Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power

Germany To Keep 2 of Its 3 Nuclear Plants Running Into April (apnews.com) 188

Germany's government plans to keep two of the country's three remaining nuclear power plants running until mid-April to help prevent a potential winter energy shortage, the economy and energy minister said Tuesday. The Associated Press reports: The announcement by Economy and Energy Minister Robert Habeck means the government has officially, albeit temporarily, reversed Germany's long-held plan to shut shut down its nuclear plants by the end of the year. Habeck said the decision to keep operating the two plants in southern Germany -- Isar 2 in Bavaria and Neckarwestheim north of Stuttgart -- into next year a "necessary" step to avoid potential power grid shortages in the region.

Officials still plan to close down Germany's third remaining nuclear plant, Emsland in the northern German state of Lower Saxony, at the end of the year as planned. Habeck said officials announced the decision Tuesday in light of stress test data from France's nuclear providers that indicated grid shortages could be more severe than expected this winter. Like other European countries, Germany is scrambling to ensure the lights stay on and homes stay warm this winter despite the reduction in natural gas flows from Russia amid the war in Ukraine.
"The situation in France is not good and has developed much worse than was actually forecasted in the last few weeks," Habeck said. "As the minister responsible for energy security I have to say: Unless this development is reversed, we will leave Isar 2 and Neckarwestheim on the grid in the first quarter of 2023."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Germany To Keep 2 of Its 3 Nuclear Plants Running Into April

Comments Filter:
  • Not really (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gweihir ( 88907 )

    They are kept in reserve. That means they produce minimal energy and can be ramped up to something like 30% of maximum capacity for a total of around 2% of the electricity Germany consumes. The whole thing is stupid.

    • Yes, this doesn't look like a significant change from what they said earlier.

      Again, possibly the dumbest fucking thing to keep expensive plants idling and not operating at full chooch.

  • by poptopdrop ( 6713596 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2022 @02:33AM (#62920037)

    It is obvious to all but the blinkered Greens that we have to use nuclear to help combat global warming.
    THEN the anti-nuclear whiners can start again.

  • by Stonefish ( 210962 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2022 @02:55AM (#62920059)

    Looking at this logically Germany should refuel its existing plants and recommission its shuttered plants. This should be done for numerous reasons.
    Russia can't be relied upon as an energy partner
    The war in Ukraine is ongoing as Russia is doubling down.
    The whole gas economy is bad as it relies on fossil fuels
    Generating power with coal is bad as it relies on fossil fuels
    The plants already exist, they don't need to be built, the carbon from the concrete and steel is already in the atmosphere, keeping the plants running claws back this debt.
    Also getting to zero emissions is the goal, don't make it harder than it needs to be, be pragmatic.
    Nuclear isn't all sweetness and light, but neither are power lines, solar and wind farms. Solar generates significant waste, wind farms decimates certain types of birdlife and they're intermittent.

    You might want the world to be powered by a warm inner glow but you only need a touch of winter for things to change

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Too expensive to keep nuclear going, especially as the plants age and operating them safely becomes more difficult. The path to cheap, clean energy is renewables. Germany just needs time to install more of them.

      • Given current energy prices due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, keeping the existing nuclear plants going through the end of the winter seems like a bargain. Clearly plants that are past their expected lifetimes and have relatively high costs aren't a good long-term solution but for the immediate future, they're a great idea.
      • Yeah, because insufficient supply is less expensive than operating already existing infrastructure, right? Ask Texas and California how that worked out for them.
          Germany doesn't have time, which is why they are extending the operational timeline of these plants.

    • We could always start shipping nuclear waste into space.

      • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        We could always start shipping nuclear waste into space.

        Queue Space 1999 music...

    • I may be unable to see the logic, but this summer France was a net importer of energy, due to problem with their plants and cooling problems due to the drought (e.g. https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]). Some of the decommissioned German plants use fuel rods only manufactured in Russia. France is importing power from German wind parks. The impact of wind turbines on birdlife seems exxagerated, e.g.: https://www.sciencefocus.com/s... [sciencefocus.com] I agree completely with your assessment on fossil power, but I don't see h
      • France is a net importer primarily due to the fact that they have found corrosion in a number of plants. This means they have been taken offline for repairs. Because the have a large number of a single plant design the issue impacts them all. The simple fact is that France has far lower CO2 emissions than Germany and power costs are lower. If nuclear was more expensive than wind and solar this wouldn't be the case. Download the analysis from
        https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system

        • by Uecker ( 1842596 )

          One reason power costs for households are lower in France because they are artificially kept low in France (which is one reason EDF is loss making) and artificially kept high in Germany (to encourage power saving). Market prices - at the moment - are far higher than in Germany. But yes, life time extension for nuclear plants makes sense and this is cheap. But new nuclear is far to expensive to be a reasonable solution for climate change. Also old plants that need investments sometimes will get too expensiv

      • France uses much less electricity in summer. Sometimes they have to import. In winter, when more electricity is needed, the nuclear plants are running full-bore and France is a net exporter. this is by design - ensuring that capacity is highest when demand is highest.
    • by Kiuas ( 1084567 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2022 @04:57AM (#62920227)

      Russia can't be relied upon as an energy partner

      And they just proved this again: yesterday both the Nordstream 1 pipeline (which used to be operational and the main way for gas delivery from Russia to Germany but has been closed down for about a month) and the under-construction Nordstream 2 pipeline next to it were blown apart in an obvious act of sabotage. [bbc.com].

      Now the Swedish authorities are investigating this together with the defense forces and NATO intelligence, so obviously no-one besides Ukraine has directly blamed Russia yet, but one does not need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that this is straight out of the Kremlins playbook. Now why would Russia blow out their own pipelines? There are numerous reasons: first off, Poland is currently getting a lot of replacement gas via another pipeline through the Baltic sea going from Norway to Poland. If Russia is aiming to try and blow this one too, blowing their own (inoperational) pipelines first works as both a practice run and a plausible deniability factor: if they manage to blow up the Norwegian pipe as well (which I doubt, NATO has already (in co-operation with both Finland and Sweden) stepped up defensive measures around the pipeline) they can claim that it can't be them because they too have suffered from this. Secondly, this is great as a propaganda tool for both external and internal purposes: externally they're already blaming the west/the US/NATO/CIA on this in an attempt to sow chaos among the western allies and population. Internally they're going to use this as 'proof' that they're indeed in a war against the whole west and try to ramp up theyr (dismal) recruitment attempts.

      Additionally Putin is probably getting a lot of internal pressure from the oligarchs to end the war and resume trade seeing there've been several high profile Russian oligarchs recently that have mysteriously fallen out of windows or been found dead. By destroying the pipe he ensures that even if he's thrown out of power gas trading with Europe cannot and will not resume, so he's trying to make sure they're locked into this total war approach.

      So yes, there will definitely not be any more Russian gas sold to Europe/Germany, most likely not even after the war ends because the unreliability of Russia is now finally clear to everyone, even to Germany that's trusted them way too much after the collapse of the soviet Union. There's a very good reason why we here in Finland have imported basically next to no Russian gas throughout the whole millenium and have instead focused on building more nuclear power, with the new Olkiluoto 3 reactor [wikipedia.org] being undergoing test use currently and once it's up and running fully by the end of the year or start of the next, it'll make the Olkiluoto nuclear plant the largest in the Nordics. As for waste disposal, we're currently the first country in the world that has an active deep geological repository [wikipedia.org] for nuclear waste that will be able to store it in stable bedrock for tens of thousands of years at basically no risk of leakage because the storing requires no power and we have no earthquakes,

      Resuming and increasing their nuclear power generation is also the only sensible way forwards for Germany, and even though it'll take the German political circles a while to admit their mistakes and come to this conclusion, I trust that they will do so eventually.

      • Russia can't be relied upon as an energy partner

        And they just proved this again: yesterday both the Nordstream 1 pipeline (which used to be operational and the main way for gas delivery from Russia to Germany but has been closed down for about a month) and the under-construction Nordstream 2 pipeline next to it were blown apart in an obvious act of sabotage. [bbc.com].

        Now the Swedish authorities are investigating this together with the defense forces and NATO intelligence, so obviously no-one besides Ukraine has directly blamed Russia yet, but one does not need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that this is straight out of the Kremlins playbook. Now why would Russia blow out their own pipelines?

        I think you missed the most obvious one (or at least the right framing for it).

        Russia had two big pieces of Natural Gas leverage, Nordstream 1 and Nordstream 2.

        Germany axed Nordstream 2 at the start of the war... meaning Russia was down to Nordstream 1 as energy leverage.

        Then, after spending a while playing games with the turbines they turned off Nordstream 1, which was another dumb move on Putin's part because the whole point of a card like that is it's most effective either as a threat, or if you need to

        • So why is Putin blowing up his own pipelines?
          It is not his, or Russia's pipeline. It is Europes pipeline.

          If he was it (likely he was): it is already an act of war against Europe/NATO (NATO is a bit more tricky, as an aggression is defined as an attack on the territory, and not simply on offshore property).

      • Resuming and increasing their nuclear power generation is also the only sensible way forwards for Germany
        A) Nukes priduce electricity, they do not really replace gas heated furnaces - for that you need to switch the gas heating to heat pumps etc. And: the heat pump does not care if the power comes from a renewable or a nuke. In other words: building a new nuke, which might take 20 years from now: solves nothing.
        B) only sensible way you think to push something down the throat of a population that do not want

    • Nuclear power is both safe and planet friendly ...

      Well, let's just say "resonably and sufficiently safe given the right conditions". And given that it's "planet-friendly" too, yes.

      However, it isn't cost-effective. It's too expensive and to complex to maintain.

      Which is why Germans have been decommissioning their nuclear fission stuff for decades now. Because they actually can do math, as they did with Kalkar (most advanced reactor project in the history of man), as they did with Wackersdorf replenishing plan

      • Unless you have some solid-state thingie that can transfer radiation into current could we please finally drop this sixties techno-romantic pipe-dream of "nuclear will solve this".

        What do you believe photovoltaic cells do if not convert radiation into electrical current?

      • So, please, everybody, for the love of the heavens almighty: Unless you have some solid-state thingie that can transfer radiation into current ....

        https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citation... [nasa.gov]

      • So you are declaring that technology that doesn't even exist yet (fusion) will fall to the same deficiencies as wildly different technology (fission) because they both have the word "nuclear" in their titles?

        Then you conflate local environmental heating with global temperature rise while also confusing the issue with radioactive wastes (hint: bitching about long-lived half-life materials is easily recognizeable scaremongering to anyone that knows anything about this - the stuff that lasts 50,000 years isn't

    • There's nothing safe about these old pieces of shit. It's called a bathtub curve and Germany's ancient tractor population is well into the point where they should be shutdown anyway for safety grounds.

      Hell one of these three plants has had 2 unplanned shutdowns for repairs this year alone.

      Recommissioning old shit is dangerous. Build new ones if you want. But the only reason nuclear is safe, or will stay safe is if you use it responsibly.

      • Yes they are, even old nuclear plants run very reliably when maintained. These plants are being deliberately run into the ground with minimal maintence. Nuclear plants can have lifetimes to 60 or even 80 years safely with suitable upgrades.
        The emissions and generation costs from lifetime extension nuclear plants is incredibly low https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system

    • Looking at this logically Germany should refuel its existing plants and recommission its shuttered plants.
      That is not really possible.
      For that you need to change the nuclear exit laws, and for that you need a majourity in the parliament: which you would not get.

  • With the Nord Stream troubles, this problem isn't getting better.
  • https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]

    The straightforward fact would be to use full honesty/transparency and say:
    We promised to shut them down by [i.e. on or before] December 31. But now, that deadline is rescinded and we don't know when we will be able to shut them down.

    But that's not how politicians and bureaucrats operate... if they actually believed they would keep within the original deadline, they would simply say: "We promised to shut them down by December 31. We will still meet that deadline but will nee

  • Did we learn nothing from Dark?
  • 1 - Continuing to operate existing nuclear fission plants is a reasonable solution, in that most of the emissions of nuclear fission is the actual construction of a nuclear plant, and the mining and processing of it's fuel. You already had 20 years of carbon positive emissions when the plant was constructed, so at this point, it's almost - not the same, but almost - emissions free.

    2. Building new nuclear fission plants is a very bad idea, as we know that they will create emissions that will take 20 years o

  • At the 14 of September:

    27 reactors connected
    3 in economy mode to be preserved for the winter
    26 offline. 10 for classical maintenance ( they accumulated because of COVID delays) 10 in corrosion repair, 5 in corrosion control. One in short unrelated interruption

    Of these 26, 5 are scheduled to restart in September, 5 in October, 7 in November, 3 in December, 2 in February 2023. 22 over 26 then.

    Sorry, my source is in French and is a long video in the bargain. It is the CEO of EDF in front of the Assemblée

"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"

Working...