Germans split as last three nuclear power stations go off grid

[VocalNeal]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Cancer, along with a billion other things that can kill you is invisible. Radiation is readily detectable so stop trolling.

Trolling? Not at all the Fukashima water is infused with tritium. Tritiated water has a bioaccumulation factor of about one. This means exposed animals would have roughly the same concentration of tritium in their bodies as the surrounding water. Chemically identical to normal water, tritiated water passes through organisms like water does and so does not strongly accumulate in the bodies of living things.

 

Cancer???? Radiation is used to cure cancer.

 

All the fear mongers will looking for witchcraft next. 

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Albaby said:

Only as a result of the lunatic Left activism who have been trying to make nuclear power untenable for 50 years. Nuclear is by far the cheapest, safest, most reliable form of CO2 free power available.

Nuclear power is the most dangerous by a long shot.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Trolling? Not at all the Fukashima water is infused with tritium. Tritiated water has a bioaccumulation factor of about one. This means exposed animals would have roughly the same concentration of tritium in their bodies as the surrounding water. Chemically identical to normal water, tritiated water passes through organisms like water does and so does not strongly accumulate in the bodies of living things.

 

Cancer???? Radiation is used to cure cancer.

 

All the fear mongers will looking for witchcraft next. 

Tritium exposure through ingestion is likely to cause cancer.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

So you cannot answer my question........

Educate yourself:

The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can halve emissions by 2030.

https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/

 

And stop posting question based on faulty assumptions.

 

 

[transam]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Educate yourself:

The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can halve emissions by 2030.

https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/

 

And stop posting question based on faulty assumptions.

 

 

I will put it another way, in simple terms just for you....

 

When Joe Bloggs has used up all the gas, oil and coal, what are YOU going to replace it with.....?   ????

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, transam said:

I will put it another way, in simple terms just for you....

 

When Joe Bloggs has used up all the gas, oil and coal, what are YOU going to replace it with.....?   ????

1. They never will. Demand for fossil fuels is waning.

 

2. Solar and wind among other possibilities.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, transam said:

I will put it another way, in simple terms just for you....

 

When Joe Bloggs has used up all the gas, oil and coal, what are YOU going to replace it with.....?   ????

What makes the thinking behind this question particularly bizarre is that you seem to think that using it up more quickly is better than conserving it by replacing much of its use with renewables.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What makes the thinking behind this question particularly bizarre is that you seem to think that using it up more quickly is better than conserving it by replacing much of its use with renewables.

You are still avoiding my question, are you in a corner because don't want to say, "Nuclear Power."..................????

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, Albaby said:

Only as a result of the lunatic Left activism who have been trying to make nuclear power untenable for 50 years. Nuclear is by far the cheapest, safest, most reliable form of CO2 free power available.

Can you please share with us a link to somewhere that shows nuclear generated power is the cheapest? It's actually the most expensive. Here's a graph from Lazard comparing the levelized costs of various forms of power:

https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/

 

If you want to read the fine print, you can download the entire report via the link

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

You are still avoiding my question, are you in a corner because don't want to say, "Nuclear Power."..................????

Oh, is that your game? Renewables of course. The cost of storage has collapsed so markedly that there's really nothing currently standing in the way of going to 95% renewables. And with further advances in storage to be expected, 100% will certainly be feasible.

Here's a link to a piece of research on the issue. And keep in mind that this was done in 2019 and storage prices have since further plummeted.

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9

[transam]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Oh, is that your game? Renewables of course. The cost of storage has collapsed so markedly that there's really nothing currently standing in the way of going to 95% renewables. And with further advances in storage to be expected, 100% will certainly be feasible.

Here's a link to a piece of research on the issue. And keep in mind that this was done in 2019 and storage prices have since further plummeted.

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9

All you do is post links and guesswork to fit your agenda..........

 

The earths expanding population and reliance on more power, because we no longer live in caves, is expanding at an alarming rate, and you think when what's under the ground is gone it will be taken care of by renewables...????

 

I reckon the early years of nuclear stuff is a learning curve, which after all, most things improve over a period of time, I mean you no longer have to run to the corner and put 4 pennies in a machine to make a phone call, well do you.  ????

 

It seems a great deal of effort is being put into nuclear fusion, something you have failed to mention, fusion will probably be our future, together wiv a windmill on your house roof......????

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

All you do is post links and guesswork to fit your agenda..........

 

The earths expanding population and reliance on more power, because we no longer live in caves, is expanding at an alarming rate, and you think when what's under the ground is gone it will be taken care of by renewables...????

 

I reckon the early years of nuclear stuff is a learning curve, which after all, most things improve over a period of time, I mean you no longer have to run to the corner and put 4 pennies in a machine to make a phone call, well do you.  ????

 

It seems a great deal of effort is being put into nuclear fusion, something you have failed to mention, fusion will probably be our future, together wiv a windmill on your house roof......????

All I do is post links to research created by people who have done serious research on the issue.

All you do is offer your own unbacked opinions. It's clear you have a strong appetite for fiction. Maybe this isn't the best forum in which to indulge that.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

All I do is post links to research created by people who have done serious research on the issue.

All you do is offer your own unbacked opinions. It's clear you have a strong appetite for fiction. Maybe this isn't the best forum in which to indulge that.

Placeholder cannot or will not answer my question, just reverts to personal attacks when he is stumped......Sad really.....

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, transam said:

Placeholder cannot or will not answer my question, just reverts to personal attacks when he is stumped......Sad really.....

Stop lying. I answered your question. As for my remarks about your appetite for fiction, given that you prefer to make things up, I think that's a fair assessment.

[transam]

Just now, placeholder said:

Stop lying. I answered your question. As for my remarks about your appetite for fiction, given that you prefer to make things up, I think that's a fair assessment.

Now I am lying.................????

Now let me think, ah yes....................

 

Are you saying that nuclear energy, or anything linked to nuclear energy, will or should be scrapped....?

As you are the forum expert on near everything, do or would you avoid anything to do with nuclear stuff at hospitals because it is dangerous....?

[OneMoreFarang]

And then there is the Dunkelflaute - dark and no wind...

Dunkelflaute - Wikipedia

 

[placeholder]

Just now, transam said:

Now I am lying.................????

Now let me think, ah yes....................

 

Are you saying that nuclear energy, or anything linked to nuclear energy, will or should be scrapped....?

As you are the forum expert on near everything, do or would you avoid anything to do with nuclear stuff at hospitals because it is dangerous....?

Of course, you're lying. You claimed I didn't give you an answer. Actually I gave you an explicit answer and linked it to an authoritative source.

 

I think nuclear plants should be allowed to die. a natural death. Of course, even after they die, no one has yet succeeded in dismantling a plant to dispose of the waste. And the cost overrruns in their construction continue to be huge. Why would anyone want to pay so much for electricity?

[newbee2022]

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

Do you ever actually read the articles linked to. If you had, you would have learned that nuclear power provides 6% of total consumption.

 

Well, in addition, Germans saved more than 20% of energy this year. So there is no need for nuclear power plants.

[VocalNeal]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Tritium exposure through ingestion is likely to cause cancer.

Facts or evidence???? Rather than treating it as witchcraft.

[newbee2022]

4 hours ago, Albaby said:

Only as a result of the lunatic Left activism who have been trying to make nuclear power untenable for 50 years. Nuclear is by far the cheapest, safest, most reliable form of CO2 free power available.

I like your jokes ????

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Well, in addition, Germans saved more than 20% of energy this year. So there is no need for nuclear power plants.

Maybe total energy. But electricity not so much 

511.59 TWh 2021

484.2 TWh 2022

That would be about 2%.. But 2021 was still very much a covid year with business conditions depressed,  so using less in 2022 is quite impressive. And of course, the less gas Germany uses for industry, the better that should be for its price when used to generate power.

 

[RichardColeman]

7 hours ago, ozimoron said:

No there isn't. Germany has full stock piles of natural gas and LPG and have you see the prices for nat gas lately?

Those piles of natural gas include gas purchased from Russia - the issue is that Germany had a mild winter last year, if there is a hard winter in Germany this year and they do not have access to cheap Russian gas, those stocks will drop like the affections of a bar girl when she sees your ATM shows empty !

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And then there is the Dunkelflaute - dark and no wind...

Dunkelflaute - Wikipedia

 

And then there is what's called 100 hour storage which has come down dramatically in price. And as the interconnectivity and range of the network increases, the likelihood of a failure decreases.

Edited April 15, 2023 by placeholder

[JustAnotherHun]

Today Germany shuts down it's last three nuclear power plants
- though the need of electricity will increase by 40 percent until 2030
- though the country has the by far highest electricity prices in Europe
- though a majority wants either an extension for the last few NPPs (43%) or even a re-activation of already shut down NPPs (25%)  while only 28% support the final shutdown.

 

Let's have a look at other European countries :

Poland: No NPP right now, 2 NPPs are planed
Sweden: 6 NPPs, more are planed
Finnland: 2 NPPs, 2 more are planed
Czech Republic: 2 NPPs, one more planed
Slovakia: 2 under onstruction
Netherlands: lifetime extension fot existing NPPs, 2 new blocks planed
Belgium: lifetime extension until 2035
France: 56 NPPs with lifetime extension to 60 years, 8 more until 2035, further 8 are plaed until 2050
Spain: 7 NPPs lifetime until between 2027 and 2035
Hungary, Bulgaria, Slowenia, are planing ne NPPs
Italy and Romania are considering the construction of NPPs

 

All those countries have no idea how to manage energy and how to save the climate. History shows clearly, the German way always was and is the only right one. We're driving down the empty climate-highway and all the oncoming cars are ghost drivers.
Cheers ????

Edited April 15, 2023 by JustAnotherHun

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Today Germany shuts down it's last three nuclear power plants
- though the need of electricity will increase by 40 percent until 2030
- though the country has the by far highest electricity prices in Europe
- though a majority wants either an extension for the last few NPPs (43%) or even a re-activation of already shut down NPPs (25%)  while only 28% support the final shutdown.

 

Let's have a look at other European countries :

Poland: No NPP right now, 2 NPPs are planed
Sweden: 6 NPPs, more are planed
Finnland: 2 NPPs, 2 more are planed
Czech Republic: 2 NPPs, one more planed
Slovakia: 2 under onstruction
Netherlands: lifetime extension fot existing NPPs, 2 new blocks planed
Belgium: lifetime extension until 2035
France: 56 NPPs with lietime extension to 60 years, 8 more until 2035, further 8 are plaed until 2050
Spain: 7 NPPs lifetime until between 2027 and 2035
Hungary, Bulgaria, Slowenia, are planing ne NPPs
Italy and Romania are considering the construction of NPPs

 

All those countries have no idea how to manage energy and how to save the climate. History show clearly, the German way always was and is the only right one. We're driving down the empty climate-highway and all the oncoming cars are ghost drivers.
Cheers ????

How France’s prized nuclear sector stalled in Europe’s hour of need

Meanwhile the French government is fully nationalising EDF, the state-controlled energy company running the power stations, to stop it going bankrupt. EDF’s new boss Luc Rémont said in October the company faces a “serious crisis”.

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20230105-how-france-s-prized-nuclear-sector-stalled-in-europe-s-hour-of-need

 

Finland's much-delayed nuclear plant launches
Nuclear reactor Olkiluoto 3 has gone online in Finland some 12 years behind schedule and on a massively inflated budget. Finland now hopes to cut back on energy imports from Russia, Sweden and Norway.

https://www.dw.com/en/finlands-much-delayed-nuclear-plant-launches/a-61108015#:~:text=But the project was plagued,2019 World Nuclear Industry Report.

 

Hinkley Point C delayed by a year as cost goes up by £3bn

The nuclear power station being built at Hinkley Point will start operating a year later than planned and will cost an extra £3bn, EDF has said.

The revised operating date for the site in Somerset is now June 2027 and total costs are estimated to be in the range of £25bn to £26bn.

EDF said it would have no cost impact on British consumers or taxpayers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-61519609

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Today Germany shuts down it's last three nuclear power plants
- though the need of electricity will increase by 40 percent until 2030
- though the country has the by far highest electricity prices in Europe
- though a majority wants either an extension for the last few NPPs (43%) or even a re-activation of already shut down NPPs (25%)  while only 28% support the final shutdown.

 

Let's have a look at other European countries :

Poland: No NPP right now, 2 NPPs are planed
Sweden: 6 NPPs, more are planed
Finnland: 2 NPPs, 2 more are planed
Czech Republic: 2 NPPs, one more planed
Slovakia: 2 under onstruction
Netherlands: lifetime extension fot existing NPPs, 2 new blocks planed
Belgium: lifetime extension until 2035
France: 56 NPPs with lietime extension to 60 years, 8 more until 2035, further 8 are plaed until 2050
Spain: 7 NPPs lifetime until between 2027 and 2035
Hungary, Bulgaria, Slowenia, are planing ne NPPs
Italy and Romania are considering the construction of NPPs

 

All those countries have no idea how to manage energy and how to save the climate. History show clearly, the German way always was and is the only right one. We're driving down the empty climate-highway and all the oncoming cars are ghost drivers.
Cheers ????

Germany is not alone:

Spain on track to complete nuclear power phase-out by 2035

https://www.power-technology.com/comment/spain-nuclear-power-phase-out/

 

Nuclear plant shut down in Switzerland

 https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2019/12/20/nuclear-plant-shut-down-in-switzerland

 

Given that the decline in costs of renewables and storage is way ahead of what was projected even 3 years ago, I suspect a lot more counties will be following suit.

 

[SpaceKadet]

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

Of course, you're lying. You claimed I didn't give you an answer. Actually I gave you an explicit answer and linked it to an authoritative source.

 

I think nuclear plants should be allowed to die. a natural death. Of course, even after they die, no one has yet succeeded in dismantling a plant to dispose of the waste. And the cost overrruns in their construction continue to be huge. Why would anyone want to pay so much for electricity?

Your posts show clearly that you know very little about modern nuclear power generation, and modern nuclear power plants. Perhaps you should educate yourself rather than blindly quote green propaganda. 

 

As usual, the costs for wind and solar do not include the manufacturing and disposal of individual components. And the lifetime of wind and solar components are much less than those of nuclear power plants. And, of course, there is this thing when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow. Where will you get your power from then? Or are you just hoping that Musk will come up with a new super battery...

 

Unfortunately nuclear got a bad name because operational failures in case of TMI, and design flaws in case of Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

All the green zealots just jumped on that like flies on <deleted>. TMI was over 40 years ago, but they just can't let go.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Your posts show clearly that you know very little about modern nuclear power generation, and modern nuclear power plants. Perhaps you should educate yourself rather than blindly quote green propaganda. 

 

As usual, the costs for wind and solar do not include the manufacturing and disposal of individual components. And the lifetime of wind and solar components are much less than those of nuclear power plants. And, of course, there is this thing when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow. Where will you get your power from then? Or are you just hoping that Musk will come up with a new super battery...

 

Unfortunately nuclear got a bad name because operational failures in case of TMI, and design flaws in case of Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

All the green zealots just jumped on that like flies on <deleted>. TMI was over 40 years ago, but they just can't let go.

I just listed huge cost overruns of nuclear power plants in Europe

I could list the only one under construction in America if you like.

Vogtle Nuclear Expansion Price Tag Tops $30 Billion

An updated financial report from one of the owners of the Plant Vogtle nuclear expansion in Georgia shows the cost to build two new reactors has now topped $30 billion, more than double the original price tag expected for the project.

The Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG), one of four groups with an ownership stake in the Vogtle expansion, on May 6 raised its total cost forecast for the project to $7.8 billion, up from $7.5 billion. The group’s updated figures, when combined with cost estimates from the other owners, push the cost to build two new 1,100-MW reactors at the site in Waynesboro, Georgia, to at least $30.3 billion.

https://www.powermag.com/vogtle-nuclear-expansion-price-tag-tops-30-billion/

 

And you couldn't be more wrong about the costs of solar and wind not including the cost of manufacturing and disposal. Do you know what LCOE stands for?. What's more solar panels are now being profitably recycled. And Siemens has recently figured out how to recycle wind turbine blades.

 

And clearly you don't know a thing about how rapidly the cost of battery storage cost is declining. You might want to look up Form energy, among others

 

And storage and renewables combined still are a lot cheaper than nuclear.

 

And no one has any clear idea of what it's going to cost to dispose of a nuclear power plant. And the reason for that is it hasn't been done. Plenty of defunct plants now. But no one has yet managed to dispose of even one. Odd, no? And no insurer is willing to fully insure a nuclear power plant. That leaves taxpayers on the hook in case of a major failure.

 

[AndyFoxy]

8 hours ago, transam said:

Placeholder cannot or will not answer my question, just reverts to personal attacks when he is stumped......Sad really.....

I've noticed that too. 

[placeholder]

17 hours ago, SpaceKadet said:

Your posts show clearly that you know very little about modern nuclear power generation, and modern nuclear power plants. Perhaps you should educate yourself rather than blindly quote green propaganda. 

 

As usual, the costs for wind and solar do not include the manufacturing and disposal of individual components. And the lifetime of wind and solar components are much less than those of nuclear power plants. And, of course, there is this thing when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow. Where will you get your power from then? Or are you just hoping that Musk will come up with a new super battery...

 

Unfortunately nuclear got a bad name because operational failures in case of TMI, and design flaws in case of Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

All the green zealots just jumped on that like flies on <deleted>. TMI was over 40 years ago, but they just can't let go.

I forgot to include info about this French nuclear plant:

French nuclear power plant is seven years late and costs have tripled

An official report rapped French energy giant EDF on the knuckles on Monday for lacking a "culture of quality," as reflected in huge delays and price overruns at a nuclear plant it has been building for more than a decade...

EDF's European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) reactor in Flamanville is now seven years late and costs have more than tripled to €12.4 billion.

Earlier this month, the company said fixing faulty welding on the Flamanville reactor will add €1.5 billion to the already swollen price tag.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20191028/french-nuclear-power-plant-is-seven-years-late-and-costs-have-tripled

 

Flamanville-3 / EDF Announces Further Delay And €500 Million Cost Overrun

The Flamanville-3 nuclear power plant project in northern France has been delayed by at least six more months and costs will increase by another €500m ($531m), plant supplier EDF said.
The 1,630-MW EPR plant, which is already a decade behind schedule and has been dogged by repeated cost overruns, is now expected to start operations in the first quarter of 2024 and cost €13.2bn, EDF said.
In January EDF had forecast construction costs of €12.7bn and said fuel loading at the plant would begin in the second quarter of 2023. Nuclear fuel loading is now scheduled for the first quarter of 2024.

https://www.nucnet.org/news/edf-announces-further-delay-and-eur500-million-cost-overrun-12-2-2022