Timeline for Why is Germany still opposed to nuclear power despite the energy crisis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 5 at 7:07 | comment | added | gerrit | @TheFibonacciEffect I lack sufficient domain expertise to comment on the quality of the data from ourworldindata. It is possible that the numbers are too high. However, it is entirely plausible that economies and scale work for solar and wind but that the diseconomy of scale works against nuclear. | |
| Jul 4 at 6:59 | comment | added | TheFibonacciEffect | @gerrit However our world in data just takes the data from lazard, which does not include the system costs that are required for storage. Also the CEO of lazard himself mentioned once that their numbers for nuclear are propably too high. | |
| Oct 7, 2022 at 10:16 | comment | added | clockw0rk | @Tomeamis I'm not so sure about that. Sure, it would be cheaper, I guess. What I'm not sure about is whether the already existent nuclear powerplants have the capacity and are enough to feed the energy needs. Ultimately there would have new powerplants to be build, which I think would cost more than it's worth. ( I'm no minister, I don't know the exact numbers in cost, but an educated guess tells me the german nuclear plants already existing and from the stone-age are never enough to feed the consumption needs as in 2022 ). I hope this is an at least somewhat statisfying respond | |
| Sep 30, 2022 at 15:24 | comment | added | Tomeamis | @clockw0rk Interesting insight, thank you. But if I understood your comment correctly, it's expensive because it's imported. So if it was produced locally, many of the problems you mentioned would disappear. | |
| Sep 30, 2022 at 15:21 | comment | added | Tomeamis | @gerrit Interesting article, thanks. One issue I have with it is that the source for nuclear costs is the Lazard study also mentioned on the Wikipedia page, which notes that the study hasn't published its methodology and the number is abotu 2.5 times higher than the other studies mentioning nuclear in the same table (One is from the OECD NEA, just in case). | |
| S Sep 30, 2022 at 13:38 | history | suggested | xyldke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed Schröders first name and added an explanation for "Dunkelflaute"
|
| Sep 30, 2022 at 13:24 | comment | added | Crazymoomin | The EU does have a strategy, but cheap natural gas was a big part of that strategy. It is the transition fuel to be used to compensate for renewable intermittency until storage technology catches up and is built in sufficient quantities. It's kind of like how a heroin addict will use methadone to help them get clean. Without that natural gas, Europe, Germany in particular, faces having to go "cold turkey" which is more likely to result in either a desperate return to dirtier fossil fuels like coal and oil or a severe economic downturn due to energy rationing. | |
| Sep 30, 2022 at 13:05 | comment | added | clockw0rk | @Tomeamis except Nuclear power isn't the cheapest in germany - simply because the energy is produced in france and imported here, Mainly because the mid and southern regions needed some form of energy compensation for their MASSIVE gain in energy needs - something the net could not deliver (usually energy flew from the northern sea downwards). [ I worked at a major german energy company ] | |
| Sep 30, 2022 at 13:04 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 30, 2022 at 13:38 | |||||
| Sep 30, 2022 at 10:26 | comment | added | Shadur-don't-feed-the-AI | Concur with @leftroundabout -- those aren't U-turns, those are schedule changes in response to changing circumstances. This is how long-term planning works. | |
| Sep 30, 2022 at 7:49 | comment | added | gerrit | @Tomeamis See our world in data for some data on the cost of nuclear power and renewables. | |
| Sep 29, 2022 at 14:06 | comment | added | JonathanReez | @Tomeamis the amount of false statements about nuclear is significant even in the answers to this very question. It seems like everyone answering are taking the governments official beliefs at face value. | |
| Sep 29, 2022 at 9:16 | comment | added | Tomeamis | Ad "Nuclear is one of the most expesinve forms of energy": On the linked wikipedia page, the cost per kWh seems to be near the cheapest except hydro. One study found it to be very expensive, but did not disclose how it got these numbers. And even that study found that prolonging the operations of existing nuclear power plants is the cheapest (granted, it didn't investigate hydro power). Also, solar and wind require electricity storage which seems to not be priced in. | |
| Sep 29, 2022 at 9:12 | comment | added | leftaroundabout | Calling all these decisions U-turns is a bit of an exaggeration. “Atomausstieg” was a cornerstone of the Greens' programme in the 90s, so it couldn't really be a surprise that the phase out would be decided after they got into government 1998, and at 20 years ahead this did have enough time to plan it out. Somewhat similar for 2010. Fukushima did prompt a U-turn under a conservative government, and right now for a government with Greens (much bigger than they were in 1998) extending is again a decision they don't like to make. | |
| S Sep 29, 2022 at 2:51 | history | suggested | Dawood ibn Kareem | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
improved English
|
| Sep 29, 2022 at 1:51 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 29, 2022 at 2:51 | |||||
| Sep 28, 2022 at 14:29 | history | edited | Philipp♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 30 characters in body
|
| Sep 28, 2022 at 14:22 | history | edited | Philipp♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 62 characters in body
|
| Sep 28, 2022 at 14:16 | history | edited | Philipp♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 319 characters in body
|
| Sep 28, 2022 at 14:08 | history | answered | Philipp♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |