It would probably have been wiser to keep the nuclear shut-off at 2030, but Fukushima changed that and when the energy crisis hit it was already too late to change course.
That's true -- neither do the "necessary" reactors however.
> it ain't viable
Citation needed.
> You want to run a steel mill or a chemical plant on batteries?
No, obviously certain industries with different power requirements will be treated differently in the grid... just like they are now. Doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that. Furthermore, there are some interesting and not-too-exotic designs (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32006791) that seem better suited to industrial high-energy applications than your typical lithium-ion. In fact, lithium only makes sense in mobile applications: you can use heavier (and higher capacity) materials for storage which doesn't need to move at all.
> How much battery would you need to sustain Germany 3-4 days?
Bad faith argument that misinterprets the point of energy storage to the point that it's arguing against something that is not relevant here.
Also, massive storage capacity is being installed already: 1 GWh of small-scale home storage was added in the first quarter of this year alone. When it comes to larger-scale batteries Germany is currently a bit behind, but that is just a matter of time since the business opportunity is just too great. So this is already happening right now in front of our eyes.
Base load is a concept of the past, flexible grids is the future, and that is exactly where the journey is already going.
Our industry would probably disagree that “base load is a concept of the past”.
In 2021, electricity production from renewable grew by 9%
Nuclear production grew by 2%. The capacity declined. World wide.
It's much better to invest into renewable.
Full disclosure: I deliver more electricity to the grid with my PV than I consume.
> I deliver more electricity to the grid with my PV than I consume.
That's fine. We'll see more people doing it and we'll see many GWh distributed storage capacity added over the next years.
I suspect not a very economically strong region then?
> Given that nuclear energy will be slow and extremely expensive to build, we'll better look for alternatives sooner than later. Plus: spent fuel storage / reprocessing costs how much for what option? We have nuclear power since the 50s, but dealing with nuclear waste is still largely unsolved.
It’s pick your poison: that or global warming. Japan and Korea are ramping up their nuclear power; Korea gets em up and running in 2 years…
> That's fine. We'll see more people doing it and we'll see many GWh distributed storage capacity added over the next years
PVs are horrible for grids to handle and for every installed PV we also need to have the gas equivalent if PV doesn’t deliver. If we are really optimistic and assume we would only need to cover 3 days we probably need around 3600 GWh or storage which is equal to 12 million tons of batteries assuming 300 Wh per kg of battery (if I got the math right on my phone).
Everytime a nuclear advocate mentions Korea their build time seemingly gets shortened by a year, all the while Flamanville 3 adds another year of delay.
Sadly the South Korean model seems to require falsifying certification documents so following their lead seems supremely unwise.
> In November 2012 it was discovered that over 5,000 small components used in five reactors at Yeonggwang Nuclear Power Plant had not been properly certified; eight suppliers had faked 60 warranties for the parts. Two reactors were shut down for component replacement, which was likely to cause power shortages in South Korea during the winter.[25] Reuters reported this as South Korea's worst nuclear crisis, highlighting a lack of transparency on nuclear safety and the dual roles of South Korea's nuclear regulators on supervision and promotion.[26] This incident followed the prosecution of five senior engineers for the coverup of a serious loss of power and cooling incident at Kori Nuclear Power Plant, which was subsequently graded at INES level 2.[25][27]
> In 2013, there was a scandal involving the use of counterfeit parts in nuclear plants and faked quality assurance certificates. In June 2013 Kori 2 and Shin Wolsong 1 were shut down, and Kori 1 and Shin Wolsong 2 ordered to remain offline, until safety-related control cabling with forged safety certificates is replaced.[28] Control cabling in the first APR-1400s under construction had to be replaced delaying construction by up to a year.[29] In October 2013 about 100 people were indicted for falsifying safety documents, including a former chief executive of Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power and a vice-president of Korea Electric Power Corporation.[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea#H...
Almost.
Before the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake Japan had 54 nuclear reactors with 30% of Japan’s electricity output. Of that only 33 reactors are currently possibly operable and of those only 10 are actually currently online.
The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake was the most devastating event in the nuclear history: a single event caused the shutdown of all 50+ reactors of a country, with much of the nuclear electricity production capacity lost for a decade - and longer.
While the country is spending billions to keep the wrecks under control.
Relate that to the 400g/kWh of carbon emissions coal produces or the radioactive fallout from coal plants.
I prefer a nuclear power plant to the coal plants that smog up my air and pollute everything around the Rhine area.
In Japan majority is supporting it again and the articles don’t read like nuclear is on the decline in Japan these days: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/03/06/national/nuclea...
“ Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is one of several world leaders aiming to ramp up the use of nuclear power, with plans to restart more reactors that have been standing idle since the Fukushima crisis.”
So I think what you state is wrong!?
So restarting coal plants in Germany is wise in comparison?
April 2023: 9,4 kWh electricity from coal
decreasing coal usage, despite the sanctions due to the Russian invasion...
So instead of crying after an energy source of the last century (nuclear) I'm all for now building a 100% emission-free, decentralized and flexible grid. I am convinced this is the future and the journey to get there has already begun.
Decentralization, flexible grid, local storage are as viable and realistic as “cold fusion” for Germany as of today. You underestimate the tremendous need for electricity the industry has.
So, realistically: either you chose global warming or nuclear power.
Ideology doesn’t replace reality.
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
The difference comes from taxes and fees.
Germany briefly hit 45 cents/kWh last year due to the war. We are getting back to normal and in March the average price was 10 cents/kWh.
In other words, even during the tail ends of winter and war induced supply crunches the average price was too low to support nuclear.
New built nuclear is having energy crisis prices all year around.