Europe
News and information from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
view the rest of the comments
OK bullshit already from the first half sentence ๐คฎ ๐คก
Nuclear is the single most expensive form of power generation and has nothing tondo with high electricity costs in Germany.
Taxes are a reason but also bad grid policies and bad policies regarding compensation for feeding locally generated electricity into the grid (privately owned solar power), gas policy etc.
That's because of the cost of establishing it, not the running cost. The cost of establishing it are not recouped by closing them down.
Debatable. There are still costs for maintenance, uranium imports, safety and security, waste storage etc. And, most importantly, in Germany nuclear power is replaced by even cheaper renewables. Again, nuclear phase out is not a factor for electricity costs in Germany. Grid infrastructure and an anti-renewables policy (that plays into bad grid infrastructure) are.
No, not debatable, nuclear is cheaper once infrastructure is paid off. Much cheaper with SMRs on new builds. Darlington was recently expanded with SMRs.
Real life costs can diverge significantly from those estimates. Olkiluoto block 3, which achieved first criticality in late 2021 had an overnight cost to the construction consortium (the utility paid a fixed price agreed to when the deal was signed of only 3.2 billion euros) of โฌ8.5 billion and a net electricity capacity of 1.6 GW or โฌ5,310 per kW of capacity.[28] Meanwhile Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Canada had an overnight cost of CA$5.117 billion for a net electric capacity of 3512 MW or CA$1,457 per kW of capacity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Germany shit their pants after Fukushima and knee jerked to shut down nuclear. How many Tsunami's have hit Germany?
The marginal costs for renewables - that is the cost of producing one more MWh if the plant is up and running - is zero. With merit-order pricing, this is their market price. Nuclear cannot compete with that price. Also, while wind energy provides cheap base load, solar electricity production matches the daily demand curve very well. Because of this, it needs less of relatively expensive storage. It was never the plan to use pure nuclear power - that would have been way to expensive. It was always only meant for base load, which is a small fraction of the daily peaks or the daily average demand. Because of that, it was never planned to replace most fossil energy with nuclear - it would have been way too expensive. Nuclear was touted as cheap base load, remember?
Germany's problem is an entirely different one: Consevative goverments have deliberately obstructed and hampered the extension of renewable energy and power networks. This still needs to happen, and is costing money now. And the conservative government, again, lowers prices and network fees for big companies, and charges citizens for that. That's why it is expensive.
Wrong. Nuclear phase out in Germany was decided first years before Fukushima.
How come waste disposal/storage is never accounted for in these calculations?
@CyberEgg @SaveTheTuaHawk
Which calculations are you referring to?
Nuclear waste disposal/storage is unavoidably accounted for in France as it is part of the budget and the responsibility of the generators of the waste themselves.
The calculations of operating and maintenance cost. I have yet to see calculations of those where the cost of waste disposal and management is listed. It's not a small factor, in Germany it costs around 1 billion anually after the end of nuclear, plus the ongoing search for a permanent storage site.
Also, this is about Germany, not France. But since you bring up France, what are the betting odds for how many NPPs are going to be shut down this summer due to overheating river systems? How much are the cost of downtime, the environmental damge done to these rivers etc?
By the Greens, in a way that could be and was undone. Merkel committed the majority to it.
Permanent waste disposal is unnecessary. Keep doing what we do now and temporarily store it for the forseeable future.
Ironically there would be no global warming if we had fully switched to nuclear energy in th 70ies. In a way, the Greens fought for the destruction of the environment.
Any law can be undone and no policiy is safe from a power shift.
Don't blame the Greens for climate change you dishonest nuisance.
Nuclear was never the answer, just different problems.
A main driver of climate change is the meat industry btw. How would nuclear change that?
Do you think the Greens are different than the SPD who sold out the worker protection? With cheap nuclear energy we could have had electrical cars in the 70ies. Not going fully nuclear is the reason that electricity was not so cheap that people started buying electric cars.
The nuisance is that there is no rational reason for the Greens to be against nuclear energy unless they were influenced by the oil industry.
No, the nusance is a Russia luldefender smearing shit and blame over everything but the actual facts and derailing any discussion. I really don't know why I haven't blocked you yet and I correct that mistake now.
Uuhm... No. Germany doesn't have uranium deposits which renders any nuclear power generation unviable and prohibitively expensive.
Germany can buy uranium like every other country. France is all nuclear, without any uranium mined in France. Germany also has no gas or oil .
Or... OR, we invest those running costs in the infrastructure (storage and lines) to harvest unbound energy via photovoltaic solar arrays, tide power and wind farms.
@DmMacniel @SaveTheTuaHawk
Sure. But that is deflecting the argument. Purchase of Uranium is no more expensive for Germany than it is for France.
By decommissioning nuclear, Germany LOST the investment it had already made & then had to invest AGAIN to build alternatives (+to fossil fuel, its immediate fall-back), after public panic over "Fukushima". (1 death directly attributed to date โ Most people still don't know the name of the thing that actually killed 20k people.)
Yes, ๐ Renewables!
@DmMacniel @SaveTheTuaHawk
France did not panic (they were 71% nuclear-powered already so immediate decommissioning would have been virtually impossible), but they are managing a transition to renewables anyway as nuclear is gradually phased out.
The plants shut down were all over or near their design lifespan and about half a century old.
Even if Germany had decided to continue with nuclear power it would have had to replace all of them with new reactor blocks.