For decades German politicians have used the excuse that it takes many years to build nuclear. If they had started decades ago, Germany would have a dozen plants now and have no energy woes. Instead we now see a huge proportion of Germany’s energy generated by coal and lignite. Get off the anti-science train and join us in the 21st century. Nuclear is safe, plentiful, and green.
This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t invest in other forms of energy too. Energy grids require diversification, and concurrent leaders have been asleep at the wheel.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not a fundamental opponent of nuclear power, but I would like to point out that at this point in time I think we can achieve our goal of an emission-free energy sector faster and more cost-efficiently if we focus our political, regulatory and economic efforts entirely on the development and scale up of renewable energy and storage technologies - not to mention the fact that the supply chain for uranium (Russia, Niger, China, Kazakhstan, etc) and the security of supply with sufficient cooling water are by no means secure at present and in times of worsening climate change…
Apart from that, nuclear power plants cannot be shut down fast enough and are therefore not realy compatible with an energy mix that is largely based on renewables…
Germany’s strategy of going all-in on LNG has been a colossal failure, and I do not believe going all-in on any other energy sources is wise. Diversification of energy grids is almost always the best strategy, as it mitigates risks which are as yet unforeseen. Let’s build wind and solar, but let’s also build nuclear. Worst case scenario Germany has lots of clean energy.
not to mention the fact that the supply chain for uranium (Russia, Niger, China, Kazakhstan, etc) and the security of supply with sufficient cooling water are by no means secure at present and in times of worsening climate change…
Canada and Australia are #2 and #4 producers of uranium. Uranium mining is extremely distributed, and we have no strategic risk of losing access.
Germany has no climate model which predicts desert-like conditions. Even if there were, Germany has a large coastline, and could desalinate sea water for cooling.
Apart from that, nuclear power plants cannot be shut down fast enough and are therefore not realy compatible with an energy mix that is largely based on renewables…
We do not shut down nuclear plants. They are not quick-fire generation. They stay in operation indefinitely, and provide stable power during periods of low sun and wind. They make an excellent complement to renewable grids which are subject to high volatility.
Would you like me to list the 300 reasons a fully renewable grid in Germany is currently impossible?
Germany’s strategy of going all-in on LNG has been a colossal failure, and I do not believe going all-in on any other energy sources is wise. Diversification of energy grids is almost always the best strategy, as it mitigates risks which are as yet unforeseen. Let’s build wind and solar, but let’s also build nuclear. Worst case scenario Germany has lots of clean energy.
There is nothing wrong with diversification, but it is always a question of how much bang for the buck you get in the end - especially against the background of the politically explosive debate about electricity prices. The real costs of nuclear power (including risk insurance, etc.) are immense and one must honestly ask oneself what amount of renewable energy one can get on the grid with the same investment in a realistic time. Given that Flamanville, Olkiluoto and Hinkley Point will be / already are all massively over budget, I assume that with the expansion of the trans-European grids (HVDCs) and seasonal storage of green hydrogen, methane, etc. we will probably achieve this goal better and cheaper…
Canada and Australia are #2 and #4 producers of uranium. Uranium mining is extremely distributed, and we have no strategic risk of losing access.
OK, point taken - assuming that their deposits are sufficient for the uranium demand of the whole western world for the next 50-100 years (?), supply may be regarded as secured.
We do not shut down nuclear plants. They are not quick-fire generation. They stay in operation indefinitely, and provide stable power during periods of low sun and wind. They make an excellent complement to renewable grids which are subject to high volatility.
Correct, that is exactly the problem: Without an unconditional feed-in guarantee (i.e. even at times when the nuclear power plants could operate economically on the common European electricity market), no operator would agree to produce nuclear energy. This, in turn, ensures that any power plants that cannot be shut down quickly enough (especially nuclear and coal-fired) have the effect that wind farms, in particular, often have to be taken off the grid. Since this is also connected with compensation payments to the wind power operators, these are external costs of nuclear power which we all (private households and industry) have to pay via our electricity price…
For decades German politicians have used the excuse that it takes many years to build nuclear. If they had started decades ago, Germany would have a dozen plants now and have no energy woes. Instead we now see a huge proportion of Germany’s energy generated by coal and lignite. Get off the anti-science train and join us in the 21st century. Nuclear is safe, plentiful, and green.
This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t invest in other forms of energy too. Energy grids require diversification, and concurrent leaders have been asleep at the wheel.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not a fundamental opponent of nuclear power, but I would like to point out that at this point in time I think we can achieve our goal of an emission-free energy sector faster and more cost-efficiently if we focus our political, regulatory and economic efforts entirely on the development and scale up of renewable energy and storage technologies - not to mention the fact that the supply chain for uranium (Russia, Niger, China, Kazakhstan, etc) and the security of supply with sufficient cooling water are by no means secure at present and in times of worsening climate change…
Apart from that, nuclear power plants cannot be shut down fast enough and are therefore not realy compatible with an energy mix that is largely based on renewables…
Germany’s strategy of going all-in on LNG has been a colossal failure, and I do not believe going all-in on any other energy sources is wise. Diversification of energy grids is almost always the best strategy, as it mitigates risks which are as yet unforeseen. Let’s build wind and solar, but let’s also build nuclear. Worst case scenario Germany has lots of clean energy.
Canada and Australia are #2 and #4 producers of uranium. Uranium mining is extremely distributed, and we have no strategic risk of losing access.
Germany has no climate model which predicts desert-like conditions. Even if there were, Germany has a large coastline, and could desalinate sea water for cooling.
We do not shut down nuclear plants. They are not quick-fire generation. They stay in operation indefinitely, and provide stable power during periods of low sun and wind. They make an excellent complement to renewable grids which are subject to high volatility.
Would you like me to list the 300 reasons a fully renewable grid in Germany is currently impossible?
There is nothing wrong with diversification, but it is always a question of how much bang for the buck you get in the end - especially against the background of the politically explosive debate about electricity prices. The real costs of nuclear power (including risk insurance, etc.) are immense and one must honestly ask oneself what amount of renewable energy one can get on the grid with the same investment in a realistic time. Given that Flamanville, Olkiluoto and Hinkley Point will be / already are all massively over budget, I assume that with the expansion of the trans-European grids (HVDCs) and seasonal storage of green hydrogen, methane, etc. we will probably achieve this goal better and cheaper…
OK, point taken - assuming that their deposits are sufficient for the uranium demand of the whole western world for the next 50-100 years (?), supply may be regarded as secured.
Correct, that is exactly the problem: Without an unconditional feed-in guarantee (i.e. even at times when the nuclear power plants could operate economically on the common European electricity market), no operator would agree to produce nuclear energy. This, in turn, ensures that any power plants that cannot be shut down quickly enough (especially nuclear and coal-fired) have the effect that wind farms, in particular, often have to be taken off the grid. Since this is also connected with compensation payments to the wind power operators, these are external costs of nuclear power which we all (private households and industry) have to pay via our electricity price…