Why Germany is Ending Nuclear Power
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 04. 2022
- Germany is rapidly shutting down their Nuclear Power Plants. After opening the first Nuclear Plant in 1969, Germany has relied on Nuclear Energy for a large part of its electricity production. This has resulted in Germany becoming more reliant on Russian Energy in forms of Oil and Gas. The electricity shortages spread all throughout Europe but are affecting Germany the worst due to its lack of energy independence.
Due to Germany planning to shut down every single one of its Nuclear Power Plants by the end of 2022, their dependency on Russia's Oil and Gas will only increase throughout the next few years. To avoid this potential outcome, Germany has stated that they plan to be 100% energy independent by 2050 and rely completely on renewable forms of electricity production.
Germany is a Western European Country with a population of over 83 million people. Germany borders France and Poland. Russia is a country roughly 6 thousand kilometers from Germany.
Thanks for Watching and subscribe if you enjoyed the video!
#Germany #Nuclear #NuclearPower © 2023 Arkive Productions LLC
Thanks for Watching!
What topics would you like to see in future videos?
Edit: at 2:40, I apologize for any confusion. The German Democratic became a part of The Federal Republic of German to form the reunited nation of Germany.
Maybe Pakistani cities like gwadar which is thr future dubai . Or the capital Islamabad which is the most beautiful capital in the world you can make a video about them or about Istanbul or anything its just a suggestion
Should probably pin this chief
3:33 once again showed the extreme dangers of one in a centruy earth quakes combined with unexpectedly high tsunami and a hastely botched evacuation as well as TEPCO's irresponsibility.
5:02 renewable energy supported by natural gas
Fixed these for you.
Maybe make a video on how much of German energy mix is actual renewable energy and how it compares to other countries. Or the cost of nuclear power and nuclear waste management. Or Risk management, like how risk is the sum of impact and time. Liquid salt reactors are also a fun topic.
@@HansTheGeek Are you willing to admit you are wrong yet doesn't matter Trump will be back soon people will not put up with these high energy prices Trump Quoted when asked how to fix this problem he said let the oil and gas company's do their job. He agrees with you that building new nuclear power plants is expensive when you have natural gas local and us it. But you don't in Germany maybe you do start Fracking.
The big issue is that Germany replace all its nuclear capability with coal and fossil fuels. So now it sort of went backwards in its environmental action
and rely on russia
it's not about CO2, it's about socialism.
@@losttale1 It's all about ideology
Plus, every extra penny they now spend on wind and solar actually harms their emissions due to the lack of storage.
Natural gas in combination with heat pumps is very clean. Replace the gas with green hydrogen and you are much cleaner than nuclear. That’s still the plan so let’s discuss this again in 20 years.
A little disappointed in the nasty tone taken in this video towards nuclear. It was implied that nuclear is not safe, that all reactors are like Chernobyl and that people actually died from radiation at Fukushima. None of which is true. Germany actually uses a lot of nuclear generated electricity they purchase at a premium from France. Reminds me of California who shut down all their coal and is closing their nuclear while buying 30% of their electricity from out of state. Some of that out of state power is from coal and nuclear so other than virtue signaling to the like-minded, what are they accomplishing?
Well, at least they didn't portray NPP as something that will explode violently if someone as much as sneezes in the ten-mile-radius, leaving behind a crater as deep as Mariana Trench, and turn several countries into a Fallout theme park.
SoCal Edison owns 16% of the Palo Verde Generating Station in Arizona
Arguing that Chernobyl shows that nuclear plants based on completely different tech can be dangerous is akin to arguing that 9/11 shows that planes are inherently dangerous and we should stop all aviation. 🙄
because of 9/11 there are many things we can not take on planes anymore, "security" / surveillance was ramped up because of it
So yes they basically said that. And nuclear plants have many more deficits, like mining uranium, which u can't do in many countries and countries who have uranium mines are pretty exploited + mining uranium does not only producee a lot of c02 but destroys nature around the mine as well.
So you say 9/11 happened because of bad plane design?
@@MerlossLP And likewise nuclera plant design was deeply altered after Tchernobyl and after Fukushima to improve safety. So the point of the OP remains valid.
Also you'll note that mining lithium, silicium and other rare eath materials for "sustainable" energy production poses the exact same issues as mining uranium.
Not even that, it’s like arguing why you shouldn’t fly because the Soviet version of the Concorde was dangerous to use. Chernobyl is (as all Soviet technology was) inefficient garbage operated by overworked staff.
@@therealnocam Fukushima is also a Soviet design without earthquake protection then?
It's better to invest billions into the safety of these power plants rather than lose billions just by closing them
Even with billions you cannot make them more safe. They are at the end of their service life. And you to pay for the demolition anyways.
They're safe as it is.
They are already the safest power known to man. I understand closing the ones in the former East, as those were problematic Soviet designs.
More people die every year from falling off roofs installing solar than the total number of people killed by nuclear power in it's entire history.
@@Rocketsong the main issue isn't the lives lost, its more the environmental costs. Its sad thought cause even from an environmental perspective nuclear is better, its just that fossil fuels ruin the environment slowly and on a much larger scale, meanwhile nuclear disasters ruin the environment quickly, localy and in a more flashy manner.The flahy disaster will always be more feared by the simple minded/uninformed.
@@Rocketsong the main issue isn't the lives lost, its more the environmental costs. Its sad though cause even from an environmental perspective ,nuclear is still better. Its just that fossil fuels ruin the environment slowly and on a much larger scale, meanwhile nuclear disasters ruin the environment quickly and in a more flashy manner.The flashy disaster will always be more feared by the simple minded/uninformed.
You didn't mention at all what has been the consequence of shutting down its nuclear plants, like dependence on Russia and significantly increased carbon emissions.
Like most shitty takes on CZcams they’re likely anti-nuclear energy, therefore they don’t dispute public opinion concerns, mention efficiency, or challenge Germany’s procedures on decommissioning reactors.
Carbon emissions go down in Germany all the time. Nuclear is mostly replaced with renewable sources.
@@HansTheGeek Nuclear has not, nor will be replaced by renewables. In every case nuclear is shut down it is replaced by fossil fuels
@@SpectreLance You should take a look at Germany. That’s not the case here sorry.
@@HansTheGeek Your country is the reason we know that is what happens. Your carbon emissions went up as you shuttered your perfectly safe and functional nuclear plants
even when we consider Chernobyl and Fukushima, those were outlier situations that were brought about by a specific set of circumstances, even with that, Nuclear power is still considered one of the safest forms of energy production in the world, alongside Solar and Wind.
It is not safe. It is dangerous. The waste product is at best horrifyingly dangerous. And sometimes it lays waste to an area and a population forever.
I hope you'll never get to be near a power-plant that melts down. But with your attitude you probably will.
not to mention, that 3rd generation is even saver now
@@fex144 just immerse it in water dude, and all the radiation will go away.
Chernobyl didn't have a containment structure and Fukushima was because of the worst Tsunami in recorded history that killed 20,000 people. Those things can't happen in Germany. They're fools for getting rid of nuclear power and now they're paying the price.
@@fex144 Take a look at Sabine Hossenfelder video titled "Is Nuclear Power Green?"
"Extreme danger of the fukushima desaster" no one died and everything else at the location got totally annihilated. seems pretty safe to me.
Also I don't think Germany is at risk of tsunamis or idiotic reactor designs plus soviet performance politics
Exactly what got "totally annihilated"? Nonsense is not impressive.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk The town that was struck by the tsunami???
@@issan1566 The Japan tsunami wrecked havoc on lots of towns, the nuclear power plant none. The video is clearly about nuclear power plants, not tsunamis.
nah its fine. Why poluting the world when you can export from a third party couf Russia couf and get off the blame of poluting the world.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk I think Reahs was just referring to the destruction by tsunami not by the power plant when he said everything else was totally annihilated
Our rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity
Nuclear power and brown coal can be substituted by each other, because they are base load power plants. You cannot adapt these plants to the demand, they have to work continuously. Gas plants are peak load plants. There are gas plants in Germany which are in operation only a few hours a year. Oil plants have nearly no significance in Germany. The question about nuclear plants was if the nuclear power plants or the brown coal plants are shutted down first. Initially, it was planned to use the nuclear power plants 40 years and the newest/latest one should have been out of service in 2029. This date has been moved to end of 2022.
Idk how germany could build such great country after ww2, and then young generation manages to ruin it
What are you talking about? Germany is one of the best countries in the world. A light pointing towards green technology. Instead of an irradiated nuclear desert.
@@fex144 xd, coal kills 1000x more ppl then nuclear energy
@@thecreator6065 germany is subsidizing solar energy heavily. Siemens make some of the worlds biggest windmills. So XD you right back cnut.
@@fex144 Ah but the reactor in the desert can produce desalinated water to irrigate the land and to bring life. It brings heat and light to people 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. It is the beacon that points to a brighter tomorrow.
@@daniellarson3068 you wrote irrigate, the correct spelling is irradiate.
Germany(and Austria) is an example of how to not do things. first build up storage and renewables and use it to shut down coal/natural gas plants. than u can slowly start to phase out nuclear. i would be ok with the grid running on a combination of nuclear, hydro and battery/hydro storage. what isn't great is digging out places people live in to get more coal coz u r scared of nuclear, being dependant on imported natural gas and releasing more Co2 than ever before.
Will never happen. Only reason lithium and cobalt and all the raw materials to build batteries are cheap is because of cheap fossil fuel energy. Lithium went from 14k/tonne to 78k/tonne in 2022. Nuclear is only solution due to high EROI. This is a fact of physics and not subject to debate. When energy prices cause the entire renewable industry to collapse you'll get it finally. There's absolutely nothing any of you can do to stop it. It's basic physics.
Austria did build a nuclear power station at Zwentendorf. Completed in 1978, it never went into operation. Due to anti-nuclear sentiment at the time, they held a Referendum: 50.47% voted against. Most of Austria's power comes from Hydro electric and is therefore quite green, but building Hydro power can have its own environmental consequences.
@@robertlister4864 Yes but it can never be as bad as expanding your coal mines and building new coal plants, which is what Germany is doing right now to address their electricity deficit...
Storage is the first thing we should think when we hear "renewables" if we are serious about climate change.
Natural gas is very clean. Coal will be shut down soon in Germany.
Go Green: Go nuclear. Nuclear energy is one of the safest, cleanest, most reliable energy source known to men, people die because of our unjustified fear of nuclear energy.
Nuclear is not green. You can use it as bridge technology until you are ready to go full green but it is clearly not green. A low risk with huge impact over a long time is a big risk.
"unjustified" tell that to Chernobyl or Fukashima. They aren't green really, just replacing one problem with another (also nuclear waste). It's not a question of if something will go disastrously wrong but when, nothing can be 100% safe and the effect when it does go boom is severe.
@@fastertrackcreative You want to drive a car, but tell that to the people that died in a car accident. This is how foolish you sound. The waste of fossil fuels is in the air and is estimated to kill 1 million people per year.
As long as they store all the waste at your place i'm down with it.
@@fastertrackcreative Chernobyl used old nuclear tech, current ones are way more stable and safer, Fukushima got destroyed by a giant tsunami and not by the Nuclear issue, even so, if fukushima was using the same tech as chernobyl, we could easily say goodbye to the whole Japan, but it seems like none of it got affected mmmm
that's ok, on shutting down nukes, they can always rely on nice, friendly mr putin to make up for any shortfall in clean energy
This was always the real goal. I saw this coming years ago.
@@joemerino3243 No you didn't. And it's not 'the real goal'. Take off your tin foil hat and rejoin society.
@@fex144 Sorry you couldn't see this coming, it doesn't take much information to figure it out once you understand 2 incontrovertible points:
1. Intermittent renewables are backed up by gas power because it's the easiest power plant to build anywhere and spin up or shut down as the energy demand changes.
2. Germany gets its gas from Russia.
If you can't put these two points together don't project that on others. You can fantasize that the people in charge of Germany are well-intentioned idiots but then you have to explain how idiots got to be in charge of an important nation.
@@joemerino3243 False. And no I don't have to explain (your demand of an explanation is just a very typical low-eduction american trick, and it's stupid).
You're nevertheless wrong. Europe is shutting down russian gas. So is Germany.
Intermittent nothing. CATL are doing salt batteries, looks promising. Going to be cheap. It's just a matter of battery capacity. Germany is utterly plastered in solar.
Speaking of idiots. Boris and Trump, and the Aussie dunderhead. You english speakers really f* up your legitimacy. Now that's really stupid.
I dont think its a good a idea close a reliable source of energy, maybe they could try thorium salt or small modular reactors , but having less diversity of production only leads to dependence.
Germany did that in fact and it introduced more issues than it solved. Plus: It wasn’t that reliable and cost effective in the first place.
@@HansTheGeek source please
You need to see the bigger picture, those policies are implemented by polaticians, polaticians that can and will be bought by foreing interests
@@HansTheGeek Hans - I think you should reread. I do not think they built small modular reactors. I think there is a very good chance they will have them in the future.
Perhaps we should save the money for building renewables. It brings us a lot more kWh. Our neighboors are enough of an example that burning uranium is burning tax payer's money. A discipline we are already olympic today without that dirt.
Germany is facing a grim future of exorbitant electricity prices and massive rolling blackouts without nuclear.
Germany has lots of coal.
@Peter from NZ None of the dozens of energy storage options have proven practical for energy storage. Wind and solar are much more expensive than you meme. They also have to be replaced 2-3 times to match the lifespan of a typical nuclear power plant.
@@Crashed131963 Germany has vowed to go 100% renewables by 2035 so coal is off the table to meet this goal. Besides, coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.
@Peter from NZ All addressed, you were just butt hurt by the answers given. Can't help it if you intentionally wish to remain ignorant.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk not possible.
Interesting example of the protestors influencing major choices with many ripple effects. Like shutting down nuclear power and switching to supplies of energy from Russia instead. Just before a major war that effected energy prices.
when Fukushima happened and there ware protests in Germany about shutting down nuclear power plants, ware these Russian paid german politicians instructed by Putin to use the protests as an excuse to shutdown the nuclear power plants knowing full well they will have to replace them with Russian gas? I always found it funny how easy and fast the German government gived in to those protest demands especially considering how expensive nuclear plants are.
Personally, I never had problems with nuclear power. But that might be because I always thought fission tech was a stepping stone to fusion tech. Besides that, I looked at what numbers I could my hands on, evaluated those and came to the personal conclusion that I prefer nuclear over wind or solar and even hydro.
However, doing that is rare in Germany, most Germans I know either do not inform themselves sufficiently to build an opinion so they either make up their mind on the most superficial knowledge or, even worse, they just repeat a fancy headline.
Sad really, "Das Land der Dichter und Denker" the land of poets and thinkers has become the land of the sheep and shallow.
But that is just my perception.
Although hydroelectric can't be expanded much, it has the great potential of energy storage, something other renewables just can't do.
Well I think its just general fear and I dont think you can blame them for it. Lets say a person gets in a plane crash and the person does not want to use planes anymore, though chances of them being in a plane crash are very low, ya cant blame them for not wanting to trust planes anymore although it may be considered irrational thinking. I think a good solution is to just let them be provided with good and credible sources of information to let them understand its safe like trying to help them understand nuclear power from the very foundation
You and I will most likely not be around anymore when these decisions are evaluated.
To anyone arguing with Chernobyl: It was a poorly constructed RBMK1000 reactor. A contemporary KGB record on the quality of the assembly is freely available. The result of the investigation was more than frustrating, but the construction was flawed.
As well as: A pressurized water PWR / VVER reactor does not increase its performance in the event of any failure, but reduces it due to the void coefficient of reactivity and then shuts down.
To all those who argue with Fukushima: Most of Germany’s nuclear power plants are not on the coast. And what was on the shore was never threatened by a tsunami.
In contrast, coal-fired and gas-fired power plants pollute the high atmosphere greatly.
In addition, biomass power plants, in addition, waste biomass is not enough, so forests are cut down to feed them.
Chernobyl and Fukushima are the the only two possible chains of events leading to a catastrofic accident? NO. What are the others? We’ll learn with time. Germany has chosen not to be in this learning process at least in first person.
You also forgot to mention that only 1 person died from fukushima the rest were from panic and natural disaster.
@@marw08 ready my previous statement hope you research the topic it's interesting
For a country producing soo much renewable energy,
one could wonder why they are consuming soo much of Russian gas to the point it became a military risk.
(Nowaday much more concrete and destructive for somes, that of a nuclear central accident.)
Renewables are not reliable so need to be backed up with gas power stations.
Because it is the cleanest fossil fuel, it can be replaced with hydrogen and there is currently no alternative for industrial applications.
@@HansTheGeek Nitrogen???
@@schrodingerscat1863 Sorry, Hydrogen
@@HansTheGeek That's what I thought 👍
A major thing that wasn't said here, is that Germany's electricity rates are going sky high with there eliminatation of Nuclear power in favour of renewables. Meanwhile in France, where their majority Nuclear power. Their electricity rates are super low.
They will be buying nuclear energy from France to prevent their coming massive rolling blackouts.
If you can afford it, cost doesn't matter that much. What matters is the sustainability of the resources used to power, the sustainability of the countries ability to keep paying long term, and the sustainability of its use in the land
If we fan out the production types, we'll never be stuck on a Russia again.
If we used Solar as a complimentary for rural roofs fanned out to cover a distance relatively thinly, improved our wind turbines so they can take faster renewing oils in place of crude for use in both the small and medium small areas, and kept using gas/oil we would have never been dependent on Russia enough to reach this point
If power was produced locally on roofs, especially those that have to import and ship power from long distances, travel waste from shipping and power lost in line travel would have been greatly reduced.
Wind turbines produce enough power so cost isn't to bad just as long as their kept where wind is consistent, and always with much more potential if we keep refining their designs and working up newer oils. Put some SAFE nuclear after we make sure China can't sabotage it and after Russia can't bomb it and we'd be able to spread out oil/gas for centuries longer
i am german and i can asure you that our politicians are the worst we could have at this point. the great times of germany are over, at least as of now.
the same for spain, sometimes i think they do this on purpose
@@Alex-vo2ce it probably is on purpose, yes
the point you've completely missed is the choice is not between renewables or nuclear
its a switch from nuclear to fossil fuels - until renewables would develop enough to fill those gaps. and there is absolutely no chance renewables would be ready to fill these gaps before 2030.
their decision is completely irrational - especially now when supply of russian fossil fuels turned out to be... problematic to say the least...
also, there are numerous studies that clearly indicate nuclear is one of the safest, if not the safest, forms of energy production.
so drop your arguments about them being extremely risky.
chernobyl happened entirely because of soviet mentality
fukushima because 50 years old reactors were not passively safe - every single modern reactor is
Storage is the first thing we should think when we hear "renewables" if we are serious about climate change.
@Dacia Sandero guys
Not only the solar panels, the windturbines as well. The blades of these vaunted windturbines are NOT recyclable. Currently, in the US they are filling entire ravines and landfills with these blades because they don't know what to do with them. Add to that that they actually emit one of the most damaging greenhouse gases (SF6, which is used as an insulator/ arc suppressant for electrical installations like...wait for it...the generators in a windturbine) out there, and there goes the "renewable" fairy-tale right out the window.
@Dacia Sandero guys
Yep, that's another thing. Not only the things you already mention, but the mining for these rare minerals is usually done by child slave labour. Another inconvenient truth the E-car proponents leave out. And don't get me started on the batteries after their life has expired. These aren't exactly the epitome of recyclability either.
@@fransva1
Now there is the problem, we're using a thing called logic. Something that is lacking entirely with the Climate Change lot. With them it's all "rainbows & unicorns" out of your @$$. Forget tenable, forget feasibility, those are all dirty words. It must feel good, don't you get that?😜
2:40: East Germany was the German Democratic Republic (GDR), which reunified with West Germany. The GDR ceased to exist, it wasn’t the new combined country.
Shows how well researched the video is I guess.
I apologize for the error.
This is their worst idea since WW2
Who’s here now that they are shutting down the last few plants?
Informative, perfect thx.
Very great video! I appreciate that you don't drag videos out and include very valuable information!
Bravo! Plurple earns a ❤️. 🤣
@@koanbonwa so do I
Except he forgot to mention that the phase out of nuclear now means more dependency on Putin, increased coal plant activity, less electrical powergrid reliability and increased energy prices.
@@AudunDragland Why mention something that is extremely obvious? It’s extremely clear that phasing out nuclear energy is idiotic, and only results in more reliance on oppressive regimes.
Nuclear power stations are not inherrently more reliable than coal powered power stations. However both are so much better than renewable power stations. Germany's mistake, as is the U.K.'s, was to build so much renewable generation which is a negative for running a stable and reliable grid. Germany is fortunate in being grid connected to so many neighbours which masks much of this unstable and intermittent power.
“Nuclear power … not inherently more reliable than coal”
The numbers show that nuclear power is more reliable than any source, as we would guess. A big coal plant needs a large coal train delivery every *day*. All the coal plant emissions controls need to be regularly cleaned. That mountainous ash pile needs to be hauled away.
Nuclear plants run 1.5 years continuous or so on one fuel load brought in by a semi trailer. There are no emissions. In the US, average uptime is 93%. Nothing, not even hydro comes close.
Falstaff,
while both plants have their complexities and yes there is significant supply requirements for coal stations, they can and often do stockpile coal on site.
Looking at uptime is misleading as nuclear runs differently to coal, gas and hydro, simply because nuclear is base load and runs at near maximum as much as possible, scheduled down time obviously impacts that figure. The other gerators balance the grid demand and supply so modulate output, this does impact uptime but generally all can increase power at will when required.
It is not a fair comparison.
@@iareid8255 Onsite coal stockpile is counted in days.
At the end you’re referring to load following. Reactors designed to do so, can. German, French reactors ramp when necessary.
As a German I have to say: We f*ckd up!
You voted for it! That’s collective culture!
@@Labyrinth6000 well I didn't
@@jakobj55 blame your fellow people who apparently made it illegal to make fun of people.
"with renewable energy taking over as the primary source of energy " wishful thinking, there is not solution for the storage issue. Energy is not the problem, storage is.
I learned a lot! Great job mr. Arkive! -walmart employee Derick
Thank you Walmart Employee Derick!
Can you please do a video explaining solar energy?
the end game for the world. high cost intermittent energy, under the guise of 'loving the planet.'
You Vill Own Nossing Und You Vill Be Happy
ya. the high costs eradicate the poor and pushes the middle class as low income class. i wonder how that solves the issue. its evident, that germany has too many taxes and costs on renewables and they arent even green, considering you have to build cement on shores and in forests and therefore you kill the environment there - forever. its just a dangerous ideology but the greenies dont want to get slapped in their face with the truth. nuclear power plants are much safer nowadays and also offer less emmission than renewables. renewaqbles are also made out of material which isnt recycle-able so ya. I dunnow how much lobby money these german idiots got from renewable lobby to talk nuclear power plants down and misinform the folks for making it happen that renewable dominate our country in a danger energy monopoly instead of diversity.
Pretty shallow video.
Hallo from Germany 🇩🇪
Good Video BTW
Until the last coal, oil, and fossil gas plants are shut down no one should shut down a nuclear power plant early. Indeed, if one can add new reactors to your infrastructure in a cost and time efficient way to replace fossil fuels they should. This is such a mess.
Fun fact: Nuclear is also fossil.
@@HansTheGeek I am curious how you come to this thought.
@@gehrigornelas6317 It’s of cause not fossil I got that wrong. But it is also mined like fossil fuels mostly in political unstable regions like Kazakhstan.
@@HansTheGeek it's mined in alot of places. And a little fuel goes a long way for a long time. Easy to buy when cheap and save up... and many sources all over the world. But most importantly, very low carbon.
@@gehrigornelas6317 It becomes rare and the largest occurrences are in Russia and Kazakhstan. Plus the making of the fuel is energy intensive and has a huge environmental impact. Not to speak of the waste for which we have no solution yet and all the plants we have to dismantle in the coming years without having a efficient way to build new ones.
Not sure if the CZcams algorithm recommended this video, or the comments to this video...
That's what you get when you let public opinion dictate decisions that should be taken by scientists and specialists...
Now they just get all their energy from Russia 🥴🥴🥴
This guy makes it out like renewables will replace these Nuclear power plants soon.
Gas contracts with Russia replaces them .
Not really..
@@mimimi8238 Please elaborate..
@@mimimi8238 yes really
@@mimimi8238 google Nord Stream 🤡
you should have mentioned the practical consequences of this, where Germans pay highest price in the world for electricity - twice as much as France, for example. What are the consequences of this? Will the Germans try to "recoup" this by forcing other EU countries to pay for this using their hegemon position?
Let’s see how prices develop when France begins to dismantle its nuclear plants, builds new ones and tries to find a storage for the waste. In Germany the company’s that run the plants have to hold back money for that. In France it is the responsibility of the state to handle that.
@Futura We do the same with the U.S and Brittain. If it means getting of Russian gas and securing our place so we can't be displaced by a probably aggressive Russia and China, and just as long as we socialize it though to streamline the economies for efficiency along with it I'd say it would be well worth it all
@Futura World bummed of France a few decades ago. Come 2000s we here in the U.S bit the bullet ourselves and secured Iraq and ultimately Saudi Arabia for a literally hell of a price establishing the safety net all of Europe and the Americas needed for its energy needs, and ever since we've been trying to move away from Iraq and take a step apart from Saudi we've been growing increasingly dependent on a aggressive Russia and China
Its time we all take a bite and get off single sources, and especially in states like mine where we use up disproportionate amounts of oil where the yields and savings alternative supplies are higher
@Futura I don't ever want to live in a Chinese sub-state. My little town and the whole region around us would get a ton of benefit putting 200-800 Watt solar panel sets on the houses every couple hundred yards, and less rural areas that still require shipping would stand alot of benefit if we changed designs so higher yield wind turbines were able to take faster renew oils
Then that's not mentioning the benefit larger cities would take if they started leaning into nuclear as soon as we don't need to worry about sabotage or bombings
I think that you take an unnecessarily harsh tone on the safety of nuclear, a technology that has been shown to be comparably safe to renewable energy sources nowadays. The primary issues with nuclear are not about its safety, but with its economics. Concerns for safety are a reactionary (but politically relevant) concern that need to be chipped down by being well informed. Nuclear has potential to help push out fossil fuels and offset some the resource load that traditional renewables will be experiencing as we continue to build more. Worry about the economics, not the safety. That's what engineers are for.
0:20 you mean 11% of power production. The amount of "primary energy" of nuclear is even lower in germany
1:00 "8000 times more efficient" no, that is not what efficient means in that context, efficancy means how much of the energy created is usable, both coal and nuclear have efficiancy rates around 60-80%.
2:53 "All nuclear power plants in eastern germany were forced to close" yes the 1 nuclear power plant Greifswald in eastern germany was closed, because of SEVERE safety issues. This was only 2GW of 24GW nuclear total, not like half the nuclear power you make it sound like.
5:05 "With renewables taking over as the primary power" nuclear was NEVER the primary power in germany, that was coal and renewable took over as the primary power source in 2018.
And you miss out that in the time we shut down those 17 reactors, the renewable got from 10% up to 50%, so we build nearly twice the amount of renewables we loose by shutting down the nuclear reactors, so we didn't substitute it with coal plants like you imply in the video, but also reduced the amount of coal plants used at the same time.
Since when did renewable power take over germany? Since when is russian gas renewable? Since when can solar panels and wind turbines power the whole grid of germany?
"I don't understand why Germany do it. They also said that they don't want our gas, with what will they heat their house? Woods? Those woods come from Siberia!"
-- Vladimir Putin speaking about Germany free nuclear policy
Like him or hate him, he got a point there.
because ppl like you, we are in the situation we are in now. blocking the renewable revolution.
if we would have invested in renewables much earlier instead investing in the extension of gas pipelines etc, we would be independent by now
You watch too much Russian propaganda.
There are only 3 nuclear power plants left that are online and every house is warm. 😂
60% of German Gas is NOT from Russia.
Only half of that is used for households
We don't need russian oil.
It will be 0% until the end of this year.
Germany has more than enough coal.
Almost nobody heats with wood. But look at the map. Germany is full of woods.
There is wind, solar and thermal energy all over Germany.
Incredible vid 👏
-Walmart Employee yddet
Where is all the electricity going to come from? Given current gas prices and the meagre advance in eolian and photovoltaic power plants, it's either coal from the Rhineland, either inports of electricity from France/Belgium/Netherlands/wherever it is possible to obtain it from.
Germany is heavily dependent on Russian gas due to their closing their NPPs. This is one of the biggest reasons Europe hasn't been able to put an import embargo in place for Russian gas yet. Because if they do, Germany will be up sh!t creek without a peddle in a hurry and they know it. It was utter folly to shut their NPPs without having a proper replacement in place. Most certainly with current world event in mind.
Or they could modernise the plant and reduce the risks to basically zore, while no longer relying on Russian gas (which also produces a lot of co2).
I would have loved to see some actual statisticks from the poles about the nuclear energy at the times they decided to close those plants.
People don’t realize that we still have no way to deal with nuclear waste and Germany is densly populated. Most nuclear power plants in Germany have reached the end of their live circle anyways. Also, nuclear power isn‘t cheap, the government has to give massive support to have these power plants built. If Germany had invested as much money in renewable energy sources as in nuclear power, they would be less dependent on fossil fuels. Besides, only 17% of the energy came from nuclear power plants when all were running.
@Casual Veemo Which is? I‘d really love to hear your solution to process nuclear waste because last time I checked a great deal of Germany‘s nuclear waste was rotting somewhere in Siberia..
@Casual Veemo What on earth makes you think I am pro fossil fuels? I am all for renewable energy sources! I am a big fan of solar power since I got my first pocket calculator without a battery. That was centuries ago and it worked about 30 years. I even support my country’s „green party“ and help when there is an election coming up, so don’t judge me wrong.
By the way, the nuclear accident at Tschernobyl over 30 years ago has lasting effects in my part of the country. We are still advised to eat mushrooms from the forest sparingly and not too much meat from boars or deer because it’s still contaminated.
@Casual Veemo No, not necessarily- just because politicians are corrupt and don’t listen to scientists.
@Casual Veemo We are f&cked as long as we rely upon non renewable energy sources. Don’t you know that even if we all switched to nuclear power there is only enough uranium for about 30 more years. We need to use only sources of energy what nature refills, like solar or wind energy. Sure, the production process is dirty- well, we need better laws to protect us for the consequences. There are better ways, but not as cheap as the ones they’re using now.
we are talking about 17 npps, we are alting about a fiew coal driven plants.... in the mean while there are more than a thousands coal - and stone coal plants in develpoment on the lagrest continet planed: africe....
this was a cool video
“11% of Germanys energy production”
No, of its *electrical* production, on its way to zero. German nuclear produces only 2% of total energy, all kinds, ie inc heat, transpo, etc. Solar and wind generation is also in the single digit share.
Is Nuclear Power Green? Sabine Hossenfelder is a good video on this topic. She points out, as hinted by the current video, that Germany imports electricity from France, which is nuclear powered. So Germany imports some politically unpopular in Germany nuclear power...from France.
Yes she actually understands the science and fairly weighs costs and benefits.
yes nuclear power is green, safe and reliable.
Germany has proved that fear is the mind killer.
While the rest of the world proofs that people are bad in assessing risks. Which is underlined by psychology research.
Holy shit, how much did you pay for your modded Kermit the frog voice box?
Germany thought it would continue to get cheap energy from Russia...guess what!
The fukushima nuclear accident of 2011 was the turning point!
Because "Die Grüben" published rubbish about nuclear energy.
And u buy nuclear power from France to replace par of energy needs how did dat fix things?
Now build them back up Germany
and the cost of electricity in Germany is 10 times what other nations pay.. smart move!
If war ever broke out, they don’t have to worry about nuclear facilities getting hit. No need for nuclear bombs when you could hit a nuclear facility.
400 plants will be at the end of their service life by 2040. Cost of decommissioning is 100 billion dollars at least.
Then the massive rolling blackouts begin.
Germany not so smart this time
Considering the issue with Russia this is an even dumber idea. If there are any left they should stop and reactivate them
Nuclear power is a reasonable way to make power..
Safe nuclear plant design with a safe way to store the waste can be achieved..
But recent accidents and below par waste storage has put a big stigma on this type of power generation...
The thing is solar energy is not very efficient there due to weaker sunlight so it will be quite a challenge to make it work on such a scale for them, and the wind is unreliable. So they will have to build about 3X more panels for the same results than in Africa. So you would need a lot of those panels, but maybe they can make it work despite that idk we will see.
Didn't Poland already show how it can be done for a large population without Atomic energy? Aka burning a crap ton of coal and other crap? :(
This aged well.
In 2:45, West and East Germany unified to form the Federal Republic of Germany, not the German Democratic Republic (which actually is East Germany)
80 million citizens?solar and wind farms would only take care of around 30 thousand or less.
Have fun staying cold
It's called "The great reset".
Sounds like Germany needs Tesla to build 3 MW grid batteries throughout their country to balance all their intermittent renewably powered electricity from wind and solar pv facilities.
@@fransva1 Let's say a 3 MW megapack grid battery can power 1,000 homes. Then when it is sunny it can be recharged with solar pv electricity and same for wind generated electricity. These grid batteries save the excess electricity from being wasted and discharged when the grid is full. My first step is super high insulation.
Please make a video on GIFT City, Gujarat, India
So they end up in porting a load of nuclear generated power over the interconnector from France and make up the rest by generating with inported Russian gas.
My Answer: it's because we are dumb... Finish.
So why after spending 700 billion on solar and wind is Germany importing nuclear energy from other counties.And gas from Russia and is considering reopening coal plants.
A special project you didn't talk about Jeddah Tower, the tallest skyscraper in the world, and other Jeddah projects
Do you think that the giant downtown Jeddah project will compete with Dubai soon
He saw the military bases in one of the most important beach areas in the center of Jeddah and ordered to change its location and invest the site to be a huge investment project
He saw many of the neighborhoods inhabited by the violating workers and their location is distinguished, so he ordered their demolition and planning to rebuild them again with a civilized and globally competitive planning
Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s opinion is that the military bases are located in the most important investment areas in Jeddah and on the shores of the Red Sea. He found it an investment opportunity and demanded that the army leave their site to work on building a project in central Jeddah.
Prince Al-Waleed was one of the princes who was imprisoned in the famous hotel and reached an agreement with the government that the Public Investment Fund would obtain a large stake in the Jeddah Tower project, which will be the tallest tower in the world
There were many slums in Jeddah inhabited by illegal workers, so he ordered their demolition and work to build a new and civilized city that would compete with the most beautiful cities in the world.
Bavarians were opposing the idea of end-storage so hard, that the waste had nowhere to go. So how should Germany keep running the plants without any place to store the waste. Simple as that.
Luckily All of europe does the opposite. Building New nuclear energy at a rapid pace to secure the climate, delivered effect all times of the year and a cheaper price tag for the customer. Germany is moving towards sn economic collapse within 5 -7 years
They know something that we don't,they're not foolish
Germany should start those reactors back up.
Why has Putin built more and more nuclear power plants in Russia when they have all the oil and gas in the world ? Could it be because the less oil and gas Russia uses thr more it can export, and the more it exports the more power and dependency it creates
FYI more people have died from windmills than nuclear energy per TWh
I really don't understand why there is so much public backslash against nuclear power
by renewable you mean renewal of oil and gas contract with Russia, smart!
Germany wants nothing to do with renewable energy what are you talking about
Nice video! Also, wouldn't it cost Germany a ton of money to take down these power plants, also wouldn't it be dangerous?
the waste disposal cost the tax payer much more, than the dismantling. also.....all shut down NPPs were already exceeding their lifetime. only the 3 remaining could operate 5 years longer.
the topic of waste disposal is a very very hot one. this "nuclear deal" was the biggest mistake of the former governments. nuclear power is only "cheap" because the tax payers have to pay for the disposal, not the power companies running the NPPs. would you add these cost on the power price, nuclear is by far the most expensive! so it directly funded by the state and its citizens.
@@IceyJones isn't it Germany problem alone? I mean other countries like the U.S. and France do not have much problem with waste disposal. I believe in U.S. we pay around 6 billions in total per year for nuclear waste that is something but it is just a fraction of the value of the nuclear plants.
@@super_hero2 no its not really only a germany problem. there is still no final storage facility on the globe! only finland will have one in the next years by the looks of it. the US is just hiding the problem, by storing all high grade nuclear waste at the NPPs where its produced, and the storages are so full already, that nobody knows where to put all that. france does the same. putting the carpet of ignorance over it....
but in my opinion the waste topic is not even the most critical one......its just the overall cost of nuclear power.
its just not feasable in the long run, while we have cheaper options that are even cleaner and without waste
@@super_hero2 other countries have no problems because they don’t tackle them. There is only one facility world wide where waste could be stored. In Germany we tried one place and it did not work out and the impact to the environment is unknown but likely big.
@@IceyJones There are cheaper options but they are not there yet. It takes time to build them and shutting down nuclear plants while Germany is in need of them is madness. I am all for renewable energy but it has to be ready before you shut other energy sources down.
Yay!
Nuclear could still be the future. Nuclear power =/= nuclear weapons, regardless of what some may want you to think.
I wonder if Russia had a hand in steering towards the shutting of German nuclear!
I can only laugh with disbelief for the ignorance and absolutely laughable level of knowledge, basically inexistent. And no, so called "renewable energy" will never be able to quench current thirst for power. GG germany for actually regressing.
So @fex144 please tell us all what is the answer wind mills and solar panels are not working please tell us all.
Germany should close the Coal plants first !
2038 🤦♂️
Look like a huge mistake. They need to re assess the pros and cons.
Wind turbines and solar panels that will end up in land fills oh yeah that's renewable. How do we keep our factory's open, if you get your way Fertilizer plants, steel mills, cement factory's bricks and lots of other factory's will close. You will be responsible for there job loss. We need Nuclear power and fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
closing nuclear power plant, while still running coal power plants..... great hypocrisy while importing gas from Russia, and if you remember Gerhard Shroder and his involvement in Gazprom even when he was chancellor
Nuclear is the most expensive way to produce electricity. Thus, even when politicians, like the Bavarian minister president, asked to prolong the run of plants, energy companies declined that, as it would be every expensive to run them and make the able to run for a couple of years. With the same money 10 times the capacity in wind or solar could be built. So really there is no business case for nuclear fission reactors.
If you consider they need to be refueled only every 4 - 5 years, and it is the most energetic dense source of fuel, with 1 kilogram of uranium containing 80.620.000 MJ, more than 3 tons of coal, minus the pollution, and the radioactive traces emitted by coal fumes, with the proper tech could also be the most profitable source of energy.
@@willy4170 So what? It is still a rare that we only have fuel left for 200 years if we do not increase the number of reactors. Reactors are still expensive and new ones are even more expensive. There is no business case for nuclear power plants. It does not matter how dense the fuel is. BTW. Renewables do not need any fuel (as it is directly or indirectly delivered by the sun).
@Casual Veemo The generator, generator housing, the turbine tower can all be recycled. Currently the blades are mostly stored in landfills or reused for other purposes (down cycling). However, there are a lot of projects addressing this issue. compared to the radioactive waste that you get from reactors and reactor housing which must be also stored and cannot be recycled, this is a minor issue.
Silicon is expensive as we need a lot of energy to produce it from raw materials, but depending on the cell type this has been reduced. Old style cells from 2015 produce in one year all the energy necessary for their production including aluminum production and many other elements used.
Which heavy metals are you talking about? Have you compared that to the production of nuclear fuels, their transport, their excavation, etc? I Doubt that.
The "German Democratic Republic" was the formal English name for East Germany, not the name for the reunited Republic of Germany!