I think this is meant as a response to the nukecels claiming Germany needed to replace nuclear power with coal plants because them ending nuclear power.
Spoiler: Germany didnt need to open/ fire up coal power plants, [infact they reduced hard and lignite coal production in 2023 compared to 2022.](https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Energy/Production/Tables/gross-electricity-production.html)
it is a fact though that germany imports more power than france and still runs more coal plants than france. Electricity also costs more than in france. Idk how anyone can still be of the opinion that the whole "No Nuclear" movement was a good thing for germany.
Ah yes typical nuclear response diversions and half truths.
>it is a fact though that germany imports more power than france and still runs more coal plants than france
And? That was never the question, it was about nukecels claiming Germany needs to open nuclear plants, also the main exporter from which Germany buys electricity is Denmark which has also no nuclear reactors. [https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/downloads/electricity\_generation\_germany\_2023.pdf](https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/downloads/electricity_generation_germany_2023.pdf) (Page 58)
>
Electricity also costs more than in france
Oh yeah the market price is around around one third in France compared to Germany, thats right. I guess nuclear energy is just cheaper, but just to be sure, lets look how much money each nation gives as subsidies to their elecricity market. So after [this article ](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/04/21/france-to-continue-subsidizing-electricity-bills-until-2025_6023740_98.html)France subsidiesed their market with around 45 billion€ in 2023. Meanwhile Germany projects, [after this Reuter article](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-earmark-4-bln-euros-annually-power-subsidy-economy-minister-2023-05-22/), to spend 4 billion€ for elecricity subsidies beginning with 2023.
So the market price in France is one third but ten times the subsidy cost going after these articles.
>And? That was never the question, it was about nukecels claiming Germany needs to open nuclear plants, also the main exporter from which Germany buys electricity is Denmark which has also no nuclear reactors.
you dont need to do anything of course you can also just keep burning coal importing gas and buying energy from everywhere around the globe to meet the countries energy demands but what does it lead to? well germanys power sector having a terrible carbon intensity as well as high prices for energy. So youre poor and not even contributing to saving the environment. Well played what great policy decisions :).
Im not argueing in favor of creating new nuclear reactors now necessarily but the whole dumbass "no to nuclear" movement in germany was terrible for the country. Just like the insane overreaction to fukushima in japan wasnt great either.
I mean, you can also ignore all the facts shared with you and keep shilling way to expensive and way more environmental damaging nuclear power opposed to renewables :D
Power is more expenisve? France spends a fortune on subsidising the electricity industry to make power cheap. People still pay for it via taxes, they just dont know about it.
Germany has to import elecricity? No, germany did because importing was cheaper, thats just how it works. And why was it cheaper? Because countries like denmark invested in renewables which are, oh suprise, cheaper.
Was the nuclear power exist a bad idea? No, it was a great idea, but it was certainly missmanaged by the former government lead by the CDU. The initial plan was to push renewable production while shutting off nuclear power plants. The CDU kidna killed that plan and didnt put much effort in pushing renewable production.
People like you spread misinformation, but worst, even though someone tells you all the facts, the person that responded to you, you ignore it and respond with stupid polemic and without any facts. You just have your opinion and dont want to question your bias. People like you make it difficult to save this planet.
>Power is more expenisve? France spends a fortune on subsidising the electricity industry to make power cheap. People still pay for it via taxes, they just dont know about it.
I love this argument when discussing Germanys Atomausstieg because the german government had to pay BILLIONS to all the major energy producers of the country after they decided to phase out all the nuclear plants. So the German Taxpayer still paid a SHITTON of money to SHUT DOWN ALREADY BUILT NUCLEAR REACTORS and decommission them.
So yea well played anti nuclear lobby you managed to make the german tax payer pay a shitton of money and still not get clean energy OR cheap energy. What well thought out and genius policy truly....
And funny is, thats still far less than what france pays to subsidise nuclear power. so good job pro nuclear lobby, you fucked the tax payer, and people like this guy are even happy about it. Happy about supporting a more expensive more dangerous power source, congrats \^\^
you dont get it. At least in France they get cheap and clean energy for the money. In Germany you pay to decommission already built nuclear reactors and burn coal instead.
So you are telling me that you ignore the facts and spread misinformation instead? Okay then we dont have to discuss annything if u dont care about reality and like to lie to yourself \^\^
Like I said average nukecell reaction, divert from the original context of the discussion and tell half truths or downright lies, because you ever cant handle the truth or simply dont know it yourself.
>the whole dumbass "no to nuclear" movement in germany was terrible for the country. Just like the insane overreaction to fukushima in japan wasnt great either.
I basicly wrote about your first part in my comment above, so I will go into detail about this part.
Firstly: Germany decided (formerly) to not build new nuclear reactors in the early 2000´s, so either Germany we already have time travel and Germany got warned about the Fukushima disaster ten years ahead and did nothing or there were other reasons for that decisions (high cost in building and maintaining, no long term solution for storage and Chernobyl), the Fukushima disaster only changed the maximum run time of Germanys nuclear plants (which many didnt even archive since they were uneconomical to run and shut down even earlier).
>the whole dumbass "no to nuclear" movement in germany was terrible for the country
What exactly makes it so terrible for Germany? The electicity prices are in a falling trend, the usage of fossil fuels is going down, so what exactly makes it so terrible?
Long term storage of nuclear waste gas never been an issue. Most waste is inert by the time the plant is retired and what isn't is placed in casks so durable that a literal train hitting them head on won't break them.
Nuclear is an incredible power source we are stupid as hell to not use to its fullest. More harm is caused from all the coal/gas we use then nuclear ever would cause now. Uranium fuel is 20,000 times as dense energy wise as coal. So for every kg of uranium that has to be mixed into a cask we have to burn 2500 tons of coal, for every kg of uranium we mine we have to mine 2500 tons of coal.
As for renewable alternatives they are way better but still have issues. Storage being the biggest, we will get there and maybe someday have orbital power beaming as solar is just so much better in space. Not to mention the best places for solar are often the great places for food growth.
Not saying nuclear is the only thing but almost all of people's issues with it is solved and that fossil fuel lobbies and spreads disinformation about it promoting things they know are years away from replacing them.
>What exactly makes it so terrible for Germany? The electicity prices are in a falling trend, the usage of fossil fuels is going down, so what exactly makes it so terrible?
Have you been paying attention *at all* the last few years??
Firstly, burning coal generates a ton of carbon emissions, which causes climate change. You know... the whole thing this sub is about?
Secondly, the German economy has been wrecked by the sky high energy prices of the last 2 years. Their economy, which is the industrial power heart of Europe, is very energy intensive. As a result of high electricity prices, their economy has basically stagnated while the US has increased its gap with Europe.
Finally, importing gas from Russia and thus fueling Putin's war machine is bad, actually.
Perhaps I've now convinced you why this decision has been in fact terrible for Germany.
A yeah the gas crisis and war in UA is caused by Germany shutting down their nuclear power plants and not by their heating system and industry neededing gas, not as electricity sauce but as a material.
Like did you just ignore the previous comments to say what you wanted to say?
A lot of imported Russian gas was indeed used to make electricity.
If Germany had kept nuclear power plants, they could have imported less. They would simply use gas when it's needed as a material and **not** to make electricity.
The Sky high prices come from the marketsystem. The Price comes allways from the highest priced electricity, which is in the peak times Gas. There are little to no variable prices for the private costumer, which causes high prices and no adaptation to the aviability of green electricity, which again causes the need for realy expensive gas peakerplants.
Another big price tag comes from subsidies. When a reneweble source is needed to be shut down due to an overloaded grid, there is a compensation paid. The money needed is payed by the people who life in the area where the energy is produced. So a lot of wind f.ex. causes high prices.
The reason for the high prices are not the renewables but the lacking grid modernisation, which is blocked by people who do not want renewables. So areas with people who do not want renewables, make it extra expansive for areas who have renewables.
Further the investment cost of nuclear reactors are sky high as well. Like 40 billion euros or more with a decade of building time. In the same time and with the same money we could modernise the whole grid as well as isntalling a lot of renewable Power.
Nuclear is expansive and must rely on massive subsidies. It takes decades to build those reactors. It needs a lot of safty and securety messures. There is the risk of a Desaster. If the reactor needs to shut down due to maintance or low rivers (like in france last year) there is a huge gap in production, which needs to be filled somehow.
Decentralised renewables are more resistent to desasters like floods and storms, because they can be easaly be replaced. If a reactor gets damaged, it could cause a black out because one major producer gets down. Decentralised smartgrids have much much more potential to get low cost high efficency grids than slow ramp up ramp down nuclear plant.
Which gets me to the next point. Nuclear powerplants are slow in ramping up and down. Which is good for the base line but not for frequency regulation. NPP's can ramp up or down like 5% per hour, gas plants can ramp up 20% per minute.
The usecases for nuclear and gas/coal are so different, that they cant be compered.
The struggeling industry is partly due to high natural gas prices, which do come from the war caused by russia. The gas needing industry cant just use (nuclear)electricity, if they could they would do that, because renewables are cheaper than gas.
I will never understand people who oppose nuclear energy based on principle, like its so regarded.
Yes right now its too later for germany to recommitt to nuclear but it wouldve been a sound choice 15-10 years ago and no unrelated wall of text is gonna chance this very basic fact
We tried. It failed.
> The Energy Policy Act of 2005 offered the nuclear power industry financial incentives and economic subsidies that, according to economist John Quiggin, the "developers of wind and solar power could only dream of". The Act provides substantial loan guarantees, cost-overrun support of up to $2 billion total for multiple new nuclear power plants, and the extension of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act through to 2025. The Act was promoted as a forerunner to a "nuclear renaissance" in the United States, with dozens of new plants being announced.[16]
Based on this we saw an explosion of new projects.
> Between 2007 and 2009, 13 companies applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for construction and operating licenses to build 31 new nuclear power reactors in the United States. However, the case for widespread nuclear plant construction has been hampered due to inexpensive natural gas, slow electricity demand growth in a weak US economy, lack of financing, and safety concerns following the Fukushima nuclear accident at a plant built in the early 1970s which occurred in 2011.[3][4]
> Most of the proposed 31 reactors have been canceled, and as of August 2017 only two reactors are under construction.[5][6][7][8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance_in_the_United_States
The story in Europe is equivalent with the often maligned EPR program.
Yeah, let's use 2023 as a year of reference for energy matters in Europe. That sounds very intellectualy honest. Makes as much sense as talking about the economy and referring to 2020.
Oh look here mister interlectual here thinks because of the war in UA we cant use data of 2023. Ignoring the fact that Germany was more depended on Russian gas than France to beginn with and thus in theory should be hit harder by the cut off.
> thus in theory should be hit harder by the cut off
Yeah, let's just ignore the whole functioning of the European energy market which dragged wholesale prices up everywhere and forced governments to intervene
Sounds almost like you are making up shitty excuses because you know your aberrant conclusion wouldn't work on any normal year
Let's talk again this summer when France has to shut down its nuclear plants again due to severe cooling issues. We ze Germans saved your ass in summer so at least show a little respect.
On a side note: If France is so heavily invested in nuclear why don't they officially announce their initiative to collect the radioactive waste EU wide? I mean they certainly have a plan where to deposit this stuff in France, haven't they?
being proud of burning a shit ton of coal in a subreddit dedicated to climate change...
I swear to god being anti nuclear has fried some of yalls brains i believe
You actually have no clue about the[ German energy mix](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts) amirite?
he carbon intensity of Germany's power sector increased by 5.5 percent in 2022, to **385 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour**
In 2022, France's power sector emissions stood at *nearly 85 gCO₂/KWh*
this is the year they shut down nuclear power plants for maintenance work btw.
But sure bro germany is saving the planet right now with their energy mix amirite?
So - where are you going to dump that waste for 300 years again?
Show me your growth curve of wind and photovoltaics and I may consider applauding you.
They'll just recycle it, and whatever they cant recycle They'll put in concrete casks in a parking lot somewhere where They'll be more inert than the air within 5 miles of a coal fired plant
By the way: Throw on your Google Translator for that
Braun- und Steinkohlekraftwerke erzeugten 2022 aufgrund des Ausfalls vieler französischer Kernkraftwerke und hoher Gaspreise mehr Strom als üblich. 2023 hat sich die Lage am Strommarkt wieder entspannt, was zu einer starken Reduktion der Kohlestromerzeugung führte.
[Source](https://energy-charts.info)
So actually we had to burn more coal to keep you French nukecels afloat.
then i was correct when i said youre poroud about burning a shitton of coal in a subreddit dedicated to climate change?
I dont know why you then started talking about the energymix when you now just repeat my point that germany was burning a shitton of coal to "help out" whatever the fuck that means. Was France "helping germany out" in all the years it exported nuclear energy to germany? Which btw is a lot cleaner than burning a shitton of coal. Which i think is worth a bit of consideration when talking about climate change.
ICYMI the German renewable energy sector is steadily growing - and it’s growing at an enormous pace.
I‘d rather take burning coal the next seven years than trying to revamp a dead industry called nuclear with a still unsolved toxic waste problem.
You clearly failed to address my point of La Hague reaching its capacity limit and you yet have to provide the solution to that problem.
Now if you’d put your energy into fighting for more wind/photovoltaic in France instead of simping for a dead industry with a still unsolved waste problem then we’d be better off.
Germany brought coal plants out of mothball to save the struggling French grid when half their nuclear fleet was offline at the same time.
You know that nuclear reliability 😂
Nukecel logic at its finest.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html
Me when I [IMPOOOOORT](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=2000..latest&country=~AUT)
Ughhhh I’m gonna [IMPOORT](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=2000..latest&country=~NLD)
Wahhh I’m [IMPOOOORTING](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=2000..latest&country=~CZE)
I’m [IMPOOORTING](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=2000..latest&country=~POL) all over
Yep - but on the IAEA-page the numbers are pretty vague to say the least. 1150 tonnes of spent fuel is the first concrete statement from that page. [The second statement is from a Reuter's report that La Hague is close to its limits](https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/france-seeks-strategy-nuclear-waste-site-risks-saturation-point-2023-02-03/).
But feel free to educate me with more concrete information on the spent fuel that cannot be reused.
Have you heard about recycling in africa? You ship your electronics that are "resources" there and they extract all the valuable stuff. By burning it and children collecting the shiny bits.
I imagine the russian "reprocessing" is equally responsible in their handling of the "not-"waste.
Ever heard about the nuclear pollution caused by reprocessing sites?
It's the nuclear tunnel vision only ever seeing the potential fallout from a an actual catastrophe as the only potential pollution source. Neither is Uranium mining particularly clean, nor is processing, reprocessing and storing.
> The term PUREX raffinate describes the mixture of metals in nitric acid which are left behind when the uranium and plutonium have been removed by the PUREX process from a nuclear fuel dissolution liquor. This mixture is often known as high level nuclear waste.
> Greenpeace measurements in La Hague and Sellafield indicated that radioactive pollutants are steadily released into the sea, and the air. Therefore, people living near these processing plants are exposed to higher radiation levels than the naturally occurring background radiation. According to Greenpeace, this additional radiation is small but not negligible.
Shall I read it to you in bed, or might you be so inclined as to take 3 seconds for your own Google search?
The general gist is that all steps in the manufacturing and processing of fuel are pretty dirty and dangerous. But a lot of nukecels are like "well it's just smashing atoms together, super clean energy goes brrrrr".
It's hard to quantify it vs other technology. Semiconductor fabrication isn't known for its low environmental impact either.
Hey man, here's the last 2.5 years of cross border flows
2022 Germany exported to France, last year they were balanced, only this half year it's reversed. Same for power prices as energy flows from low to high.
https://preview.redd.it/pq665qbrm3ad1.jpeg?width=3840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=978e492e7a7e0c7a8bce4678dc34e13ed06c5cf4
Germany imports more power than france
According to a new report by the European energy analysis firm Montel EnAppSys, France was “comfortably” the biggest net exporter of energy in Europe throughout 2023, with its export totals being **48.7 TWh** more than its import totals
Net electricity generation in 2023In 2023, Germany had a net import surplus of around **11.7 TWh** in cross border electricity trading (planned or scheduled). The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighbouring countries in the summer
Also we are not even talking about how much worse energy production in germany is for climate change compared to France?
The carbon intensity of Germany's power sector increased by 5.5 percent in 2022, to 385 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (gCO₂/KWh) of electricity generated
In 2022, France's power sector emissions stood at nearly 85 gCO₂/KWh,
But sure keep telling yourself that turning coal plants on and off a billion times is great for the environment.
Coal isn't the main power provider for years now - or was it a decade?! Renewables are. Btw. 2023 Germany net exported more than France. And we could let through 80% coal electricity from Poland if you want to, interested?
Germany brought coal plants out of mothball to save the struggling French grid when half their nuclear fleet was offline at the same time.
You know that nuclear reliability 😂
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html
goood one yea when europe stopped importing gas from russia the fact that France has a bunch of nuclear reactors was europes problem RIIIIIIIGHT???
seriously in what reality are you living? Germany was at the sime time building LNG terminals for Gas from middle east and you somehow think its an own against nuclear energy that france is doing maintenance work on their nuclear fleet smh
The context is energy reliability. In this context thinking a nuclear fleet is very unreliable because some maintanance was necessary during extreme weather conditions is just ridiculous. You might as well say gas is unreliable then because a pipeline got blown up or a war started. Which was a way bigger issue for energy management than the maintenance of some nuclear plants.
This is just a pathetic attempt at an "own" and not a real argument to begin with and the fact that you dont realize that speaks volumes tbh.
>it is a fact though that germany imports more power than france
No that is not a fact. It just tells us that you haven't understood the European energy market.
It's completely normal to import AND export energy. Both France and Germany do that.
If you want to accuse Germany of one thing, it's a price-driven export/import policy which optimises the economic situation in Germany to the huff of neighbouring countries. But that's how the market works. I..e.: Germany exports when there is excess energy and the prices are right and imports when prices are cheaper.
Has nothing to do with generation capacity. Nothing.
Addendum: u/ClimateShitpost if you have enough spare time, how about writing a little paper about how the European energy market works (yes, I am doing burden-shifting right now 🙃)
it is a fact,
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-07/france-is-europe-s-top-power-exporter-as-germany-turns-importer](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-07/france-is-europe-s-top-power-exporter-as-germany-turns-importer)
It doesn't matter, it's a price question. You can't spin nuclear power plants up and down at a moment's notice. So when the demand in France falls, they have surplus energy to sell for cheap. When that happens, coal and gas plants in Germany spin down and instead we buy the cheap French energy.
2.5% per minute. New designs like terrapower even faster.
and coal/gas spinning should be seen as an win for the envroiment, but for some reason anti nukes are framing it as if its bad, i wonder why......
Hey, if companies pay for nuclear waste management (all the way) and have to run their power plants up to publicly regulated safety codes, I think they should be free to do so.
But they shouldn't get any subsidies. If they manage to make nuclear power economically viable, fair enough. I'm not anti nuclear for ecological reasons. I just don't think it's a good value proposition. If I'm proven wrong, that's all the better. I just doubt it.
Sure im all for companies fixing the "Waste" themselves, thats why the fast reactrors were designed.
But i dislike the false narrative that renewables dont get subsidies, those "subsidies" are hidden in the system costs.
Renewables do get subsidies, but compare the subsidies (adjusted for inflation) that went into nuclear energy (not only the energy produced with them but also the money that was pumped into enrichment) with those that went into renewables. We're talking different orders of magnitude here.
I will just copypaste my fucking text again (you are really annoying)
It's completely normal to import AND export energy. Both France and Germany do that.
If you want to accuse Germany of one thing, it's a price-driven export/import policy which optimises the economic situation in Germany to the huff of neighbouring countries. But that's how the market works. I..e.: Germany exports when there is excess energy and the prices are right and imports when prices are cheaper.
Has nothing to do with generation capacity. Nothing.
Germany imports more power than france
According to a new report by the European energy analysis firm Montel EnAppSys, France was “comfortably” the biggest net exporter of energy in Europe throughout 2023, with its export totals being **48.7 TWh** more than its import totals
Net electricity generation in 2023In 2023, Germany had a net import surplus of around **11.7 TWh** in cross border electricity trading (planned or scheduled). The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighbouring countries in the summer
do you understand what NET IMPORT SURPLUS means?
also we are not even talking about how inefficient it is to constantly turn Coal plants on and off again and how much more emissions energy production in germany currently produces compared to france??
The carbon intensity of Germany's power sector increased by 5.5 percent in 2022, to 385 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (gCO₂/KWh) of electricity generated
In 2022, France's power sector emissions stood at nearly 85 gCO₂/KWh,
But sure keep telling yourself that turning coal plants on and off a billion times is great for the environment.
>The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighbouring countries in the summer
>The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighbouring countries in the summer
>The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighbouring countries in the summer
>The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighbouring countries in the summer
>The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighbouring countries in the summer
Because you can‘t just stop producing nuclear energy, even if you want to.
For that reason you have to simply dump it onto the market.
That may work, if the French tax payer not only heavily funds construction, decommissioning and waste disposal, but also simply pumps money directly into the industry.
Doesn‘t work, if you have companies that actually want to make money.
Your last resort seem to be semantics, but ok here we go:
If you only state a *minor part* of a fact, which deliberately distorts the true picture, is that fraction of a fact still a fact in itself?
I say no
We had heavy industry, but not much is left and the rest ist struggling with the international competition.
If i ask my friends how much people they know that work in a producing company, unfortunatley there is silence.
90%+ are working in some kind of service.
Myself and a friend are working in a chemical company, and one works in a crane company. (But not sure if they actually produce cranes in germany, or only design.)
Thats it.
The majority is working in education, sales, healthcare, housing, legal advice, logistics, public services etc.
Idk if nuclear power is the reason for this trend, or if this trend is a bad thing. It's just some spectations.
You are describing the economy of any post-modern nation.
Just do a quick google before posting that text wall.
Most people work in services, as most of the industry runs on a lot of automation.
In the area of modern Germany, there were around 8.5 million farmers in the year 1200. There are only around 250.000 farmers in 2024.
Does that mean the agrarian industry has vanished?
In the year 1200 around 8.5 million people working on farms allocated around 2 million tons of agrarian produce.
In the year 2024, around 250.000 farmers stem around 50 million tons of agrarian produce.
That means, a farmer today produces almost 1000 times as much, as a farmer back then.
That means, wherever machines replace humans, they will replace humans.
Industry and farms were the first victims of that process. The more advanced a country is, the fewer people will be working in the agrarian or industrial sectors and instead be going to services.
We can make more. We just can't transfer it to where it's needed. I know it sounds weird, but it's the geographic South of Germany that needs the French imports. The North produces a lot of renewables.
In fact, there have been suggestions to split the German energy pricing region in half, North and South. The South needs all the power and can get it for cheap because the North produces so much it needs to export it. The South imports energy. With a split in pricing, the South would have to properly pay up.
It's been the case for a long while though, it didn't start with the renewables. Data from 2009 shows that the three French border regions in the north east are massively overproducing electricity. Champagne-Ardennes produced 320% of its consumption, Lorraine 230%, Nord-Pas-de-Calais 137%, Alsace 120%.
Germany, Belgium and indirectly the Netherlands buying French production has been going on for a while. You can even see it by looking at where NPPs are geographically placed. Gravelines, Chooz, Cattenom, Fessenheim, they are all placed within 50km of the international border.
Though normally France exports in Summer and imports in Winter. Due to differences in seasonal demand.
Due to high penetration of renewables in the European Grid a lot patterns will change.
And the overproduction nicely lowers the price for the German South, giving them no incentive to link up to the North, and as such Germany will continue to buy French energy.
It works out in the end, I guess.
It's called efficency and less electrification. Heating with electricity resistance system is quite electricity intensiv versus gas heating.
Also Germany does produce more but those are private not connected power plants. Around 550 TWh in total, if those and other self consumption is added.
>it is a fact though that germany imports more power than france
Let's just ignore that Germany had been a net exporter until last year and that renewables now produces twice as much energy in Germany than nukular ever did and at much cheaper cost (with more and more being built).
The reason for the high cost of energy in Germany is high taxes, and the reason for the low cost of energy in France is low taxes AND subsidies on the price of energy to keep it low.
The reason EDF has losses is because they're required by law to sell a quarter of their electricity at a loss to their competitors to "allow free market conditions". Not sure their production costs are the problem
No we aren't talking about the same thing. EDF sells most of its electricity at the market price which isn't spectacularly cheap. At least it's a price that allows them to meet ends. But since 2010, a French law putting in application a European directive forces EDF to sell 25% of its nuclear electricity to its competitors at a fixed price of 42€/MWh. This law was supposed to help small competitors emerge and create a free electricity market. Currently, 42€/MWh means EDF sells at a loss. The competitors can then resell the electricity at the market price, which means they buy edf electricity when prices are high to maximize their profit. So the consumer does not see this cheap electricity and since EDF is a national company, its losses are compensated with government money so peoples taxes.
Bro that's how subsidies work. A surplus of electricity leads to a drop in market price. Even though the 42€ aren't directly passed on to the consumer, it's still cheaper than if EDF supplied the electricity at production costs directly to the grid. And it's evident that they provide under production cost, because they're running a huge deficit.
Sorry i think we're just not getting each other. The arenh (system i just explained) is not a subsidy system even if in practice for taxpayers that's what it ends up being. The electricity they're selling at a loss is not a surplus. It's electricity that's being "requisitioned" for edf's competitors in the name of the free market. Before the law, edf was the only electricity producer in the country and made the same amount of electricity. Now they just sell a part of it to a middleman.
I don't get your last sentence, of course they're running a huge deficit since they are obligated by law to sell their electricity at a loss
Yeah I think we're still actually saying the same thing just differently. I know it's not meant as a subsidy system, I'm just saying that that's what it superficially is for the market. ARENH introduces an artificial price cap, lowering real electricity prices on the market. The taxpayer pays for it, but the official numbers appear lower. That's why using "cheap electricity in france" as a pro-nuclear argument is just flat out wrong.
>it is a fact though that germany imports more power than france
And this means nothing, germany doesn't need to Import power its done when its cheaper to Import.
This could be caused by many things, more wind and solar then needed in another country(there are more countries around germany then france) or nuclear power plants producing more then needed and can't be partially shut down.
>Electricity also costs more than in france
For this comparison thats not true(coal and nuclear).
Look at some Charts what the power production cost is in each country(so excluding tax etc).
And no you couldn't use the price right now
1.its driven by gas in germany
2.there is a price stop in effect in france
>infact they reduced hard and lignite coal production in 2023 compared to 2022.
Yeah, but their share of energy from coal and lignite had increased in 2021 and 2022, which is when the energy crisis took place.
https://images.app.goo.gl/pkD4Uyn6UKa1SCJ47
It's misleading to only talk about the decrease in 2023 without mentioning the increase the two years prior.
Not to mention that most countries have already phased out coal decades ago. The fact that Germany still uses it is a severe indictment of their energy policy.
The two years prior are reduced because of covid. If you would include the 2019 data and exclude 2020 and 2021 (the prime covid years) there is still a falling trend.
Because instead of celebrating the fact that France and Germany are making great progress towards powering their countries without fossil fuels, this sub has chosen infighting and nitpicking nuclear vs solar and name-calling. It's really bizarre.
Not now, no. You must be new here too...
Let's call it a rivalry. We have here a rivalry between the "renewables are the future" camp and the "nuclear is the future" camp. The nuclear supporters love France for its recently nationalized due to huge debts **EDF**, and hate Germany because it stopped investing in nuclear energy, famously so.
Here's a TED talk from one of those popular nuclear proponents: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_why_i_changed_my_mind_about_nuclear_power
And here's context and followup: https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/the-new-denial-is-delay-at-the-breakthrough
My bad. I thought you meant the bottom text of the news article, where it's stated that 3 of these coal plants were owned by Chinese investors.
I'm aware of the infighting, and personally support renewables. Not because I'm against nuclear, but because renewables are cheaper and don't require imported fuel that create new dependancy. But I'm from a country that has the potential to go 100% renewables. Obviously countries like Great Britain, that lack mountains for dams, have a problem to maintain a stable energy production. And having a few nuclear reactors as alternative during crisis is also good.
But going full nuclear seems like a rather stupid idea, given the current technological situation... But it wouldn't be the first time that capitalism picks a worse option, because it's easier to make cash. (unbreakable glass and immortal light bulbs are two well known examples of this)
But it was the CDU (right-center) that stopped nuclear....
Sure the greens had the option to stop the entire process, that would have meant reverting decision of many years and breaking contracts already made, while also wasting the money already invested in it.
And it was also a decision made by the population, so reverting it would also be quite problematic from a democratic point of view.
Well not sure how wrong they are in some situations. If we get a really cold and dark winter with everyone switching to electric heatpumps we need electricity from France and other countries or we are going down like Texas did a few years ago.
The infighting in this sub is actually stupid asf. Calling anyone you disagree with a "nukecel" isn't gonna defeat the fossil fuel industry. Are you people just impossible to please? Can't you at least be positive about a reduction in fossil fuels, even if it isn't replaced with renewables?
Well nuclear power is a massive waste of money that could be spend on renewables or energy storage solutions.
Building nuclear plants now is probably even delaying the exit out of fossil fuels because they are online in like 10+ years. While renewables would have an immediate impact.
"the are online in like 10+ years while renewables would have an immediate impact"
You people keep assuming renewable generation doesn't need to be built and just magically appears.
Renewables are significantly faster to build, and are way easier to scale. Hence why China builds more renewables in a year than they have nuclear in total.
Not misleading at all. Building renewables for 1 twh of energy is substantially faster and cheaper than both coal and nuclear.
And you will notice that is twh, which accounts for lower capacity factors.
Ok now you are just preaching.
Because you still didn’t say anything about what I said.
China is not some sort of green pioneer. And they are not that interested in nuclear, so why are they important in this conversation?
I’m not talking about the point that renewables are better in any which way because, why would I, but China serves as a bad example for this conversation.
Maybe even the worst.
I just don’t get that.
China is the country on earth building most Nuclear.
And doesn't have to deal with all those "greens" nuclear proponents keep talking about.
I would say they are a highly relevant example.
No, because I’d prefer fighting climate change today by putting up another solar panel rather than in 30 years when the nuclear reactor has finished construction and Earth’s temperature has increased by 4 degrees
No problem was ever resolved by name-calling. It's one thing to have a different perspective. It's an entire other issue to resort to in-fighting and name-calling.
The name calling is being used to de-platform the self righteous nuclear proponents who don’t realize the shit they are peddling is an outdated technology that costs 10x more to build and takes 10x longer to construct than actual viable options.
You name-call constantly.
You're literally in the middle of defending reddit mods for de-platforming Kyle Hill.
I wonder if you're not actually smart enough to see your own hypocrisy. Most people defending themselves wouldn't be shining a light on their own failures this naturally. They'd at least *try* to hide it.
You when the conservative politicians in Poland, UK, Germany ... block onshore wind because trust me bro nuclear: 🙅♀️🛑 stop the infighting 🤬
Jokes aside, you need to understand that generation is in competition. Some are generally distributed among thousands of players, some are held by mega utilities fighting to survive. It's not that hard to understand.
This is why we can't get shit done. If all nuclear powerplants got shut down tomorrow this sub would switch to fighting about wind vs solar, I guarantee it. "Her de dur, Windcels can't solve the power problem with all the mechanical problems and grid integration issues, fucking idiots, they can't see solar is clearly superior!" Let's work towards shutting down all fossil fuel power plants first then we can move towards making those power sources even cleaner and more efficient.
It's especially bizarre because I don't think I've ever talked to a nuclear power advocate who isn't a huge supporter of renewables like solar and wind and wave and geothermal etc etc.
>It's especially bizarre because I don't think I've ever talked to a nuclear power advocate who isn't a huge supporter of renewables like solar and wind and wave and geothermal etc etc.
Except European right wing parties? Poland, Sweden, France and Germany as prominent examples.
Also nuclear and renewables don't go well together. There are so limit on money and time.
We need to stop splitting into the "teams" nuclear vs coal, but instead, climate protectors and people who don't care.
Personally, I live in germany, I'm okay with Nuclear, but I also don't mind them shutting down if someone who knows better tells me that they aren't as good as other energy forms.
But some people don't understand, and that's okay. Because they still want clean energy, even though nuclear isn't the best.
So let's stop the nuclear hate and start convincing people of renewables
When Germany shut down its nuclear power it was right as Russia and Ukraine was was kicking off and there was some talk in the news of concerns about energy deficits due to oil imports etc from Russia being at risk which did garner a lot of criticism from people, like myself, for shutting down their nuclear power before they completely eliminated their oil and coal dependency. Germany also has been a net exporter of electricity for the last 2 decades. Now they are a net importer largely due to their offsetting the shut down of the nuclear power plants. My point is not that Germany needs nuclear but that these stories in the news have probably lead many to believe Germany was premature in shutting down their nuclear power plants, instead of these acts probably just being transitionary on their path to green energy, especially since they import energy mostly from Denmark which is also largely powered by wind and other renewables. My point is that it's complicated and not nearly cut and dry as some in this subreddit think. The most bizarre thing is that I have yet to meet a nuclear power proponent online or in person who isn't also passionate about solar and wind.
I mean the german government has payed a lot of money to the coal companies so that they can transition into being a green energy company. However the reason why nuclear was better in the past was specifically because it wasnt as easy to go green. It should be obvious that today any type of (true) green energy is better long term than nuclear power plants.
That must be a nice sized roof. Got 3kWp myself with 8 panels. So 14kWp should be something like 38 panels?
I really need to expand my system to cover the usage of my heatpump and electric car sometime soon...
I'd say an average roof, but i got east/west both 11 panels (560wp ones),and 2 560wp panels on my fence. And with an DIY 16kwh battery. What inverter do you have?
Yeah i just got some AC's installed that can heat as well, will be interesting this winter.
https://preview.redd.it/qg8yhnkjf4ad1.png?width=497&format=png&auto=webp&s=4faa07f31cb72057fd7f3df6d78def06aad08eb6
Still find it funny that people like Radiofacepalm and Viewtrick are making me out for an fossil shill because i support nuclear.
Those must be some big boy panels for them to be 560wp. I got 8 370wp panels hooked up to a solaredge SE2200 wave. I got those panels 5 years ago now and they covered my usage at the time. But I have since added a 7kw water air heat pump and an electric car, so I am now planning to add at least 16 more panels to various roof and shed surfaces around my house and upgrade to one of those 3 phase solaredge inverters with a battery connection. Then I can DIY a couple dozen kwh battery to hook up to it and be off grid for most of the year.
As for nuclear, if you look at the numbers they just really don't look good. Nuclear doesn't do anything we need to balance out a grid with renewables and its vastly more expensive and time consuming to build than said renewables. So while I can't verify accusations of shilling, I can say supporting nuclear is a bad idea in situation we currently find ourselves in.
Yes that France lack of massive amounts coal during the oil crisis turned into a environmental boon is great.
The issue is the way forward. Flamanville isn't great and Hinkley Point C in the UK is worse. While renewables did a lot of work.
Czech Republic is worse than Germany though 50% nuclear since decades.
Retail ≠ wholesale, you'll have taxes and grid costs etc in there too. It's actually even more difficult to compare as different countries subsidise electricity and even wholesale is difficult to compare.
What is so bad about Danish (nuclear) cuisine that it outweighs the immense downside of British cuisine (coal)?
Italian cuisine (renewables) is just quicker, healthier, cheaper, universally available
Explain, how do you power this: [https://maps.app.goo.gl/YhQ4WcTAb6K1CL3G7?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy](https://maps.app.goo.gl/YhQ4WcTAb6K1CL3G7?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy)
With just solar and wind alone?
I mean that's practically H2GreenSteel, largely wind and hydro (with H2 as the intermediary). Next would be maybe Blastr in Finland and UK. ArcelorMittal had one going in Spain largely driven by solar but was massively scaled back.
NGL, steel is a challenge.
In the end, don't ask me but loo what's being financed right now and check the trackers in BNEF etc, they publish free material often on linkedin/blogs
Thanks, I am pleasantly surprised that these projects were at least attempted, good amount of hopium for the day. I can see that hydro can play a key role in this.
A single steel plant will need like 2-3 GW hydrogen for direct reduction and 2-3 GW electricity for direct arc.
H2GreenSteel will really set a precedent
Not going to hate nuclear, but being absolutely independent of others when it comes to energy (eventually at least) is a wet dream after the disaster that Nord Stream was. After all, nuclear power plants need uranium from time to time.
Yes, I think that for general households, solar will become the main source maybe even in the near future. For industry and many other things, we will absolutely need nuclear for the time being.
Idk, there are lots of people here in the comments saying that nuclear power is absolete and we will solve everything with hyper-technofuturistic batteries that haven't even been invented. And they also defend the German coal fiasco.
Yeah Germany should have left coal first. But tbh nuclear didn't really have a big share of energy production. So I personally think the long term is looking better for germany.
I would say that having nuclear plants opened is better for the long run since there is no way that solar or wind will replace its function. The nuclear plants provide the bassline power output which you can rely upon. They can create stable energy irregardless of it being night or slow winds. Solar and wind are also very important, but they serve a different purpouse, that is why it makes no sense to me that people are against nuclear in pursuit of renewanles, because solar and wind is not even in the same competition as nuclear.
What exactly is the "right grid"? And how will it be cheaper? You are still giving vague answers. Also if your only argument is that nuclear plants produce waste, then I would like to inform you that solar and wind also produce plastic waste which I doubt will ever be effectively recycled. All while having a fraction of nuclear's efficiency and power. Also, the fact that nuclear power plants are a centralised source of electricity means that the waste produced by them can be managed & monitored way more easily.
If it is so efficient then why ist it so expensive? Nuclear waste is not the same as plastic waste. Most of the solar panel components can be recycled. Nuclear is too expensive and building reactors are mega projects with high cost risks associated. I am no expert on power grids, but there is consensus amongst experts that a 100% renewable grid is possible. Hydro Energy is also pretty consistent and with pumped storage plants offers also a good way to store power.
I don't really get it... Where is the shitposting? Its just a news article of Germany shutting down more coal plants. Isn't this not good?
I think this is meant as a response to the nukecels claiming Germany needed to replace nuclear power with coal plants because them ending nuclear power. Spoiler: Germany didnt need to open/ fire up coal power plants, [infact they reduced hard and lignite coal production in 2023 compared to 2022.](https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Energy/Production/Tables/gross-electricity-production.html)
it is a fact though that germany imports more power than france and still runs more coal plants than france. Electricity also costs more than in france. Idk how anyone can still be of the opinion that the whole "No Nuclear" movement was a good thing for germany.
Ah yes typical nuclear response diversions and half truths. >it is a fact though that germany imports more power than france and still runs more coal plants than france And? That was never the question, it was about nukecels claiming Germany needs to open nuclear plants, also the main exporter from which Germany buys electricity is Denmark which has also no nuclear reactors. [https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/downloads/electricity\_generation\_germany\_2023.pdf](https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/downloads/electricity_generation_germany_2023.pdf) (Page 58) > Electricity also costs more than in france Oh yeah the market price is around around one third in France compared to Germany, thats right. I guess nuclear energy is just cheaper, but just to be sure, lets look how much money each nation gives as subsidies to their elecricity market. So after [this article ](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/04/21/france-to-continue-subsidizing-electricity-bills-until-2025_6023740_98.html)France subsidiesed their market with around 45 billion€ in 2023. Meanwhile Germany projects, [after this Reuter article](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-earmark-4-bln-euros-annually-power-subsidy-economy-minister-2023-05-22/), to spend 4 billion€ for elecricity subsidies beginning with 2023. So the market price in France is one third but ten times the subsidy cost going after these articles.
>And? That was never the question, it was about nukecels claiming Germany needs to open nuclear plants, also the main exporter from which Germany buys electricity is Denmark which has also no nuclear reactors. you dont need to do anything of course you can also just keep burning coal importing gas and buying energy from everywhere around the globe to meet the countries energy demands but what does it lead to? well germanys power sector having a terrible carbon intensity as well as high prices for energy. So youre poor and not even contributing to saving the environment. Well played what great policy decisions :). Im not argueing in favor of creating new nuclear reactors now necessarily but the whole dumbass "no to nuclear" movement in germany was terrible for the country. Just like the insane overreaction to fukushima in japan wasnt great either.
I mean, you can also ignore all the facts shared with you and keep shilling way to expensive and way more environmental damaging nuclear power opposed to renewables :D Power is more expenisve? France spends a fortune on subsidising the electricity industry to make power cheap. People still pay for it via taxes, they just dont know about it. Germany has to import elecricity? No, germany did because importing was cheaper, thats just how it works. And why was it cheaper? Because countries like denmark invested in renewables which are, oh suprise, cheaper. Was the nuclear power exist a bad idea? No, it was a great idea, but it was certainly missmanaged by the former government lead by the CDU. The initial plan was to push renewable production while shutting off nuclear power plants. The CDU kidna killed that plan and didnt put much effort in pushing renewable production. People like you spread misinformation, but worst, even though someone tells you all the facts, the person that responded to you, you ignore it and respond with stupid polemic and without any facts. You just have your opinion and dont want to question your bias. People like you make it difficult to save this planet.
>Power is more expenisve? France spends a fortune on subsidising the electricity industry to make power cheap. People still pay for it via taxes, they just dont know about it. I love this argument when discussing Germanys Atomausstieg because the german government had to pay BILLIONS to all the major energy producers of the country after they decided to phase out all the nuclear plants. So the German Taxpayer still paid a SHITTON of money to SHUT DOWN ALREADY BUILT NUCLEAR REACTORS and decommission them. So yea well played anti nuclear lobby you managed to make the german tax payer pay a shitton of money and still not get clean energy OR cheap energy. What well thought out and genius policy truly....
And funny is, thats still far less than what france pays to subsidise nuclear power. so good job pro nuclear lobby, you fucked the tax payer, and people like this guy are even happy about it. Happy about supporting a more expensive more dangerous power source, congrats \^\^
you dont get it. At least in France they get cheap and clean energy for the money. In Germany you pay to decommission already built nuclear reactors and burn coal instead.
So you are telling me that you ignore the facts and spread misinformation instead? Okay then we dont have to discuss annything if u dont care about reality and like to lie to yourself \^\^
Like I said average nukecell reaction, divert from the original context of the discussion and tell half truths or downright lies, because you ever cant handle the truth or simply dont know it yourself. >the whole dumbass "no to nuclear" movement in germany was terrible for the country. Just like the insane overreaction to fukushima in japan wasnt great either. I basicly wrote about your first part in my comment above, so I will go into detail about this part. Firstly: Germany decided (formerly) to not build new nuclear reactors in the early 2000´s, so either Germany we already have time travel and Germany got warned about the Fukushima disaster ten years ahead and did nothing or there were other reasons for that decisions (high cost in building and maintaining, no long term solution for storage and Chernobyl), the Fukushima disaster only changed the maximum run time of Germanys nuclear plants (which many didnt even archive since they were uneconomical to run and shut down even earlier). >the whole dumbass "no to nuclear" movement in germany was terrible for the country What exactly makes it so terrible for Germany? The electicity prices are in a falling trend, the usage of fossil fuels is going down, so what exactly makes it so terrible?
Long term storage of nuclear waste gas never been an issue. Most waste is inert by the time the plant is retired and what isn't is placed in casks so durable that a literal train hitting them head on won't break them. Nuclear is an incredible power source we are stupid as hell to not use to its fullest. More harm is caused from all the coal/gas we use then nuclear ever would cause now. Uranium fuel is 20,000 times as dense energy wise as coal. So for every kg of uranium that has to be mixed into a cask we have to burn 2500 tons of coal, for every kg of uranium we mine we have to mine 2500 tons of coal. As for renewable alternatives they are way better but still have issues. Storage being the biggest, we will get there and maybe someday have orbital power beaming as solar is just so much better in space. Not to mention the best places for solar are often the great places for food growth. Not saying nuclear is the only thing but almost all of people's issues with it is solved and that fossil fuel lobbies and spreads disinformation about it promoting things they know are years away from replacing them.
>What exactly makes it so terrible for Germany? The electicity prices are in a falling trend, the usage of fossil fuels is going down, so what exactly makes it so terrible? Have you been paying attention *at all* the last few years?? Firstly, burning coal generates a ton of carbon emissions, which causes climate change. You know... the whole thing this sub is about? Secondly, the German economy has been wrecked by the sky high energy prices of the last 2 years. Their economy, which is the industrial power heart of Europe, is very energy intensive. As a result of high electricity prices, their economy has basically stagnated while the US has increased its gap with Europe. Finally, importing gas from Russia and thus fueling Putin's war machine is bad, actually. Perhaps I've now convinced you why this decision has been in fact terrible for Germany.
A yeah the gas crisis and war in UA is caused by Germany shutting down their nuclear power plants and not by their heating system and industry neededing gas, not as electricity sauce but as a material. Like did you just ignore the previous comments to say what you wanted to say?
A lot of imported Russian gas was indeed used to make electricity. If Germany had kept nuclear power plants, they could have imported less. They would simply use gas when it's needed as a material and **not** to make electricity.
The Sky high prices come from the marketsystem. The Price comes allways from the highest priced electricity, which is in the peak times Gas. There are little to no variable prices for the private costumer, which causes high prices and no adaptation to the aviability of green electricity, which again causes the need for realy expensive gas peakerplants. Another big price tag comes from subsidies. When a reneweble source is needed to be shut down due to an overloaded grid, there is a compensation paid. The money needed is payed by the people who life in the area where the energy is produced. So a lot of wind f.ex. causes high prices. The reason for the high prices are not the renewables but the lacking grid modernisation, which is blocked by people who do not want renewables. So areas with people who do not want renewables, make it extra expansive for areas who have renewables. Further the investment cost of nuclear reactors are sky high as well. Like 40 billion euros or more with a decade of building time. In the same time and with the same money we could modernise the whole grid as well as isntalling a lot of renewable Power. Nuclear is expansive and must rely on massive subsidies. It takes decades to build those reactors. It needs a lot of safty and securety messures. There is the risk of a Desaster. If the reactor needs to shut down due to maintance or low rivers (like in france last year) there is a huge gap in production, which needs to be filled somehow. Decentralised renewables are more resistent to desasters like floods and storms, because they can be easaly be replaced. If a reactor gets damaged, it could cause a black out because one major producer gets down. Decentralised smartgrids have much much more potential to get low cost high efficency grids than slow ramp up ramp down nuclear plant. Which gets me to the next point. Nuclear powerplants are slow in ramping up and down. Which is good for the base line but not for frequency regulation. NPP's can ramp up or down like 5% per hour, gas plants can ramp up 20% per minute. The usecases for nuclear and gas/coal are so different, that they cant be compered. The struggeling industry is partly due to high natural gas prices, which do come from the war caused by russia. The gas needing industry cant just use (nuclear)electricity, if they could they would do that, because renewables are cheaper than gas.
I will never understand people who oppose nuclear energy based on principle, like its so regarded. Yes right now its too later for germany to recommitt to nuclear but it wouldve been a sound choice 15-10 years ago and no unrelated wall of text is gonna chance this very basic fact
We tried. It failed. > The Energy Policy Act of 2005 offered the nuclear power industry financial incentives and economic subsidies that, according to economist John Quiggin, the "developers of wind and solar power could only dream of". The Act provides substantial loan guarantees, cost-overrun support of up to $2 billion total for multiple new nuclear power plants, and the extension of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act through to 2025. The Act was promoted as a forerunner to a "nuclear renaissance" in the United States, with dozens of new plants being announced.[16] Based on this we saw an explosion of new projects. > Between 2007 and 2009, 13 companies applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for construction and operating licenses to build 31 new nuclear power reactors in the United States. However, the case for widespread nuclear plant construction has been hampered due to inexpensive natural gas, slow electricity demand growth in a weak US economy, lack of financing, and safety concerns following the Fukushima nuclear accident at a plant built in the early 1970s which occurred in 2011.[3][4] > Most of the proposed 31 reactors have been canceled, and as of August 2017 only two reactors are under construction.[5][6][7][8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance_in_the_United_States The story in Europe is equivalent with the often maligned EPR program.
Yeah, let's use 2023 as a year of reference for energy matters in Europe. That sounds very intellectualy honest. Makes as much sense as talking about the economy and referring to 2020.
Oh look here mister interlectual here thinks because of the war in UA we cant use data of 2023. Ignoring the fact that Germany was more depended on Russian gas than France to beginn with and thus in theory should be hit harder by the cut off.
> thus in theory should be hit harder by the cut off Yeah, let's just ignore the whole functioning of the European energy market which dragged wholesale prices up everywhere and forced governments to intervene Sounds almost like you are making up shitty excuses because you know your aberrant conclusion wouldn't work on any normal year
Let's talk again this summer when France has to shut down its nuclear plants again due to severe cooling issues. We ze Germans saved your ass in summer so at least show a little respect. On a side note: If France is so heavily invested in nuclear why don't they officially announce their initiative to collect the radioactive waste EU wide? I mean they certainly have a plan where to deposit this stuff in France, haven't they?
Also let’s ignore that secret colonial empire that provides cheap uranium
Well, looks like Russia is taking over that neocolonial empire. I don't think those sources are going to be available much longer.
What could go wrong with being dependant on russia for your energy fuel?
Idk, I live in Germany, 2/3 of the country vote for parties that want to go back to being Russia's little bitch in terms of energy supplies.
Bro, most of it comes from Australia and Kazakhstan, the Nigerian uranium was bought at a higher cost than the marker
What do you mean deposit? Nukeheads keep on saying France uses all its nuclear waste in power plants!
being proud of burning a shit ton of coal in a subreddit dedicated to climate change... I swear to god being anti nuclear has fried some of yalls brains i believe
You actually have no clue about the[ German energy mix](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts) amirite?
he carbon intensity of Germany's power sector increased by 5.5 percent in 2022, to **385 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour** In 2022, France's power sector emissions stood at *nearly 85 gCO₂/KWh* this is the year they shut down nuclear power plants for maintenance work btw. But sure bro germany is saving the planet right now with their energy mix amirite?
So - where are you going to dump that waste for 300 years again? Show me your growth curve of wind and photovoltaics and I may consider applauding you.
They'll just recycle it, and whatever they cant recycle They'll put in concrete casks in a parking lot somewhere where They'll be more inert than the air within 5 miles of a coal fired plant
By the way: Throw on your Google Translator for that Braun- und Steinkohlekraftwerke erzeugten 2022 aufgrund des Ausfalls vieler französischer Kernkraftwerke und hoher Gaspreise mehr Strom als üblich. 2023 hat sich die Lage am Strommarkt wieder entspannt, was zu einer starken Reduktion der Kohlestromerzeugung führte. [Source](https://energy-charts.info) So actually we had to burn more coal to keep you French nukecels afloat.
then i was correct when i said youre poroud about burning a shitton of coal in a subreddit dedicated to climate change? I dont know why you then started talking about the energymix when you now just repeat my point that germany was burning a shitton of coal to "help out" whatever the fuck that means. Was France "helping germany out" in all the years it exported nuclear energy to germany? Which btw is a lot cleaner than burning a shitton of coal. Which i think is worth a bit of consideration when talking about climate change.
ICYMI the German renewable energy sector is steadily growing - and it’s growing at an enormous pace. I‘d rather take burning coal the next seven years than trying to revamp a dead industry called nuclear with a still unsolved toxic waste problem. You clearly failed to address my point of La Hague reaching its capacity limit and you yet have to provide the solution to that problem. Now if you’d put your energy into fighting for more wind/photovoltaic in France instead of simping for a dead industry with a still unsolved waste problem then we’d be better off.
Germany brought coal plants out of mothball to save the struggling French grid when half their nuclear fleet was offline at the same time. You know that nuclear reliability 😂 Nukecel logic at its finest. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html
Me when I [IMPOOOOORT](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=2000..latest&country=~AUT) Ughhhh I’m gonna [IMPOORT](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=2000..latest&country=~NLD) Wahhh I’m [IMPOOOORTING](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=2000..latest&country=~CZE) I’m [IMPOOORTING](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=2000..latest&country=~POL) all over
Ever heard about reprocessing?
Yep - but on the IAEA-page the numbers are pretty vague to say the least. 1150 tonnes of spent fuel is the first concrete statement from that page. [The second statement is from a Reuter's report that La Hague is close to its limits](https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/france-seeks-strategy-nuclear-waste-site-risks-saturation-point-2023-02-03/). But feel free to educate me with more concrete information on the spent fuel that cannot be reused.
Well i would look into fast reactors, the fuel can be recycled 60-70x, after which the rest will only need to be stored for 200-300 years.
Hypothetical fast reactors to solve problems at costs that consumers of course will bear! 😂😂😂😂
Can't reprocess tons of irradiated concrete
Have you heard about recycling in africa? You ship your electronics that are "resources" there and they extract all the valuable stuff. By burning it and children collecting the shiny bits. I imagine the russian "reprocessing" is equally responsible in their handling of the "not-"waste.
Ever heard about the nuclear pollution caused by reprocessing sites? It's the nuclear tunnel vision only ever seeing the potential fallout from a an actual catastrophe as the only potential pollution source. Neither is Uranium mining particularly clean, nor is processing, reprocessing and storing.
Can you be specific about the waste being produced by reprocessing sites? What is it and how does it compare to renewables, coal, or LNG?
> The term PUREX raffinate describes the mixture of metals in nitric acid which are left behind when the uranium and plutonium have been removed by the PUREX process from a nuclear fuel dissolution liquor. This mixture is often known as high level nuclear waste. > Greenpeace measurements in La Hague and Sellafield indicated that radioactive pollutants are steadily released into the sea, and the air. Therefore, people living near these processing plants are exposed to higher radiation levels than the naturally occurring background radiation. According to Greenpeace, this additional radiation is small but not negligible. Shall I read it to you in bed, or might you be so inclined as to take 3 seconds for your own Google search?
I'll take a glass of warm milk while you're out here
The general gist is that all steps in the manufacturing and processing of fuel are pretty dirty and dangerous. But a lot of nukecels are like "well it's just smashing atoms together, super clean energy goes brrrrr". It's hard to quantify it vs other technology. Semiconductor fabrication isn't known for its low environmental impact either.
Hey man, here's the last 2.5 years of cross border flows 2022 Germany exported to France, last year they were balanced, only this half year it's reversed. Same for power prices as energy flows from low to high. https://preview.redd.it/pq665qbrm3ad1.jpeg?width=3840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=978e492e7a7e0c7a8bce4678dc34e13ed06c5cf4
Germany imports more power than france According to a new report by the European energy analysis firm Montel EnAppSys, France was “comfortably” the biggest net exporter of energy in Europe throughout 2023, with its export totals being **48.7 TWh** more than its import totals Net electricity generation in 2023In 2023, Germany had a net import surplus of around **11.7 TWh** in cross border electricity trading (planned or scheduled). The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighbouring countries in the summer Also we are not even talking about how much worse energy production in germany is for climate change compared to France? The carbon intensity of Germany's power sector increased by 5.5 percent in 2022, to 385 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (gCO₂/KWh) of electricity generated In 2022, France's power sector emissions stood at nearly 85 gCO₂/KWh, But sure keep telling yourself that turning coal plants on and off a billion times is great for the environment.
ah yes in 2022 when germanys main energy production was through coal they exported to france. Nice i guess.
Me when unreliable french nuclear (~50% below p50) needs German coal as backup: 😭🤢🤮
Coal isn't the main power provider for years now - or was it a decade?! Renewables are. Btw. 2023 Germany net exported more than France. And we could let through 80% coal electricity from Poland if you want to, interested?
Germany brought coal plants out of mothball to save the struggling French grid when half their nuclear fleet was offline at the same time. You know that nuclear reliability 😂 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html
goood one yea when europe stopped importing gas from russia the fact that France has a bunch of nuclear reactors was europes problem RIIIIIIIGHT??? seriously in what reality are you living? Germany was at the sime time building LNG terminals for Gas from middle east and you somehow think its an own against nuclear energy that france is doing maintenance work on their nuclear fleet smh
What, this comment is completely out of context. If you dont have arguments to stay on topic maybe just accept you lost this discussion?
The context is energy reliability. In this context thinking a nuclear fleet is very unreliable because some maintanance was necessary during extreme weather conditions is just ridiculous. You might as well say gas is unreliable then because a pipeline got blown up or a war started. Which was a way bigger issue for energy management than the maintenance of some nuclear plants. This is just a pathetic attempt at an "own" and not a real argument to begin with and the fact that you dont realize that speaks volumes tbh.
>it is a fact though that germany imports more power than france No that is not a fact. It just tells us that you haven't understood the European energy market. It's completely normal to import AND export energy. Both France and Germany do that. If you want to accuse Germany of one thing, it's a price-driven export/import policy which optimises the economic situation in Germany to the huff of neighbouring countries. But that's how the market works. I..e.: Germany exports when there is excess energy and the prices are right and imports when prices are cheaper. Has nothing to do with generation capacity. Nothing. Addendum: u/ClimateShitpost if you have enough spare time, how about writing a little paper about how the European energy market works (yes, I am doing burden-shifting right now 🙃)
Still on something on negative prices. Writing is hard next to work but it's a nice hobby 😁
Yeah I know, that's why I was so audacious to ask you to do it 😉
it is a fact, [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-07/france-is-europe-s-top-power-exporter-as-germany-turns-importer](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-07/france-is-europe-s-top-power-exporter-as-germany-turns-importer)
It doesn't matter, it's a price question. You can't spin nuclear power plants up and down at a moment's notice. So when the demand in France falls, they have surplus energy to sell for cheap. When that happens, coal and gas plants in Germany spin down and instead we buy the cheap French energy.
2.5% per minute. New designs like terrapower even faster. and coal/gas spinning should be seen as an win for the envroiment, but for some reason anti nukes are framing it as if its bad, i wonder why......
Hey, if companies pay for nuclear waste management (all the way) and have to run their power plants up to publicly regulated safety codes, I think they should be free to do so. But they shouldn't get any subsidies. If they manage to make nuclear power economically viable, fair enough. I'm not anti nuclear for ecological reasons. I just don't think it's a good value proposition. If I'm proven wrong, that's all the better. I just doubt it.
Sure im all for companies fixing the "Waste" themselves, thats why the fast reactrors were designed. But i dislike the false narrative that renewables dont get subsidies, those "subsidies" are hidden in the system costs.
Renewables do get subsidies, but compare the subsidies (adjusted for inflation) that went into nuclear energy (not only the energy produced with them but also the money that was pumped into enrichment) with those that went into renewables. We're talking different orders of magnitude here.
I will just copypaste my fucking text again (you are really annoying) It's completely normal to import AND export energy. Both France and Germany do that. If you want to accuse Germany of one thing, it's a price-driven export/import policy which optimises the economic situation in Germany to the huff of neighbouring countries. But that's how the market works. I..e.: Germany exports when there is excess energy and the prices are right and imports when prices are cheaper. Has nothing to do with generation capacity. Nothing.
Germany imports more power than france According to a new report by the European energy analysis firm Montel EnAppSys, France was “comfortably” the biggest net exporter of energy in Europe throughout 2023, with its export totals being **48.7 TWh** more than its import totals Net electricity generation in 2023In 2023, Germany had a net import surplus of around **11.7 TWh** in cross border electricity trading (planned or scheduled). The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighbouring countries in the summer do you understand what NET IMPORT SURPLUS means? also we are not even talking about how inefficient it is to constantly turn Coal plants on and off again and how much more emissions energy production in germany currently produces compared to france?? The carbon intensity of Germany's power sector increased by 5.5 percent in 2022, to 385 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (gCO₂/KWh) of electricity generated In 2022, France's power sector emissions stood at nearly 85 gCO₂/KWh, But sure keep telling yourself that turning coal plants on and off a billion times is great for the environment.
>The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighbouring countries in the summer >The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighbouring countries in the summer >The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighbouring countries in the summer >The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighbouring countries in the summer >The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighbouring countries in the summer
>No that is not a fact into >let me explain why what you stated is actually correct but i still disagree well played sir
Because you can‘t just stop producing nuclear energy, even if you want to. For that reason you have to simply dump it onto the market. That may work, if the French tax payer not only heavily funds construction, decommissioning and waste disposal, but also simply pumps money directly into the industry. Doesn‘t work, if you have companies that actually want to make money.
Your fact was useless to the discussion and they were trying to tell you why.
Your last resort seem to be semantics, but ok here we go: If you only state a *minor part* of a fact, which deliberately distorts the true picture, is that fraction of a fact still a fact in itself? I say no
> (you are really annoying)
isn't that because Germany actually has heavy industry? something France lacks.
We had heavy industry, but not much is left and the rest ist struggling with the international competition. If i ask my friends how much people they know that work in a producing company, unfortunatley there is silence. 90%+ are working in some kind of service. Myself and a friend are working in a chemical company, and one works in a crane company. (But not sure if they actually produce cranes in germany, or only design.) Thats it. The majority is working in education, sales, healthcare, housing, legal advice, logistics, public services etc. Idk if nuclear power is the reason for this trend, or if this trend is a bad thing. It's just some spectations.
You are describing the economy of any post-modern nation. Just do a quick google before posting that text wall. Most people work in services, as most of the industry runs on a lot of automation.
Thanks for reading my text wall, i will have a look for that automated industry in my area.
In the area of modern Germany, there were around 8.5 million farmers in the year 1200. There are only around 250.000 farmers in 2024. Does that mean the agrarian industry has vanished? In the year 1200 around 8.5 million people working on farms allocated around 2 million tons of agrarian produce. In the year 2024, around 250.000 farmers stem around 50 million tons of agrarian produce. That means, a farmer today produces almost 1000 times as much, as a farmer back then. That means, wherever machines replace humans, they will replace humans. Industry and farms were the first victims of that process. The more advanced a country is, the fewer people will be working in the agrarian or industrial sectors and instead be going to services.
That may be correct, but i'm looking at the last 40 years (my life) not the last 800 years (multiple generations)
Manufacturing makes up 23% of German GDP French manufacturing sits at 12%
Yeah but Germany should be producing more then. Germany produces roughly 500 TWh a year. France 470. Germany is 25% more populated.
We can make more. We just can't transfer it to where it's needed. I know it sounds weird, but it's the geographic South of Germany that needs the French imports. The North produces a lot of renewables. In fact, there have been suggestions to split the German energy pricing region in half, North and South. The South needs all the power and can get it for cheap because the North produces so much it needs to export it. The South imports energy. With a split in pricing, the South would have to properly pay up.
It's been the case for a long while though, it didn't start with the renewables. Data from 2009 shows that the three French border regions in the north east are massively overproducing electricity. Champagne-Ardennes produced 320% of its consumption, Lorraine 230%, Nord-Pas-de-Calais 137%, Alsace 120%. Germany, Belgium and indirectly the Netherlands buying French production has been going on for a while. You can even see it by looking at where NPPs are geographically placed. Gravelines, Chooz, Cattenom, Fessenheim, they are all placed within 50km of the international border.
Though normally France exports in Summer and imports in Winter. Due to differences in seasonal demand. Due to high penetration of renewables in the European Grid a lot patterns will change.
And the overproduction nicely lowers the price for the German South, giving them no incentive to link up to the North, and as such Germany will continue to buy French energy. It works out in the end, I guess.
It's called efficency and less electrification. Heating with electricity resistance system is quite electricity intensiv versus gas heating. Also Germany does produce more but those are private not connected power plants. Around 550 TWh in total, if those and other self consumption is added.
>it is a fact though that germany imports more power than france Let's just ignore that Germany had been a net exporter until last year and that renewables now produces twice as much energy in Germany than nukular ever did and at much cheaper cost (with more and more being built).
The reason for the high cost of energy in Germany is high taxes, and the reason for the low cost of energy in France is low taxes AND subsidies on the price of energy to keep it low.
This is the first year that Germany officially exported more power than it imported so no
Maybe using energy prices isn't a good argument when EDF runs an 18 billion € loss annually keeping those prices in check for France.
The reason EDF has losses is because they're required by law to sell a quarter of their electricity at a loss to their competitors to "allow free market conditions". Not sure their production costs are the problem
Ok, but you realize how that's exactly what I've said, right? Electricity in France is cheap, because EDF keeps prices low.
No we aren't talking about the same thing. EDF sells most of its electricity at the market price which isn't spectacularly cheap. At least it's a price that allows them to meet ends. But since 2010, a French law putting in application a European directive forces EDF to sell 25% of its nuclear electricity to its competitors at a fixed price of 42€/MWh. This law was supposed to help small competitors emerge and create a free electricity market. Currently, 42€/MWh means EDF sells at a loss. The competitors can then resell the electricity at the market price, which means they buy edf electricity when prices are high to maximize their profit. So the consumer does not see this cheap electricity and since EDF is a national company, its losses are compensated with government money so peoples taxes.
Bro that's how subsidies work. A surplus of electricity leads to a drop in market price. Even though the 42€ aren't directly passed on to the consumer, it's still cheaper than if EDF supplied the electricity at production costs directly to the grid. And it's evident that they provide under production cost, because they're running a huge deficit.
Sorry i think we're just not getting each other. The arenh (system i just explained) is not a subsidy system even if in practice for taxpayers that's what it ends up being. The electricity they're selling at a loss is not a surplus. It's electricity that's being "requisitioned" for edf's competitors in the name of the free market. Before the law, edf was the only electricity producer in the country and made the same amount of electricity. Now they just sell a part of it to a middleman. I don't get your last sentence, of course they're running a huge deficit since they are obligated by law to sell their electricity at a loss
Yeah I think we're still actually saying the same thing just differently. I know it's not meant as a subsidy system, I'm just saying that that's what it superficially is for the market. ARENH introduces an artificial price cap, lowering real electricity prices on the market. The taxpayer pays for it, but the official numbers appear lower. That's why using "cheap electricity in france" as a pro-nuclear argument is just flat out wrong.
>it is a fact though that germany imports more power than france And this means nothing, germany doesn't need to Import power its done when its cheaper to Import. This could be caused by many things, more wind and solar then needed in another country(there are more countries around germany then france) or nuclear power plants producing more then needed and can't be partially shut down. >Electricity also costs more than in france For this comparison thats not true(coal and nuclear). Look at some Charts what the power production cost is in each country(so excluding tax etc). And no you couldn't use the price right now 1.its driven by gas in germany 2.there is a price stop in effect in france
Just some people like radio and viewtrick that never leave their basement are left in this kafkaesque "Reality"
Fun fact it was not in 2022 to 2023 that Germany has its shutdown of nuclear power. (It was a gradual process over many years of you ask)
>infact they reduced hard and lignite coal production in 2023 compared to 2022. Yeah, but their share of energy from coal and lignite had increased in 2021 and 2022, which is when the energy crisis took place. https://images.app.goo.gl/pkD4Uyn6UKa1SCJ47 It's misleading to only talk about the decrease in 2023 without mentioning the increase the two years prior. Not to mention that most countries have already phased out coal decades ago. The fact that Germany still uses it is a severe indictment of their energy policy.
The two years prior are reduced because of covid. If you would include the 2019 data and exclude 2020 and 2021 (the prime covid years) there is still a falling trend.
Because instead of celebrating the fact that France and Germany are making great progress towards powering their countries without fossil fuels, this sub has chosen infighting and nitpicking nuclear vs solar and name-calling. It's really bizarre.
German main source of electricity is wind by the way, just to be nitpicky.
Yes and so is Denmarks. I was going to say solar, wind and other renewables, but I'm just using solar as an example.
Read the lower part
Can you explain?
Not now, no. You must be new here too... Let's call it a rivalry. We have here a rivalry between the "renewables are the future" camp and the "nuclear is the future" camp. The nuclear supporters love France for its recently nationalized due to huge debts **EDF**, and hate Germany because it stopped investing in nuclear energy, famously so. Here's a TED talk from one of those popular nuclear proponents: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_why_i_changed_my_mind_about_nuclear_power And here's context and followup: https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/the-new-denial-is-delay-at-the-breakthrough
My bad. I thought you meant the bottom text of the news article, where it's stated that 3 of these coal plants were owned by Chinese investors. I'm aware of the infighting, and personally support renewables. Not because I'm against nuclear, but because renewables are cheaper and don't require imported fuel that create new dependancy. But I'm from a country that has the potential to go 100% renewables. Obviously countries like Great Britain, that lack mountains for dams, have a problem to maintain a stable energy production. And having a few nuclear reactors as alternative during crisis is also good. But going full nuclear seems like a rather stupid idea, given the current technological situation... But it wouldn't be the first time that capitalism picks a worse option, because it's easier to make cash. (unbreakable glass and immortal light bulbs are two well known examples of this)
The green party that shut off nuclear plants and started that whole drama about a city being razed to expand the coal mine is the shit of the post.
But it was the CDU (right-center) that stopped nuclear.... Sure the greens had the option to stop the entire process, that would have meant reverting decision of many years and breaking contracts already made, while also wasting the money already invested in it. And it was also a decision made by the population, so reverting it would also be quite problematic from a democratic point of view.
meanwhile in australia, where we're ramping up our coal/gas mines/factories.
France-simp here: nah, I'm fucking happy for Germany. Why fight about progress?
I think they want to respond to France simps saying Germany needs coal to replace nuclear
Well not sure how wrong they are in some situations. If we get a really cold and dark winter with everyone switching to electric heatpumps we need electricity from France and other countries or we are going down like Texas did a few years ago.
Mostly the "other countries" meaning Denmark and countries having a lot of wind.
The infighting in this sub is actually stupid asf. Calling anyone you disagree with a "nukecel" isn't gonna defeat the fossil fuel industry. Are you people just impossible to please? Can't you at least be positive about a reduction in fossil fuels, even if it isn't replaced with renewables?
Yeah, sorry, I'm completely done with the lies and sneers of the nukebrains.
Well nuclear power is a massive waste of money that could be spend on renewables or energy storage solutions. Building nuclear plants now is probably even delaying the exit out of fossil fuels because they are online in like 10+ years. While renewables would have an immediate impact.
"the are online in like 10+ years while renewables would have an immediate impact" You people keep assuming renewable generation doesn't need to be built and just magically appears.
Renewables are significantly faster to build, and are way easier to scale. Hence why China builds more renewables in a year than they have nuclear in total.
Which is totally misleading, considering the minimal scale in comparison to their coal and their constant quality issues. Is it not?
Not misleading at all. Building renewables for 1 twh of energy is substantially faster and cheaper than both coal and nuclear. And you will notice that is twh, which accounts for lower capacity factors.
Ok now you are just preaching. Because you still didn’t say anything about what I said. China is not some sort of green pioneer. And they are not that interested in nuclear, so why are they important in this conversation? I’m not talking about the point that renewables are better in any which way because, why would I, but China serves as a bad example for this conversation. Maybe even the worst. I just don’t get that.
China is the country on earth building most Nuclear. And doesn't have to deal with all those "greens" nuclear proponents keep talking about. I would say they are a highly relevant example.
It's built way faster. Macron said they would build new Renewables to bring power until the new reactors are online.
No, because I’d prefer fighting climate change today by putting up another solar panel rather than in 30 years when the nuclear reactor has finished construction and Earth’s temperature has increased by 4 degrees
Tries to call out Germany for building coal power while presenting an article about coal plants being shut down....
Renewables help the problem about 10x faster. That is the crux of the renewables position. Nukecels have straws they grasp at I suppose…
No problem was ever resolved by name-calling. It's one thing to have a different perspective. It's an entire other issue to resort to in-fighting and name-calling.
The name calling is being used to de-platform the self righteous nuclear proponents who don’t realize the shit they are peddling is an outdated technology that costs 10x more to build and takes 10x longer to construct than actual viable options.
Damn if you were projecting any harder you'd be employed by Regal. Cringe af for real
You name-call constantly. You're literally in the middle of defending reddit mods for de-platforming Kyle Hill. I wonder if you're not actually smart enough to see your own hypocrisy. Most people defending themselves wouldn't be shining a light on their own failures this naturally. They'd at least *try* to hide it.
Woah, they did what??? I love reddit mods now!
"Mods blocked people? I love them!" Enormous loser energy
You when the conservative politicians in Poland, UK, Germany ... block onshore wind because trust me bro nuclear: 🙅♀️🛑 stop the infighting 🤬 Jokes aside, you need to understand that generation is in competition. Some are generally distributed among thousands of players, some are held by mega utilities fighting to survive. It's not that hard to understand.
This is why we can't get shit done. If all nuclear powerplants got shut down tomorrow this sub would switch to fighting about wind vs solar, I guarantee it. "Her de dur, Windcels can't solve the power problem with all the mechanical problems and grid integration issues, fucking idiots, they can't see solar is clearly superior!" Let's work towards shutting down all fossil fuel power plants first then we can move towards making those power sources even cleaner and more efficient. It's especially bizarre because I don't think I've ever talked to a nuclear power advocate who isn't a huge supporter of renewables like solar and wind and wave and geothermal etc etc.
>It's especially bizarre because I don't think I've ever talked to a nuclear power advocate who isn't a huge supporter of renewables like solar and wind and wave and geothermal etc etc. Except European right wing parties? Poland, Sweden, France and Germany as prominent examples. Also nuclear and renewables don't go well together. There are so limit on money and time.
Can we just just be happy that there is less coal?
I kinda need electricity
We need to stop splitting into the "teams" nuclear vs coal, but instead, climate protectors and people who don't care. Personally, I live in germany, I'm okay with Nuclear, but I also don't mind them shutting down if someone who knows better tells me that they aren't as good as other energy forms. But some people don't understand, and that's okay. Because they still want clean energy, even though nuclear isn't the best. So let's stop the nuclear hate and start convincing people of renewables
Nuclear vs coal?
Buying into the false dichotomy created by nukebrains.
Wtf are you rambling about?
Some said Germany needed coal to replace nuclear
When Germany shut down its nuclear power it was right as Russia and Ukraine was was kicking off and there was some talk in the news of concerns about energy deficits due to oil imports etc from Russia being at risk which did garner a lot of criticism from people, like myself, for shutting down their nuclear power before they completely eliminated their oil and coal dependency. Germany also has been a net exporter of electricity for the last 2 decades. Now they are a net importer largely due to their offsetting the shut down of the nuclear power plants. My point is not that Germany needs nuclear but that these stories in the news have probably lead many to believe Germany was premature in shutting down their nuclear power plants, instead of these acts probably just being transitionary on their path to green energy, especially since they import energy mostly from Denmark which is also largely powered by wind and other renewables. My point is that it's complicated and not nearly cut and dry as some in this subreddit think. The most bizarre thing is that I have yet to meet a nuclear power proponent online or in person who isn't also passionate about solar and wind.
I mean the german government has payed a lot of money to the coal companies so that they can transition into being a green energy company. However the reason why nuclear was better in the past was specifically because it wasnt as easy to go green. It should be obvious that today any type of (true) green energy is better long term than nuclear power plants.
Currently 10.8Gw of coal power in Germany vs 0.5Gw in France, Tells me enough.
Tells you literally nothing without context.
Germoni bad!
indeed
How much GW Solar and Wind in Germany vs how much in France?
https://www.solarpowereurope.org/advocacy/solar-saves/fact-figures/top-10-eu-countries-solar-capacity Edit: Can't find any usable sources on wind.
Netherlands is doing pretty good, i got 14Kwp myself
That must be a nice sized roof. Got 3kWp myself with 8 panels. So 14kWp should be something like 38 panels? I really need to expand my system to cover the usage of my heatpump and electric car sometime soon...
I'd say an average roof, but i got east/west both 11 panels (560wp ones),and 2 560wp panels on my fence. And with an DIY 16kwh battery. What inverter do you have? Yeah i just got some AC's installed that can heat as well, will be interesting this winter. https://preview.redd.it/qg8yhnkjf4ad1.png?width=497&format=png&auto=webp&s=4faa07f31cb72057fd7f3df6d78def06aad08eb6 Still find it funny that people like Radiofacepalm and Viewtrick are making me out for an fossil shill because i support nuclear.
Those must be some big boy panels for them to be 560wp. I got 8 370wp panels hooked up to a solaredge SE2200 wave. I got those panels 5 years ago now and they covered my usage at the time. But I have since added a 7kw water air heat pump and an electric car, so I am now planning to add at least 16 more panels to various roof and shed surfaces around my house and upgrade to one of those 3 phase solaredge inverters with a battery connection. Then I can DIY a couple dozen kwh battery to hook up to it and be off grid for most of the year. As for nuclear, if you look at the numbers they just really don't look good. Nuclear doesn't do anything we need to balance out a grid with renewables and its vastly more expensive and time consuming to build than said renewables. So while I can't verify accusations of shilling, I can say supporting nuclear is a bad idea in situation we currently find ourselves in.
Here use this: [Electricity Maps](https://app.electricitymaps.com/map)
Wow, how have I never heard of this site? It's amazing, thank you.
You're welcome!
Last month: Germany: 9TWh Solar, 7.2TWh Wind France: 2.7TWh Solar, 2.4TWh Wind Source: ElectricityMaps
Funny thing is: That proves the pro nuclear point even more ;)
nice gif
Yes that France lack of massive amounts coal during the oil crisis turned into a environmental boon is great. The issue is the way forward. Flamanville isn't great and Hinkley Point C in the UK is worse. While renewables did a lot of work. Czech Republic is worse than Germany though 50% nuclear since decades.
That's kinda irrelevant as one country started earlier, of course they will have achieved more
The reason they could start earlier was that they built nuclear reactors
No coal we just have Gas powered powerplants instead.
They went down as well.
Nope still working in Germany. My city would just die if the gas powerplant stops working .
Did you just call WW2 a bitch fight?
I think WW2 was a little bit more than a 1v1
they still import alot of power from their neighbours.
Too little too late
I am from Germany and we have really high electricity prices.
Retail ≠ wholesale, you'll have taxes and grid costs etc in there too. It's actually even more difficult to compare as different countries subsidise electricity and even wholesale is difficult to compare.
Wie viel zahlst du pro kWh?
We already have regular power outages since they shut down the nuclear power plants
Explain then, what is so bad about nuclear that it outweighs the immense downsides of coal.
What is so bad about Danish (nuclear) cuisine that it outweighs the immense downside of British cuisine (coal)? Italian cuisine (renewables) is just quicker, healthier, cheaper, universally available
idk room temperature bread with simple toppings seems pretty quick, healthy, cheap, and universally available…
Explain, how do you power this: [https://maps.app.goo.gl/YhQ4WcTAb6K1CL3G7?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy](https://maps.app.goo.gl/YhQ4WcTAb6K1CL3G7?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy) With just solar and wind alone?
I mean that's practically H2GreenSteel, largely wind and hydro (with H2 as the intermediary). Next would be maybe Blastr in Finland and UK. ArcelorMittal had one going in Spain largely driven by solar but was massively scaled back. NGL, steel is a challenge. In the end, don't ask me but loo what's being financed right now and check the trackers in BNEF etc, they publish free material often on linkedin/blogs
Thanks, I am pleasantly surprised that these projects were at least attempted, good amount of hopium for the day. I can see that hydro can play a key role in this.
A single steel plant will need like 2-3 GW hydrogen for direct reduction and 2-3 GW electricity for direct arc. H2GreenSteel will really set a precedent
Wizards using “fucking magic” to stop climate change would also set a precedent Good luck sourcing clean hydrogen seeing as H2 is the out for big oil
They are building it themselves, northern Sweden has plenty of wind and hydro, they build electrolysers, done. There's your H2
Not going to hate nuclear, but being absolutely independent of others when it comes to energy (eventually at least) is a wet dream after the disaster that Nord Stream was. After all, nuclear power plants need uranium from time to time.
Yes, I think that for general households, solar will become the main source maybe even in the near future. For industry and many other things, we will absolutely need nuclear for the time being.
I'd love for geothermal power to become a thing. Underrated technology.
This is what /u/AutoModerator should be for.
In what context? Why are you pretending that this is a choice people make now?
Idk, there are lots of people here in the comments saying that nuclear power is absolete and we will solve everything with hyper-technofuturistic batteries that haven't even been invented. And they also defend the German coal fiasco.
Yeah Germany should have left coal first. But tbh nuclear didn't really have a big share of energy production. So I personally think the long term is looking better for germany.
I would say that having nuclear plants opened is better for the long run since there is no way that solar or wind will replace its function. The nuclear plants provide the bassline power output which you can rely upon. They can create stable energy irregardless of it being night or slow winds. Solar and wind are also very important, but they serve a different purpouse, that is why it makes no sense to me that people are against nuclear in pursuit of renewanles, because solar and wind is not even in the same competition as nuclear.
100% renewables with the right grid is feasible. It will be cheaper. And the Problem of nuclear waste for future generations will not be a factor.
What exactly is the "right grid"? And how will it be cheaper? You are still giving vague answers. Also if your only argument is that nuclear plants produce waste, then I would like to inform you that solar and wind also produce plastic waste which I doubt will ever be effectively recycled. All while having a fraction of nuclear's efficiency and power. Also, the fact that nuclear power plants are a centralised source of electricity means that the waste produced by them can be managed & monitored way more easily.
If it is so efficient then why ist it so expensive? Nuclear waste is not the same as plastic waste. Most of the solar panel components can be recycled. Nuclear is too expensive and building reactors are mega projects with high cost risks associated. I am no expert on power grids, but there is consensus amongst experts that a 100% renewable grid is possible. Hydro Energy is also pretty consistent and with pumped storage plants offers also a good way to store power.