Germany was actively trying to block labelling nuclear as green to make sure nuclear isn't eligible for subsidies [1]. France was pushing for nuclear energy to be added to the list. Nobody knows if it was just general erratic behaviour by the green party or just general hatred and jealousy towards the french.
But let's also remember that France sold their turbine business due to pressure of the DoJ[2], has been talking about repatriating it[3] (which has not happened yet), but as of now has 29 out of 56 reactors out of commission and as a result, the energy powerhouse France is buying energy from Bavaria[4].
France is also spending a large fortune to replace most but not all of its current generation capacity. Largely due to cost overruns and delays and aging plants. This will blow the costs of German solar + wind installations out of the water.
Its reactors are getting old enough that their capacity factors have declined - in 2020 down to 62%. This isnt much ahead of the capacity factor of the best wind turbines (57%).
Theyll be in just as much shit as Germany this winter as nuclear output is projected to fall still further. Why people are giving shit to Germany for not following their model mystifies me. Theyll be lighting up the coal too.
> Its reactors are getting old enough that their capacity factors have declined - in 2020 down to 62%. This isnt much ahead of the capacity factor of the best wind turbines (57%).
The situation is a bit more nuanced than that. Yes the capacity factor has reduced but not only because they are getting old:
1. Wind and solar have priority access to the grid in France. If they are producing a lot, the NPPs have no choice but to cut their power output, reducing artificially their capacity factor.
2. The NPP reached their end of planned life, meaning they had to do an extensive refit to get a life extension. This is a bit more than just regular maintenance, these are upgrades to more current security standards.
3. As you said, the older the NPP become, the more maintenance is required
Nobody knows if it was just general erratic behaviour by the green party or just general hatred and jealousy towards the french.
It was neither. The German plan was to leverage "green" Russian gas for control over the EU. As usual, the grand German plan has ended with the continent on fire.
This reads like part of the comment section on a British tabloid. The german government took a stance against both nuclear and gas being labelled as "green", transitional sources of energy. Within the government, the SPD was in favor of Gas but not nuclear, the FDP was in favor of both, and the Greens were in favor of neither.Overall it doesn't fucking matter, because it was a vote in the European Parliament, an independent institution.
If anything, I would speculate that it was the effectiveness of Russian gas lobbyists after Fukushima, convincing Germany to decommission all their nuclear power plants.
"In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula, and San."
"With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia (Moldova & Ukraine). The German side declares its complete political disinterestedness in these areas."
Is is also due to the German 'green' party - Die Grünen - having grown out of and on the base of their resistance against nuclear power. Atomkraft? Nein danke ('Nuclear power? No thanks') together with the 'smiling sun logo' [1] have become so engrained in this organisation that it is comparable to sacrilege for 'greens' to acknowledge that they were wrong on this issue.
It is one of the best options available given the limitations of the area. Germany does not have the geography for large-scale hydropower like e.g. Norway does, it does not have large-scale access to geothermal energy sources like Iceland does, it does not have access to reliable wind like actually not that many places have - where 'reliable' stands for 'does not stop when you need it'. It does not have access to large deposits of natural gas like the Netherlands once did and Russia still does. What Germany does have is coal of varying qualities, much of it on the lower end of the quality scale.
More importantly, what Germany does have is a tradition of engineering excellence which is just the thing needed to design and build effective nuclear power infrastructure. France succeeded here so I see no reason why Germany could not if they only managed to convince - or push aside - the remaining recalcitrant 'green' politicos.
Germany also doesn't have Uranium either. Nuclear power plants are simply not competitive. Part of that is due to legal security requirements. But they need fuel and cooling to work. They need to be rebuild regularly and the storage question is not solved. There is a lack infrastructure and energy storage, this is why Germany exports power to other countries who have them, but solving these issues are a better strategy than new nuclear plants.
Nuclear power will not help fighting climate change and it is simply too expensive compared to other renewable sources. That is the opinion of leading engineers too and exceptionally widely spread.
Sweden has plenty of Uranium and is on friendly foot with Germany. The demand for Uranium is also much easier to meet than that for combustibles like coal, oil and gas. Germany was on the verge of firing up a fast breeder reactor in Kalkar [1] which would have solved both the nuclear waste problem as well as made it far less dependent on incoming fission-grade Uranium. The reactor was ready for its first load of spent nuclear fuel - which it would have turned into new fuel for traditional fission reactors plus a small amount of highly radioactive [2] waste - but it was never started due to the protests of the predecessors of the 'greens'.
Imagine a Germany which would have gone the route the French - who did build fast breeder reactors - went. Imagine the reduction in dependency on imported fuels and the reduction in emissions. Also imagine a German industry which would have been less dependent on combustible fuels due to the availability of lower-priced electricity. That industry would have been far better prepared for the rise of cheaper renewable electricity sources like solar an wind. Compare this to the current situation where those same 'greens' responsible for making this evolution impossible now voted for an increased use of coal-fired power plants to be able to close the last nuclear power plants.
[2] highly radioactive which implies a short half-life, this type of waste needs to be stored for a period of 100-300 years instead of the thousands required for spent fuel pellets. It also is of much smaller volume and as such solved the nuclear waste problem as well as (supposed) fuel problem.
Delayed inspections, rivers drying out affecting cooling, cracks in reactors, unusual corrosion, billions in debt after a Rosatom deal, etc.
It's a very nuanced issue, I don't think it's very informed to say it's just due to delayed inspections... The inspections were what found cracks due to corrosion, repairs are taking really long.
They changed laws to allow rivers getting heated more to keep plants running. Germany won't need nuclear and we have completely different problems with our infrastructure that leads to energy going to waste. We pay Austria and Switzerland regularly to take our energy because we have too much, we stop wind turbines and disconnect solar panels because the net is overflowing. This has created an industry because these countries have pump storage plants. Granted, these are required for wind and solar power to be effective. Germany has storages too but they are not attached to the net because of old laws that would make it costly. Basically you have to pay for the energy you save AND the energy you put back into the net.
And France currently shows that nuclear isn't really a good choice for base load since they had to restrict power output due to heat. The plants are getting older and require a lot of maintenance.
Energy production of the future should not concentrate on nuclear. It cannot compete on price and environmental factors in Europe. There are other places were it would fit better.
But let's also remember that France sold their turbine business due to pressure of the DoJ[2], has been talking about repatriating it[3] (which has not happened yet), but as of now has 29 out of 56 reactors out of commission and as a result, the energy powerhouse France is buying energy from Bavaria[4].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/germany-reject-eu-green-inv...
[2] https://www.economist.com/business/2019/01/17/how-the-americ...
[3] https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/nucleaire/nucleair...
[4] https://www.merkur.de/bayern/atomkraftwerke-bayern-auswirkun...