Wind farm in Germany is being dismantled to expand coal mine
balkangreenenergynews.com
balkangreenenergynews.com
Edit: And though I'm pro delivering weapons to Ukraine, I was deeply disgusted by their socialmedia marketing ("free the leopards").
I am not an economist so it might be totally wrong but that is my understanding.
edit: fixed typos
Having the potential to grow (e.g. orders) doesn't mean you cannot shrink at the same time because you just cannot produce e.g.
The people in the UK unwillingly stripped of their EU citizenship due to Brexit might like a word... ;)
FDP has climate nagationists on their payroll. Only the far left die Linke has actually a better environmental programme than the green but their position (Schwarzer, Wagenknecht...) on the Ukraine war showed they just exited reality a while back...
It's a sad state to have to vote for the "least worse", but I think it's been like that for while, I just didn't want to see it...
Left are... a mess, please get rid of Wagenknecht and the remainder of the pro-russia tankie wing.
Everything is going wrong in German politics. The current progressive coalition just announced a law that affects me personally very much (our self-id law) and it's such a bad compromise, it legitimizes every fear - real, imagined or performative - right wingers have about trans people, conflicts with existing anti-discrimination policy and makes the legal standing for every trans person (and presumably cis people who don't look "normal" enough) worse, the only good thing they did was eliminate the meaningless hurdles that were mostly monetary anyway (nobody "failed" the prior way to officially change your documents; people just didn't do it for fear of being retraumatized or for lack of funds). I am legitimately so done with politics in this country that I'm considering moving to Spain or Iceland.
Are they really as incredibly xenophobic as the AfD?
Angela Merkel was from the CDU/CSU, and she massively expanded asylum in Germany.
What happened?
Merkel was extremely popular with the voter base. Not letting her run again was considered an extremely bad take in the CDU/CSU. So she was chancellor for 16 years. She is a consensus seeking politician without too much hard convictions, but being in coalition meant that a lot of her work put her pretty far left within her party (in absolutes, probably slightly right center; she still voted against gay marriage).
The new CDU/CSU lives mostly in the opposition and the only voters they have left to molilize have run off to the AfD, being unhappy with Merkel (and a lot of them have simply died). Most Merkel voters moved on to SPD or even Greens; the only thing that kept them with the party was Merkel as a person.
In this case the greens are supposedly responsible for a proliferation of coal by being anti-nuclear.
The reality is that the greens fight hardest for an earlier exit from coal, not hard enough though as seen from some environmentalists. In this case the greens managed that the mine is getting closed earlier but some villages will still be destroyed for it. The way they want to replace coal is with renewables.
The other big parties, SPD (social democrats), CDU/CSU (conservatives) and FDP (mostly financial liberalism) were all more for keeping nuclear but also slowing renewables down because of coal miner unions or closeness to big electricity producers, to Putin or to the industry heavily relying on cheap Russian gas. Coal and nuclear plants were run by the same companies in Germany.
You often try to see the debate being steered towards being about coal versus nuclear while the reality is nuclear + fossil fuels versus renewables
And recently they pushed forward to close down the last 3 reactors even though we might have troubles with our energy supply in the near future.
> You often try to see the debate being steered towards being about coal versus nuclear while the reality is nuclear + fossil fuels versus renewables
Just the opposite! One often sees the debate steered towards nuclear + fossil fuels vs renewables (just like you did here!), while the reality is coal vs nuclear.
The anti-nuclear environmentalists have no good to balance out their harm.
Perhaps making multiple cities uninhabitable was bad publicity for nuclear power?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/18/austr...
If it was actually possible to build a new nuclear power plant I'm sure the old ones would be replaced. If it wasn't for chernobyl plus three mile island (which released a comically low amount of radiation) maybe the west would have completed its conversion to nuclear instead of essentially pausing all construction for 30 years. But right now the options are essentially shut it down and replace with fossil fuels (wind and solar are not great providers of base loads for obvious reasons) or extend the license.
Base load plus peak load is just one way to run electricity production. There is also load following for instance.
Germany replaced nuclear with renewables while also reducing both coal and fossil fuel use in general: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energiemix_Deutsch...
The answer unfortunately is no, the fear mongering largely won out.
And you also seem to have forgotten the thread your in with your last statement.
Also right now there is exactly 1 confirmed death from exposure to radiation from Fukushima, and a few dozen cases of cancer, radiation burns and injury. Pretty sure coal kills more directly and indirectly in any given month.
Looks like that 2xxx number is disaster-related deaths? And the related to the nuclear power plant is 1368.
It is a bit confusing what that exactly entails. It seems to include people who committed suicide due to the evacuation, but surely their can't have been 1300 suicides. Is it people who are assumed to have died only because they weren't at home? How do you die due to an evacuation anyways?
None of this really seems explained, unless it really is 1300 suicides.
"As of year 2016" (obsolete), and "according to media analysis" (vague source).
The official number of "Disaster-related deaths" is directly tied to a "disaster condolence fund system" (families have to apply). This is discussed in: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266676572...
Only one person died from radiation from the Fukushima accident, a tiny fraction of the total deaths from the tsunami. It's an insignificant risk compared to other forms of energy.
It was the most bizarre, horrifyingly dump, idiotic, horrible management I can imagine.
The safety systems were rising warnings, the person that decided to ignore them and ordered continuation of the test wasn't even on site!
How many people died? How many people did annually from people burning coal?How many people develop long term health effects from coal?
How many catastrophic failures of nuclear reactors have there been? What about catastrophic failures of other energy sources?
Think critically mate.
Uranium is very energy-dense (https://xkcd.com/1162/), you don't need to mine a lot of it to get a lot of energy out. So to produce the same amount of energy, there will be far fewer deaths from uranium mining compared to coal mining, or oil drilling, or even (IIRC) rare earth mining to make solar panels.
> How much preventative measures have been and are still being taken throughout Europe because of Chernobyl and how much damage did that do?
Many preventative measures are reasonable and necessary! This isn't incompatible with nuclear being safe. For example, flying is the safest form of travel, in part because there is strong safety regulation around airplanes. (That being said, a lot of the regulation around nuclear is excessive and counterproductive)
> Why do nuclear proponents only compare with coal, never with renewables?
The biggest problem with solar and wind is that they are intermittent, so alone they can't support a reliable grid. There are some other issues too (solar takes up a lot of land area, wind turbines kill millions of birds). But all technologies have their tradeoffs; I will support renewables where they make sense, as a component of a reliable grid alongside nuclear.
Geothermal is something that doesn't gen enough attention IMO. Currently, it is only viable in a few locations, but potentially with some more R&D it could become a lot more important.
The risks of coal power are dominated by the typical case. People have been living near coal plants for generations, they know what the risks mean in the real life, and they have generally found the risks acceptable.
Nuclear risks are dominated by rare disasters. Because most people have not experienced nuclear disasters near home, they don't know what it would mean in the real life. As the risks are unfamiliar, many people find them scary.
…honestly I'm like 100% sure they don't know what the risks are.
Every time anyone does a study on air pollution it turns out the effects are even more horrible than we already thought it was. Like it gives you dementia and cancer.
On the other hand, people tend to overestimate unfamiliar risks. If you only hear about nuclear disasters (or earthquakes or hurricanes) in the news, it's easy to assume that the risks are more significant than they actually are.
Living in the same city where of nuclear power plant is considered not inhabitable?
Or were you making a terrible joke about a nuclear accident?
"...asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the statement "I would be comfortable living close to a nuclear power plant", only 28% agreed and 60% disagreed." [1]
The part about it being due to uninhabitable cities (referring to Chernobyl, Pripyat and Fukushima) was conjecture - I don't know people's reasons for it.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/18/austr...
Also, my opinion of Australians is slightly shifted after reading that information, but who knows how they crafted that survey. Did they compare it to living next to a coal-fired plant? I am not able to easily find the survey methodology.
Anyhow,the science is abundantly clear that there is no reason to fear living near a nuclear power plant.
"In our study, living near an NPP was not associated with any significant risk of hematologic malignancies, except for CLL/SLL, for which risk was significantly reduced."(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31116)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26638017/
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-risks...
Renewables can be constructed faster and cheaper than nuclear and are the clear winner of the future.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energiemix_Deutsch...
There exist several answers that have to be combined:
Using biogas to load-follow. Currently biogas produces around 8% of electricity but mostly as base-load.
Directing the use of electricity. This was already done to deal with nuclear‘s similar issue by offering cheaper prices in the night. With smart meters we can offer hourly based billing.
Batteries for intra-day storage is already getting deployed as it’s already economical and we will see much more in the future.
For seasonal low-points we will probably first continue to use gas but in a much smaller quantity if the other points also get deployed. At some point hydrogen will make sense.
In all seriousness, nuclear power plants are also very controllable within a certain bound, you just can't turn them completely off or else they take a long time to turn back on. Control of power output is what reactor control rods are for. Coal power is similar - you can control the temperature of the boiler but you can't stop the turbine completely if you want to turn it back on any time soon.
Nuclear power is the most reliable and consistent energy source in the world. It's not even close! If you are going to spew garage, please cite it. This isn't reddit.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the average capacity factor (which measures the actual electricity output of a power plant compared to its maximum potential output) for nuclear power plants around the world was 81% in 2019.
This is higher than most other types of power plants, including coal-fired power plants (which had an average capacity factor of 53% in 2019) and natural gas-fired power plants (which had an average capacity factor of 46% in 2019).
The reason why there were "massive shutdowns" was because they didn't do maintenance during COVID as well as noticed abnormal corrosion.
Regarding uptime, heres some data.
Nuclear Reactor Up Time.
User What is the average up time of a nuclear reactor in France?
ChatGPT As of my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021, the average up time of a nuclear reactor in France was about 75%, according to data from the French electricity company EDF. This means that, on average, the reactors were operational and producing electricity for about 75% of the time. However, it's important to note that this figure can vary from year to year and from reactor to reactor, depending on factors such as maintenance schedules, unexpected shutdowns, and other issues
User Can you cite your sources for uptime of nuclear power in France? chatGPT Sure, here are some sources for the uptime of nuclear power in France:
According to the French electricity company EDF, the average availability rate for its nuclear fleet in 2020 was 75.9%. Source: https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/edf-in-france/the-nuclea...
The World Nuclear Association also reports an average capacity factor (uptime) for nuclear power plants in France of 73.3% in 2019. Source: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
The French government's Ministry of Ecological Transition provides a quarterly report on the performance of the country's electricity generation sources, including nuclear power. The latest report, covering Q4 2020, states that the availability rate for the nuclear fleet during that period was 71.2%. Source: https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Performance...
Sources for other statements. https://www.france24.com/en/france/20220825-france-prolongs-...
https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/10/13/frances-nuclear-...
Nuclear reactors are pretty bad at it, but if you have a lot of nuclear reactors like France does you have to do it anyway, which is why France has a lower capacity factor for nuclear than other countries.
For fossil-fuel- and biogas-driven plants a low capacity factor usually isn’t a big problem as fuel costs dominate. For nuclear fixed costs mostly dominate which means that a low capacity factor also means much higher costs.
If your objective is to eliminate carbon emissions, this won't do that. I'm not a purist though, if a small amount of natural gas or biogas needs to be burned at peak load that's not a huge deal.
> Batteries for intra-day storage
What do you do when cloudy + no wind lasts for much more than a day (as can happen in winter)?
The narrative that somehow environmentalist managed to pass this bill against the will of conservatives and social democrats is a nice Dolchstosslegende
Hopefully it's the start of a trend
Meanwhile EPRs, developed by a French company, are (finally) starting to come online which means next deployments will have learned lots of valuable lessons and thus be faster and cheaper.
0 - https://www.eelv.fr/nucleaire-retour-brutal-vers-le-futur-ra... 1 - https://twitter.com/NathanGuedj_/status/1642436562477522946
Now they conveniently blame the green party who certainly wanted it but never got close enough to power to bully anyone into actually doing it.
Conservatives ran the country for almost two decades, with Angela Merkel and yet the green party is the reason.
It’s almost as transparent as people blaming Democrats for Trumps debt expansion. Works every time
Before 2013 and the current crisis Germany uses less and less coal, and gas (methane...) is stable: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by...
A quick google suggests Germany has ~28,440 on-shore turbines.
Compare them to nuclear heavy, clean France.
Your perception has been deceived by marketing. Stop following the news. Follow the data instead.
France is heavily importing German electricity, so that does not work out. Sources are many, but here [0] is a random one from January "German Power Exports to France Surge to Highest in 30 Years"
[0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-04/how-much-...
edit: Edited to remove snark, add source
It looks like you've got an important and relevant point there but if you lead with snark, you'll probably just provoke more flamewar and make the thread more predictable.
A better version of this comment would drop the first couple words and then add information to explain what you're talking about and/or how you know it.
IMHO and in many external observers opinion they did it the wrong way, the sane way would be as renewable adoption grows to first phase out carbon, then gas, then nuclear. Gas was forced to phase out (Russia->Ukraine war), and for some reason they are closing nuclear before renewable is common enough, so the only remaining option is carbon.
This government is going to get obliterated in the next election there.
Her way of drifting more and more in that direction has propagated a new right wing extremest party (AfD) to come up as well. A ton of things she did wrong domestically.
Much of their progress was replacing coal with cleaner natural gas imported from Russia, which they had to reverse. They also had to make up for the old nuclear power plants that were retired without replacements.
The second reason is very popular because the alternative is saying "If we keep or start doing X in 10 years this country will be heaven on earth or a hellscape!" When people hear that even true believers will be a tiny bit skeptical.
On the other hand "Country Y does X and it's a hellscape or maybe heaven on earth!" In that case - there's no "maybe" on the table. The result is right now.
the current times have made the optics even crisper
Further nuclear likely comes with catastrophes like Fukushima every few decades and the problem of nuclear waste (just calculate what posting a single person to watch it for a million years costs). Germany suffers from Chernobyl to this day with mushrooms and game being contaminated with radionuclides above legal limits.
Germany has managed to reduce both fossil fuel use in total as well as coal use for electricity while shutting down nuclear (https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energiemix_Deutsch...). Nuclear now being shut down we can expect faster shutdown of coal plants.
1) In early 2000s the then government (coalition of Social Democrats and Green party) decided to end nuclear and to fully transform the country to renewable energy; the Greens are heavily influenced by 1980s anti-nuclear movement. I still think that this decision was mindblowingly progressive and valuable at that time. As a "bridge technology" they wanted to use natural gas (hence the good friendship between ex-chancellor Schröder and Putin).
2) The Merkel-led gov't in 2010 (coalition of Conservatives and Liberals) decided to prolong nuclear (no real reason, imho more of a "we know better").
3) Fukushima happened in 2011. Germans were concerned in surveys and Merkel (imho stupidly) decided to make nuclear's deadline even earlier (end of 2022) causing huge fees the gov't had to pay to energy companies (afair 1-2 billion EUR). Running plants were shutdown between 2011 and 2022. Meanwhile Germany's dependence on cheap natural gas imports from Russia went up. Chemical Industry, electrification and warming were the main uses. I think they doubled or so at that time.
4) Putin invaded Ukraine. Sanctions on gas exports (imho rightly) happened and gas prices skyrocketed. Putin completely turned off the gas. The current gov't (Social Democrats, Liberals and Green party) had to decide on what to do. So they decided to build LNG ports and continue phasing out nuclear which at that time only contributed around 6% to electrical power because all the other plants were already shutdown.
5) They still needed to find a way to produce electric energy in case renewable energy is not available (due to cheap Russian gas there was zero incentive to create waus to save energy) so they're now burning coal and heavily need to buy CO2 certificates and bet on that it will get so expensive that energy companies will invest heavily into renewables.
The signal though is horrifying. I hate everything of this typical German kind of stupid compromises.
But that's not rational. Disabling nuclear power more than negates the effects of investing in wind and solar. Actually wind and solar are worse than nuclear, since the former are highly volatile and can't act as a stable baseline energy source.
Plus, we have the European Power Grid which lets you import and export electricity to neighboring countries and e.g. France is so deeply invested into nuclear, they would always have excess energy (sidenote: due to mismanagement and droughts France heavily needed to import electricity from Germany).
Germany afair set a world record in generating solar electricity around 2012 while it was losing its whole solar industry (150k+ jobs) to China, bc the Merkel gov't suddenly stopped subsidizing them.
Ah, I see, solar and wind being volatile are not a problem because you have other countries to generate power for you, even if it is nuclear (that apparently is bad) or coal. What?
That's absurd. First, it was actually politicians like Manuela Scheswig who promoted Russian gas even though nuclear was better. Second, you can't simply blame "scientists and industry" for the effects of bad policy. If politicians turn off nuclear energy and simply hope that "scientists and industry" would readily figure out how to store vast amounts of energy, then that's naive. There is no justification for basing your policy on wishful thinking about non-existent science fiction technology.
NB: Schwesig promoted Russian gas to improve her local industry. She was the pawn sacrifice of the "leadership" in the whole shitshow.
Renewable energy is only available at certain times, whereas nuclear is as stable as you can get. You can't pause energy generation for nuclear power plants, which is why coal/gas is more effective in this context, as you can start and stop these at will.
Greens were useful idiots to Gerhardt's plan to power Germany's economy using cheap natural gas from then-nascent Putin regime in Russia.
It's arguable he wasn't wrong in fact, if you look at the fact that Germany drove a lot of the EU economy for the past 2 decades, he's probably feeling quite justified in selling his country's energy sector out to Russia.
In light on what is the real-world consequences of that decision; I would qualify it more as mindblowingly mistaken.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If so, we are living in the same one.
That's a very positively way to say "mind-blowingly stupid".
The nuclear equation was viewed very differently in those times. Recall that back then, Chernobyl was still a very fresh memory.
Meanwhile, the other half of the decision (to move to renewables) was quite prescient for its time.
they also have a significant issue with dumping hot water into streams killing off the flora and fauna, which means in the heat of summer they have to scale back their nuclear stations significantly.
Getting rid of nuclear power would have been fine if renewables had advanced enough to replace them, and for a while it was looking like that was entirely possible. I've always thought investing in some new nuclear power plants would be a good idea so we could get off coal sooner but getting rid of nuclear power plants should still be our ultimate goal.
There was no "realizing things" in her administrations. There was just erratic opportunistic actions.
Why would Russia turn off their main source of money?
* A radical plan to expand green energy more than any other country
* Or was one of the leading countries behind fusion or had grand plans for being the first to open up experimental fusion power plants / research as soon as it's available.
Especially after the Russian gas fiasco, I just can't wrap my head around Germany with their plan. It feels almost like there is none, just how does Germany expect to fulfill any green transition if they aren't investing like crazy in one or the other?
Through the lens of energy independence this move makes a lot of sense.
Make no mistake, people didn’t like nuclear in Germany for historic reasons fusing cold war armageddon fears, Chernobyl Trauma and anti-americanism. The majority did not like it. Every nuclear fuel transport was a fight. Every power plant was fought by a combination of NIMBY and groundswell opposition. We are tightly settled and no place could be found to dispose of nuclear fuel that didn’t have the entire local population rise up.
They voted for it to be abandoned. And then the russians came along offering basically out of sight, NIMBY proof power cheap, an unreasonable package for politicians.
(Germany’s are the greatest NIMBY nation in the world. We fight power lines (it makes children sick), wind power (it kills birds), prisons (they create crime), internet lines (they destroy nature), wifi (makes children sick). We, especially our intellectuals, are a bunch of crazy ass people with centuries deep insane obsession about homeopathy, Kneipp. Ideological blinders so large they blot out the sun about misunderstood peaceful russians.
The last 15 years of German prosperity was not, as people would love to delude themselves, engineering ingenuity- it as powered by cheap Russian power, out of sight, and Chinese Manufacturing. The entire economy got addicted to it and the party stopped last year and the cost of it has become apparent.
The Nuclear decision has to be seen in that context, a ruinously stupid short term focused energy policy influenced by well placed Russian corruption and passed by the largest parties in the country because their constituents, large industries, donors and yes, unions, wanted it. It was a devils bargain but it allowed them to pretend progress.
Now the green party, who yes always wanted this but never ever had the power to force any of it, is a convenient scapegoats for ‘you made the population do it’, but that entirely flies in the face of how decisions are made and laws are passed in Germany.
Only under a blind self interest system like capitalism can this kind of wasted effort be rationalized.
Energy company builds green energy farms to milk govt credits/funding and getting good PR to cover their "dirtier" energy sources.
Govt credit period eventually expired, and price of coal exploded so company decides to exploit some of the many coal mines they were sitting on.
Not sure why other commentators run off-topic about something like this when it comes to Germany.
Besides these decisions were mostly driven by the company seeking profits not politics.
So you are wrong.
If only there was another power source that could be used, perhaps one that didn't rely on burning fossil fuels, if only...
Kids are glueing themselves onto streets because their obsessions aren't satisfied strongly enough. The brainwashing is real.
Unfortunately obsessions lead to lack of wider thinking or logic.
And fighting it isn't something that only Germany is tasked with.
btw. it's not kids, but grown ups of all ages that are gluing themselves onto streets; in various countries
I'm rather sure that not being able to afford energy - heat in the winer - is a the real existential threat to a kid in continental Europe.
Worrying about sea level going up 10cm in his/her lifetime is a rich person hobby.
Worrying about the future past next year is definitely a rich person hobby, if you define "rich" as "not imminently starving".
Sea level rise is the least of the trouble. Look at fisheries decline (yield per inflation-adjusted-dollar spent has been recorded for a long time now - in spite of new tech it's been dropping for over a century), temperature-driven crop failures, increased frequency of severe storms damaging infrastructure.
But the primary near-term risks from climate change are heat damaging crops, (wet) heat killing humans, declining soil moisture in some regions, and increased risk of flooding along some rivers. Over two centuries, coastal cities may be inundated, but that is a long time.
So no, this isn't something rich people will face in 50 years. It's something everyone faces today.
But let's take the last year, sanctions policies that lead them to trade direct resource imports from Russia to having the same imports but paying premium through brokers like Morocco, India and Chinese LNG(all coming from Russia). Let's remember what the BASF CEO said before it escalated.[1]
A lot of people in Germany were begging the government to postpone the shutdown of the remaining power plants until they have replacements, but the ideological Greens just charged ahead replacing Nuclear with Coal to achieve their ideological goal of removing nuclear. They have also been at the forefront of pushing legislation at an EU level to block nuclear in various forms.[2][3]
I've seen these obsessions in various other parts of society. I've had people stand behind me waiting telling me they could not pass anywhere but where I am even though they could just take a turn around me. I've personally experienced and heard from multiple people at the CCC that their Math teachers would punish them for achieving a result with a different technique than what the teacher taught them.
[1] https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/basf-chef...
[2] https://www.brusselsreport.eu/2022/01/04/germany-needs-to-st...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-pushes-nucle...
You can point your finger at the CDU, but saying that the CDU was the big driving force is disingenous.
It seems that Germany's descisions on exiting nuclear power plants are always unhappily timed. First, Fukushima happens, making the extension a few months earlier look really weird. Then, the Ukraine war happens, rendering Germany's original plan moot to replace coal with natural gas from russia, and everyone is shaking their head again as Germany is keeping to the original plan.
That the current generation of voters who supported the shutdown of nuclear power production were substantially "encouraged" to adopt such views by said Greens' actions and politics when they were children and teenagers living in the 80s is incontrovertible fact. So, even if Merkel ended up as the one who executed the will of the people as head of the CDU, that will had nothing to do with CDU policy, and certainly not in the 80s and 90s. That was by definition the policy of the Greens, who also laid the groundwork for the irrational fear that Germans in their 40s and 50s have been cultivating for decades.
Why can i say this with complete certainty? Because I was one of those kids.
Do people feel that way? Their automobiles are some of the worst from an engineering perspective and the only software company I can think of is the dinosaur SAP.
When I think of Germany I do not think of good engineering but rather automobiles that lose so much value so quickly because the have expensive and frequent maintenance costs and outdated software companies. Germany makes things unnecessarily complex and therefore prone to failure. It’s a cultural thing I believe.
In which ways us Germany considered excellent at engineering today?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germa...
All Russia had to do is use their unlimited money (from selling gas to Germany) to buy some influence in German news papers (difficulty level: easy) and maybe pay some people to organize protests.
Of course the fact that Russians bought Schroder isn't even speculation (unlike the above). To me the above is extremely likely to have happened (and probably still on-going).
Even in the early days of Putin's war Germany was still sponsoring Putin by buying many 100's of millions of EUR of gas from him.
They "got rid of Russian dependence in the energy sector" by reopening old German coal mines, firing up coal power plants and shifting gas imports from Russia to the US + importing tons of nuclear energy from France.
Germany only stopped buying Russian gas for > 50% of their energy needs AFTER a war started AFTER the pipelines to Russia got bombed and AFTER they had no other choice.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Criticis...
We also would have to get foreign workers. A lot of NPP workers went into early retirement.
As of now Germany has no “Endlagerstätte”, all current wast storage sides are intermediate. The last attempt to establish a permanent storage side failed horribly and the nuclear wast that was interned there will be extracted under high costs.
Well, BWRs and PWRs release Carbon-14 into the atmosphere where it is dwarfed by the Carbon-14 created by cosmic rays banging into Nitrogen ... and the total amount from both sources is truly tiny with a half life (of remaining in atmosphere) of 12 to 16 years.
The decay half life of Carbon-14 is almost 6,000 years .. ie: it decays slowly and the small amounts of Carbon-14 release even smaller amounts of ionising radiation due that slow decay.
Per human body Carbon-14 (mostly from cosmic ray interactions, magnitudes less from reactors) makes up a very very small part of regular mean environmental radiation per year per kilogram.
Source: a decade+ running numbers on global geophysical exploration surveys: background magnetics, radiation, gravity, etc instrumentation running 12/7/360 (daylight hours, all days of the week, little downtime) across multiple airframes.
The UNSCEAR boils all these complex details down to a collective effective dose per generated electricity (in man-sievert per gigawatt year) for atmospheric discharges. This hides a lot of details, including the mentioned plutonium-239 as well as the carbon-14 releases, the radon-222 exhaust, and the uranium-238 traces being discharged to the atmosphere both by coal burning power plants and the uranium mills required for nuclear power. How half life plays into that, why nuclear accidents were taken out of scope, and why you don't want an old italian geothermal complex in your backyard. As i said, any TLDR i can give will not do justice to the details and quality of the report.
You appear to have since edited your original comment to replace "Carbon-14" with a broader non specific "radioactive waste".
> the "compared to cosmic rays" reminds me of the fuel industry claiming that atmospheric lead is natural
It might remind you of that but I assure the intent was to legitimately compare the actual amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere (which originates from cosmic ray collisions) against the additional amount added by PWR + BWR reactors.
Reactors add very little by magnitude to an amount that is already very small and in toto the effect on humans is a very small part of the "normal" human exposure to environmental radiation that has persisted for our time on this planet.
> there is natural radon-222 as well, does that mean the radon exhaust of coal power plants can be ignored ..
Absolutely not, but for a meaningful understanding it should be compared to the already occurring creation of radon from 'natural' uranium decaying within granites and expressing to the surface.
I'd suggest paying attention to ground topography also - radon pools in valleys until stiff breezes clear them of those pools - hence the recommendations for venting in basements in granite rich areas.
> This hides a lot of details, ... will not do justice to details and quality of the source.
If it's hiding details you can find better sources that drill deeper in the individual components.
Eg: Australian AGSO and National Pollution Inventory reports on Olympic Dam [2] and other "uranium mills".
Water usage might be an issue of greater significance there (at Olympic Dam).
i did, within minutes of posting it, and before ever knowing about your follow up response, because i was unhappy with pinpointing such a detail and wanted to avoid this exact situation of someone over-focusing on that specific detail, disregarding the larger context of comparing whole sectors. I take full responsibility for pointing at the cherry you picked, before realising i should not.
Then you may be happy to hear that the UN report also notes water pollution by the nuclear industry, citing a publication by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency as reference L2 concerning Olympic Dam
https://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/publicatio...
You should read it yourself because any TLDR will not be able to mention all the intricate details
Now we see that India and China seem to be increasing their coal production as fast as they can [2] and now Germany is doing likewise.
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35702201&p=2#35703919
[2]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-production-by-countr...
India and China are building coal power plants as they have a rising electricity use and don’t manage to build enough renewables and nuclear