Comment on Germany hits 62.7% renewables in 2024 energy mix, with solar contributing 14%
pineapplelover@lemm.ee 5 days ago
They used to have nuclear too
Comment on Germany hits 62.7% renewables in 2024 energy mix, with solar contributing 14%
pineapplelover@lemm.ee 5 days ago
They used to have nuclear too
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
Yeah, what’s up with that? Nuclear works well for France, so why did it fall out of favor in Germany?
It’s not perfect, but it does a fantastic job at providing a base load alternative to batteries, which could significantly reduce rollout costs if they had existing plants. It’s probably not worth switching now, unless they have some dormant plants that could be fired up quickly (like we’re doing in the US).
docoptix@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Apart from that the plants don’t work in summer and the prices have to be capped/subsidized to keep power affordable…
rigatti@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Why don’t they work in the summer?
storcholus@feddit.org 4 days ago
The rivers used for cooling are either too warm or too low
matlag@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
They do. But you need to reduce the generation to make sure you don’t heat up too much the water for the ecosystem that lives in. Less water means the temperature difference before and after the plant is higher. That’s the constrain.
Miaou@jlai.lu 4 days ago
Oh noes subsidising a greener energy source than coal, how terrible, that’s not what governments are supposed to do!
(Let’s ignore the fact that the subsidies were done half a century ago, and that energy is way more expensive in Germany)
matlag@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
Prices capped have nothing to do with nuclear energy and everything to do with stupid EU price policy.
France used to have a monopoly by a state owned company on electrIcity: EDF. But everyone knows that’s terrible, and private market is the way to go. At the time, electricity in France was the cheapest across Europe, but it’s still terrible because… well that HAD to change!
In order to introduce some competition, generation, network and “distribution” (billing…) activities were separated.
Then private distributors (again: billing companies with 0 generation capabilites and 0 grid network) were allocated some quota of electricity from the nuclear electricity generated by EDF at low cost.
In addition, and that’s the European policy: electricity price on the market would be set at the cost of the most expensive generator at a given time. Example: 100% nuclear today: cost is set at cost of nuclear. 95% of electricity from nuclear, 5% from gas: 100% of the electricity that day is billed at cost of gas! 80% nuclear, 15% gas, 5% coal: 100% of the electricity billed at cost of coal!
Why? So that the priate newcomer would get huge benefits and be able to invest in electricity generation. But: there was 0 constrain in doing so, so they just rack up benefits at the expense of EDF and clients! Even better: since they get such low prices from their quota, they’re cheaper than the EDF split distributor company. So at some point, their quota was insufficient for their client’s demand. Time to invest… hahaha! No I’m kidding: time to ask for a bigger quota, of course granted by Macron and his team.
Then came Ukraine invasion. Uh oooh! Gas price exploses, even the “distributors” start to feel the pain. What to do? Well, kick out their clients! Refure to renew contracts, or ask for such a ridicuously high price to make sure they just go! EDF’s hisorical distribution company is legally obligated to take them back. And that’s where the 2nd joke kicks in: EDF gave s much quota of nuclear electricity that they no longer have enough for these clients they have to take. No worries: the “distributors” sold back the electricity quota… at market price, ie mostly gas price!
With the price of gas multiplied n times determining the cost of the whole production, it became unbearable for clients. That’s where genius Macron and Lemaire (Minister of Economy) set a “shield” (cap) on the bills. It’s no shield nor cap. It’s actually the state of France paying the difference in the bills between the actual bill and the cap they set. That’s public money!
And again, that money didn’t go to resources. It went straight to “distributors” (rather call them parasites).
For sure, the heavy maintenance work on the nuclear power plant done at the time didn’t help. They decided to do it on all plants at once (another bad call) and it lasted longer than planned.
But the price issue has nothing to do with nuclear and everything to do with stupid policies.
And now, lesson learned (not): Spain and Portugal got out of that absurd elecricity market. Germany and France (and many other countries) made a few changes and keep going. Because competition with multiple private actors in electricity is good. Can’t you see it??
kameecoding@lemmy.world 4 days ago
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder
Step 1 shut down nuclear, and switch to gas Step 2 get hired by gazprom
BMTea@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Sorry but the German people and not Schroder were the ones who chose anti-nuclear. And the reliance on Russian gas may have backfired, but at the time it enabled perhaps the most efficient economy Europe had ever known.
pineapplelover@lemm.ee 4 days ago
Germany was once the star of Europe for having so much nuclear energy. Completely independent from russian gas.
j4yt33@feddit.org 4 days ago
There has always been quite a noticeable anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany, especially in the 70s/80s and after Fukushima political pressure rose to get rid of nuclear power. Some also say that the SPD was very friendly with Putin and that’s why they were happy to increasingly rely on Russian gas imports. Not sure if that’s true though
nexusband@lemmy.world 4 days ago
It’s an aspect, but not the whole Picture. Germans are relatively tech savvy on the one hand, but on the other hand, we also don’t like change. A consequence of combining both things is that we calculate risk different. With all the issues surrounding Nuclear Fission and how much safeguarding a potential “BDBE” (Super-GAU in German or Beyond-design-basis events, like Fukushima and Chornobyl) needs, they also came pretty damn expensive to run. The fact of the matter is, German Power Companies never made money with Nuclear Fission, most of them broke even and covered the running costs, but actual profits weren’t that great. Russia - with help of the SPD - made Gas so cheap, it simply made no sense to invest in Nuclear Fission reactors…even with high subsidies. With most of them being over 25-30 years old and most of them needing general overhauls due to new safety regulations and general technology improvements, the Power Companies also pushed the Lobby behind the scenes to either change regulation or phase out Nuclear Fission. The Krümmel NPP also had a serious incident in 2009 that confirmed suspicions of many Germans, that the Power Companies cut corners to make profits. It resulted in a partial meltdown, after a very serious Fire in 2007. Also, Geesthacht - the community where the NPP was located - has had a significantly higher rate of leukaemia and chromosome defects. Then came Fukushima and that was the final nail in the coffin, as popular opinion shifted. Even before actually deciding on the phase out of NPP, Krümmel was shut down in 2011 for good.
Krümmel wasn’t the only reactor that has had issues. Then there’s been issues with finding a suitable waste repository - turns out, encasing nuclear waste in concrete in old mine shafts is a very bad idea in most of Germany, as deep groundwater seeps in through the layers and wreaks havoc with a supposed “final and safe” resting place. And as i mentioned, most of Germans were (it has changed a bit in the last 10-25 years, sadly) relatively tech savvy and most, if not all Germans understood the basic principles of nuclear fission, as well as the dangers (some maybe blown out of proportion), because they were taught in even “Hauptschule” (Lower Secondary Education) Physics, Chemical and Biology. Considering Germany is relatively densely populated, many, many people would have been directly affected by a BDBE/Super-GAU. Either through non usable ground water, loosing their livelihood, jobs or actually losing their lives gradually.
Granted, the way the phase out was done has been a total disaster or utter shitshow and in my personal opinion, it should have been done gradually, because a few NPPs still had runtimes for over 15 years. But yeah - general anti-fission stance, cheap Gas from Russia with the help/enablement of the SPD, negligence from the operators/loosing confidence in the operators to actually run the plants safely and different risk evaluation in the German populace all played their part. Maybe also a bit of irrational fear as well, due to the history and being right in the middle of two seemingly mad Nuclear Powers.
In any case, it isn’t as cut and dry as some people think it is - IMHO. But despite what i said about letting the runtime on the plants run it’s course, I’m against Nuclear Fission (or rather Boiling Water / Pressure Water Reactors) as well. Now if we get Molten Salt Reactors working properly and maybe Transmutation as well, things are different…
themurphy@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
Lobbying (corruption).
Ekpu@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Nuclear power is much more expensive than renewable power. Also nuclear ist not that good to regulate to compensate for swings in renewable power. And if you downregulate the nuclear power it gets even more expensive. Building new nuclear plants takes ages so renewable can be much easier scaled up. Combined with batteries the unsteady renewable power will be a lesser problem.
The outphasing of nuclear power was a bit early but in the Ende needed.
Also france Bad massive problems with their nuclear power in the summer because of a lack of cooling water.
photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
Don’t forget the propaganda. Thanks, Green party.