ 4y ago
  You are linking to uranium production, not the production of fuel rods. And yes, the nuclear power plants produce less CO2 than coal. No doubt about that. But that is the consequence of a decision over 10 years ago. Unfortunately, the same government who decided that, didn't built up renewables at the required speed, actually slowed down the buildup of renewables. This is going to change now rapidly.

rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago

And 30 nuclear reactors are still offline in France. Of the 28 still available, 5 are partially down. Many of these reactors are out of order because of technical issues (mostly unexpected corrosion). France is still paying MWh at far higher price than Germany now (see https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/power/futures#%7B%22snippetpicker%22%3A%22EEX%20French%20Power%20Futures%22%7D https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/power/futures#%7B%22snipp...). This may change with Russia closing the Nord Stream 1 but you can't say nuclear energy is the solution.

jhgb 4y ago

And? What is the relevance of that? Not shutting them off wouldn't in any way influence the industrial and heating heating usages of natural gas in Germany which are the main problem.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
Yes, you can heat homes using electricity, thus saving gas for things, where you cannot use electricity.
- jhgb 4y ago
  You won't heat homes using electricity more efficiently than with direct heaters without significantly redesigning them, so all this would do would be using even more primary energy than before. This is going to happen over time as nZEBs according to the 2010 and 2012 EU directives are going to replace old buildings in the building stock, but you can't make that happen overnight. Also, since the origin of the electricity doesn't matter in this case, to say that you'd need to not shut down those nuclear plants is clearly wrong since you could just use the currently underutilized coal plants to get exactly the same effect -- except the lack of electricity is clearly not a problem.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    We're literally going into an era, where politicians are advising their citizens to "wear a warmer sweater" at home, in one of the strongest economies in the world. Every killowatt of energy helps, and if you're able to switch a percent or two of your people to use electricity for heat, that can save a lot of gas for areas, where there are no alternatives. Yes, long term we can talk about many alternatives, but it's july... august, september, and it's already cold, space heaters cost ~10eur (2kW) and are still available (atleast more available than the alternatives).
    - jhgb 4y ago
      It turned out that "strongest economies in the world" are like that by literally destroying the world's ecosystems. If you have any idea how "wear a warmer sweater" is a bad suggestion until we make it so that the destroying of the world's ecosystems is not necessary, out with it. Energy-efficiency-wise, wearing appropriate clothing is one of the best ideas.