Germany makes U-turn on nuclear energy policy, keeping two plants as backups

[ForceFate]

But you said this situation is "not permanent"...so you obviously have an idea.

The two plants — located in the southwestern state of Baden Württemberg and the southeastern state of Bavaria — were to be shut by the end of this year but will now stay open until mid-April 2023.

Paraphrasing German officials.

 

[Johnatan56]

Germany makes U-turn on nuclear energy policy, keeping 2 plants as backups amid its natural-gas crisis

Germany was set to phase out nuclear energy by end-2022, but now faces a looming crisis after Russia cut off natural-gas flows via a key pipeline.

www.businessinsider.co.za

Misleading title, they are not making a u-turn, they are just keeping them on standby a bit longer (note Germany previously extended (CDU) and then opted back out (Fukushima)).
This was already announced a month ago I think, just they needed to do stress tests etc. to make sure they are in good condition to keep running for a bit longer as decommission procedures had started. This does not mean that they will keep it going post 2023.

Deputy Chancellor Robert Habeck, whose ministerial brief incorporates energy policy, said that the plants were to be put on standby until mid-April 2023, instead of being shut down as planned at the end of the year.

Bavaria's Isar 2 station as well as Neckarwestheim 2, which is north of Stuttgart, will act as reserve power sources through the winter.
The third remaining plant will not be needed, according to a report by the economics ministry that stress tested the three stations.

"That there are many-hour crisis situations in our power grid over the winter of 2022/2023 is very unlikely," Habeck said on whether Germany could face blackouts as the result of a looming energy crunch.

Germany to extend 2 nuclear power plant lifespans, slightly – DW – 09/05/2022

The economics ministry has issued a recommendation to keep two of Germany's last atomic energy stations online through the winter as Berlin scrambles to come up with alternatives to Russian gas.

www.dw.com

It's an in case of measures, not a u-turn on nuclear.

I really don't get the opposition to nuclear power. It's such a clean source of energy.

Cost, safety, storage, not demand based response capable.

Why would their ESG points plummet? The nuclear plants are their cleanest energy.

No, renewables are their cleanest source. Still stupid of Europe to label nuclear as green, but it's technically true based on CO2 output.

Fact check: Is nuclear energy good for the climate? – DW – 11/29/2021

Supporters of nuclear energy say it can help us wean our economies off polluting fossil fuels. No surprise, it's a heated issue. But what about the facts? Can nuclear power really help save the climate?

www.dw.com

Picture has an error of Photovoltaic* missing an asterisk, same for the wind farms ones.

 

[Tman*]

Most of Europe will have a choice soon.

Provide energy at a reasonable, sustainable cost. Or, keep the green peace hippies happy.

 

[Temujin]

MURDERERS, you're stealing my dreams

 

[Pak Fa Fui]

The keeping it on for winter
Where are they sourcing their oil from now

 

[ForceFate]

The keeping it on for winter
Where are they sourcing their oil from now

From other countries I guess?

Crude Petroleum in Germany | OEC

Find the latest exports, imports and tariffs for Crude Petroleum trade in Germany.

oec.world

 

[ToxicBunny]

The keeping it on for winter
Where are they sourcing their oil from now

Not Russia...

 

[Vorastra]

Misleading title, they are not making a u-turn, they are just keeping them on standby a bit longer (note Germany previously extended (CDU) and then opted back out (Fukushima)).
This was already announced a month ago I think, just they needed to do stress tests etc. to make sure they are in good condition to keep running for a bit longer as decommission procedures had started. This does not mean that they will keep it going post 2023.


It's an in case of measures, not a u-turn on nuclear.

Cost, safety, storage, not demand based response capable.

No, renewables are their cleanest source. Still stupid of Europe to label nuclear as green, but it's technically true based on CO2 output.
View attachment 1378663

Fact check: Is nuclear energy good for the climate? – DW – 11/29/2021

Supporters of nuclear energy say it can help us wean our economies off polluting fossil fuels. No surprise, it's a heated issue. But what about the facts? Can nuclear power really help save the climate?

www.dw.com

Picture has an error of Photovoltaic* missing an asterisk, same for the wind farms ones.

In one life cycle study, the Netherlands-based World Information Service on Energy (WISE) calculated that nuclear plants produce 117 grams of CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour. It should be noted, however, that WISE is an anti-nuclear group, so is not entirely unbiased.

Hmmmmmmm

 

[Johnatan56]

Hmmmmmmm

However, other studies have come up with similar results when considering entire life cycles. Mark Z. Jacobson, director of the Atmosphere / Energy Program at California's Stanford University, calculated a climate cost of 68 to 180 grams of CO2/kWh, depending on the electricity mix used in uranium production and other variables.

Right under it, literally the next sentence/paragraph.
Point was more than solar PV / wind.

 

[Geoff.D]

It's not permanent.

Do you mean it is temporary spelt incorrectly?

 

[Vorastra]

Right under it, literally the next sentence/paragraph.
Point was more than solar PV / wind.

Hmmmm, let's look at who Mark Z. Jacobson is.

Mark Zachary Jacobson is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and director of its Atmosphere/Energy Program. He is also a co-founder of the non-profit, Solutions Project.

Ooo, Solutions Project. Who's that?

The Solutions Project is an organization first conceived in 2011 by prominent figures in science, business and the entertainment media with the goal of utilizing the combined efforts of individuals in the fields of science, business and culture to accelerate the transition to 100% renewable energy use in the United States.

Hmmmm, ok...

Let's continue.

The organization defines renewable energy as solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, geothermal energy and wave/tidal power.

Oh...

Weird how DW can only seem to reference people and groups who are anti-nuclear.

 

[Vorastra]

So luckily we have the NREL which is a US government sponsored institution and they've done their own GHG life cycle emissions investigation.

Who is NREL?

NREL is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Department of Energy and operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, a joint venture between MRIGlobal and Battelle.

Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization

www.nrel.gov

Oooo, I like them.

Let's check some of their findings?

Wind, looking very good!



Solar PV, hmmmmm



Concentrated solar, ok not bad



Nuclear, wow would you look at that.




See @Johnatan56 I can do this too

 

[Vorastra]

Not Russia...

Still buying LNG though, as is the rest of Europe, despite all their crying.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Still buying LNG though, as is the rest of Europe, despite all their crying.

Of course they are, the pertinent detail is that they're buying less and less from Russia.

 

[Herr der Verboten]

Germany makes U-turn on nuclear energy policy, keeping 2 plants as backups amid its natural-gas crisis

Germany was set to phase out nuclear energy by end-2022, but now faces a looming crisis after Russia cut off natural-gas flows via a key pipeline.

www.businessinsider.co.za

Ja ne, eweskielik nie so lekker en maklik om oor paper-straw power generation te smag / circle-jerk as iemand 1 switch flick nie. Shem.

 

[Vorastra]

Of course they are, the pertinent detail is that they're buying less and less from Russia.

Yet they can't help filling those storage tanks to the tippy-top.

They're not buying less, Russia is severely restricting their purchase.

You make it sound like the EU is the one choosing lol

If NS1 was running at full tilt, the EU would be guzzling right now.

The best part is that one of the routes they're still being supplied from is Russia...through Ukraine lmao

 

[konfab]

I really don't get the opposition to nuclear power. It's such a clean source of energy.

It's opponents don't want clean energy. They want the destruction of modern society.

 

[konfab]

Misleading title, they are not making a u-turn, they are just keeping them on standby a bit longer (note Germany previously extended (CDU) and then opted back out (Fukushima)).
This was already announced a month ago I think, just they needed to do stress tests etc. to make sure they are in good condition to keep running for a bit longer as decommission procedures had started. This does not mean that they will keep it going post 2023.


It's an in case of measures, not a u-turn on nuclear.

Cost, safety, storage, not demand based response capable.

No, renewables are their cleanest source. Still stupid of Europe to label nuclear as green, but it's technically true based on CO2 output.
View attachment 1378663

Fact check: Is nuclear energy good for the climate? – DW – 11/29/2021

Supporters of nuclear energy say it can help us wean our economies off polluting fossil fuels. No surprise, it's a heated issue. But what about the facts? Can nuclear power really help save the climate?

www.dw.com

Picture has an error of Photovoltaic* missing an asterisk, same for the wind farms ones.

That picture doesn't look right regarding CO2 emissions.

Nuclear doesn't produce anything as a result of production, so it would just be construction and decommission costs. But in terms of that, you would need far more concrete and materials for low energy dense sources like wind and solar than for high ones.

 

[Vorastra]

That picture doesn't look right regarding CO2 emissions.

Nuclear doesn't produce anything as a result of production, so it would just be construction and decommission costs. But in terms of that, you would need far more concrete and materials for low energy dense sources like wind and solar than for high ones.

View my comment above regarding life cycle emissions according to the NREL.

Nuclear is lower than both PV and concentrated solar, and close to wind.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Yet they can't help filling those storage tanks to the tippy-top.

They're not buying less, Russia is severely restricting their purchase.

You make it sound like the EU is the one choosing lol

If NS1 was running at full tilt, the EU would be guzzling right now.

The best part is that one of the routes they're still being supplied from is Russia...through Ukraine lmao

So you're saying that the EU is buying LNG from Ukraine, who then sources it from Russia?

To be fair, sounds like a bit of a win-win... EU gets to fund Ukraine, and all Ukraine have to do is take their cut off the top.