oh, of course it is. I am referring specifically to the Green party. They are however, a member of the ruling coalition. Also I should add, as a cultural insight, there is nothing Germans love more than a technological challenge. They use a phrase here, "why simple when you can make it complicated" not without a certain sense of self-irony. But don't underestimate the will of the wider German population to find a solution to wean themselves of gas, particularly when it is getting sold to them by an autocrat.
The Social Democrats in Germany have been named as Verraeterpartei (traitor party) by the working class, since the Schroeder regime implemented the (to this day very) unpopular Hartz-IV laws. Books have been written about it. Privacy no more, if you want to get state subsidies as a resident. Scholz belongs to that party. The Greens are on their best way of becoming seen as traitors, as well. Their unmistakenly subserviant acting towards US-wants, as contrary to their initial programme before being elected makes them the next candidate for the Great Traitor 'award' in Germany, as putting ecology behind economy.
As for the 'many people' in Germany volunteering to pay way more for their heating, I think that might just be somewhat ambiguously drawn into an ideologicsl perspective, sorry.
oh, of course it is. I am referring specifically to the Green party. They are however, a member of the ruling coalition. Also I should add, as a cultural insight, there is nothing Germans love more than a technological challenge. They use a phrase here, "why simple when you can make it complicated" not without a certain sense of self-irony. But don't underestimate the will of the wider German population to find a solution to wean themselves off gas, particularly when it is getting sold to them by an autocrat who is most definitely no longer cool.
nope, we don't have to. There is enough capacity to buy it in from other European nations. Gas though, is an issue. Prices are going to rise whatever way you look at it. There is a lot of gas infrastructure in Germany, from domestic heating through to power generation. We need gas.
The EU as a whole relies to 40% on Russian fossile fuels. Some nations, like Italy e.g. much more than that. The US? I have no figures at hand, but something's telling me, they also keep buying a lot of gas from Russia. ...Figures, anyone?
It's all just economics. A higher price for fossil fuels, from whatever country, just makes renewables economically more appealing. There are a lot of people here in Germany who welcome a higher price for fossil fuels for that very reason.
i'm guessing germany is scrambling to bring their nuclear energy back online...
nope, we don't have to. There is enough capacity to buy it in from other European nations. Gas though, is an issue. Prices are going to rise whatever way you look at it. There is a lot of gas infrastructure in Germany, from domestic heating through to power generation. We need gas.
if i recall there was gov't plan to electrify america with nuclear back in the fifties
opposition from the unenlightened activists won out and here we are today (modern example)
i probably posted that info/history here somewhere
I agree with your call for nuclear power to kick in when renewable sources falter but I wouldn't dismiss those activists as unenlightened.
The concept of global warming was first presented to the White House during the LBJ administration. Climate data and models were grossly insufficient to provide helpful scenarios for a long time. We've realized only in the last ten years or less that we're in much deeper trouble than long thought.
So those activists didn't have to consider nuclear power as an evil necessity.
Also, the Three Mile Island incident really put enthusiasm for nuclear power in the deep freeze. The difficulties in clearing regulatory hurdles and obtaining financing for construction have also hampered a nuclear renaissance.
small modular reactors/generators are going to happen and should be the base load
.....
Agreed. Even if it means higher electricity prices for consumers and that currently appears inevitable. Natural gas is the ideal fuel to pick up the rest and to pinch-hit when hydro, solar and wind fail.
Much the same discussion being held everywhere (except maybe France). A lot of those same activists are still my friends who I hold in high regard. Just personally, I can't see a workable solution ahead without some kind of base load generation that can cushion the volatility of renewables.
i'm right there with you
small modular reactors/generators are going to happen and should be the base load
i'm not a fan of above ground power lines either (esp long distances)
eventually i'd like to see a lot of local grids, advanced SMRs and more underground power lines
if i recall there was gov't plan to electrify america with nuclear back in the fifties
opposition from the unenlightened activists won out and here we are today (modern example)
i probably posted that info/history here somewhere
Much the same discussion being held everywhere (except maybe France).
A lot of those same activists are still my friends who I hold in high regard. Just personally, I can't see a workable solution ahead without some kind of base load generation that can cushion the volatility of renewables.
if i recall there was gov't plan to electrify america with nuclear back in the fifties opposition from the unenlightened activists won out and here we are today (modern example) i probably posted that info/history here somewhere
Small, standardized reactors are great if you want to make power. Less great if you want to make money. Guess which model we use?
I never have got my head around the economics of nuclear power with so much government intervention involved, it is kind of hard to know what the true costs are.
But looking at the ballooning costs of large facilities, it is kind of hard to see how they turn out to be profitable.
A lot of the anti-nuclear crowd insist they are not profitable if you factor in all the costs (dismantling, storage, etc.) although a lot of these very same activists go out of their way to inflate those costs (by banning storage for example) so dummy-me just sits there with a blank kind of expression on his face.
Edit: if it is not already obvious, my main motive for supporting nuclear is that it is a fantastic way to avoid fossil fuels, which seems to be something we should all be focussing on right now, and renewables need some kind of base load supply to shore up the grid and barring some breakthrough in storage that means something like gas or nuclear.
Edit 2: here the conclusions of a review of scientific papers done on the economics of SMRs : Not a single âtruly modularâ SMR has been built so far. Economic and financial reasons are strongly hindering SMR development. However, there are plenty of studies about SMR economics and finance..... As highlighted by the words âSmallâ and âModularâ, SMRs present three main peculiarities with respect to large scale traditional reactors: smaller size, modularisation, and modularity. SMR size has three main implications: loss of the âeconomy of scaleâ, for the same power installed more units can be built fostering phenomenon like the industrial learning, and the reduction of the up-front investment per unit. This latter makes SMR investment particularly attractive considering the multi-billions up-front investment of LRs. Modularisation has several implications: working in a better-controlled environment, stand-ardisation and design simplification, reduction of the construction time, logistical challenges. Modularity allows having a favourable cash flow profile, taking advantage of the co-siting economies, cogeneration for the load following of NPPs, a higher and faster industrial learning, and better adaptability to market conditions. Furthermore, the interest in SMRs is growing because of the different applications: electrical, heat, hydrogen production, and seawater desalination. The SLR highlights how most of the quantitative studies about SMR economics and finance focus on SMR capital cost, component and sub-components of the capital cost (i.e. overnight cost, base construction cost), indicators of economic and financial performances (LCOE, NPV, IRR). The number of studies focusing on O&M and decommissioning costs is extremely low, and there is a gap in knowledge about the cost- benefit analysis of the âmodular constructionâ. There is a lack of a standardised approach in the evaluation of the economic and financial performances of SMRs, making a proper com-parison impossible in most of the cases. Most of the studies are at plant-level (1 SMR vs 1 LR) or site-level (X SMRs vs 1 LR of equivalent total size), neglecting the focus at the programme-level and the interdependency between the programme and the strategy of each country. Furthermore, most of the methodologies for the cost-benefit analysis are often inadequately applied, by not considering that the development of a nuclear programme involves a wide range of stakeholders. The SMR world strongly needs a standardised approach at the pro-gramme level taking a holistic and realistic perspective in the evaluation of SMR economic and financial competitiveness to foster SMR development.
no idea, how advanced the reactor technology is, sounds like it might be a bit dated, but the basic concept sounds great. Small, rapidly deployable, mass-produced, lower-cost nuclear.
Small, standardized reactors are great if you want to make power. Less great if you want to make money. Guess which model we use?
no idea, how advanced the reactor technology is, sounds like it might be a bit dated, but the basic concept sounds great. Small, rapidly deployable, mass-produced, lower-cost nuclear.
