
The Private and External Costs of Germany's Nuclear Phase-Out - sampo
https://www.nber.org/papers/w26598
======
spyckie2
I would be really grateful if someone can summarize the details of how people
project $12b in costs and explain the modeling.

I know that a lot of work has been done into economic impacts of climate
change / air quality, and I've been interested in knowing how people make,
project and test these models for some time.

------
oska
This story has been run for a long time now. The best refutation I know of
appeared in 2015 in an essay called _The myth of the dark side of the
Energiewende_ [1]. I'd recommend reading it for critical balance.

[1] [https://energypost.eu/energiewende-dark-
side/](https://energypost.eu/energiewende-dark-side/)

~~~
sampo
I don't think an essay from 2015 can refute a research paper published in
2019.

~~~
yokaze
I could refute a 2030 study from the flat earth society with an essay from
natural philosophers from ancient Greece, if the first doesn't address the
established facts of the second.

A more detailed rebuttal:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/ehsekb/comment/f...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/ehsekb/comment/fcldewm)

~~~
Danieru
Those rebuttals assume a causal relation between shutting down nuclear and an
increase in renewables. Aka: shutting nuclear does not mean one gets to credit
renewables as the replacement.

Instead as the research paper properly accounts for, if nuclear remained in
use then Germany would have reduced coal much further. Instead germany is
treading water, shutting one carbon free source as it brings online another
carbon free source.

The net effect is no actual improvement, only a theoretical reduction in risk.
Realized outcomes are the same.

Meanwhile japan which is restarting nuclear along with expanding renewables
gets blocked at the climate change summits because they are not making
meaningless promises. For as much as Japan is said to be a society of "saving
face" they instead often focus on results over pr.

The world would be better off if Germany followed suit.

~~~
danans
> Meanwhile japan which is restarting nuclear along with expanding renewables
> gets blocked at the climate change summits because they are not making
> meaningless promises

Japan's energy mix went from 81% fossil fuel in 2011 to 89% in 2016, with most
of that coal and LNG [1].

Germany is at 40% of energy from renewables [2]. I'm not saying it's an easy
problem for them to solve, but they are far from an example of renewable
energy deployment.

1\.
[https://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/en/category/brochures/pdf/japa...](https://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/en/category/brochures/pdf/japan_energy_2017.pdf)

2\.
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-04/renewable...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-04/renewables-
beats-coal-in-germany-power-mix-for-first-time)

~~~
lispm
40% of electricity. not energy in general. Germany has more problems (like
most countries) with heating, transport, ... which currently are not well
under way on a transition to renewable energy...

~~~
danans
Yes, electricity is what I meant. While the Japan report I linked was energy
overall, Japan's electric sector is nonetheless 83% fossil fuel based [1],
which is much worse in absolute terms than Germany, regardless of their
respective recent trends.

I agree that Germany, like most nations, has a major problem with road
transport dependency on oil. Germany is currently playing catch-up with car
electrification, but it is, with Japan, a leader in electrified rail
transport.

In terms of home heating though, Germany, for its climate is far ahead of the
US, with much higher home building standards for energy efficiency and
comfort, and smaller homes in general. Japanese homes, as I'm told, are often
very cold in the winter due to lack of central heating and very poor
insulation, so they don't use much energy, but are also uncomfortable.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Japan#Mo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Japan#Mode_of_production)

~~~
lispm
> a leader in electrified rail transport

and expanding on electricity from renewable energy for rail transport

There are also the first hydrogen powered trains going into service. In the
future more Hydrogen will be produced with renewable energy (for example with
surplus electricity from wind).

------
jupp0r
> You may purchase this paper on-line in .pdf format from SSRN.com ($5) for
> electronic delivery.

That's actually a pretty reasonable price compared to the usual publisher rent
seeking (NBER is a fully private organization, so no tax payer money spent
here afaik).

------
Zenst
[https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-
energy-c...](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-
consumption-and-power-mix-charts)

May help with debate.

------
simlan
> Over 70% of this cost comes from the increased mortality risk associated
> with exposure to the local air pollution emitted when burning fossil fuels.

Sure thing... This disqualified itself really quickly.

~~~
acidburnNSA
This really is the key point. The German people chose to shut down clear-air
nuclear plants and leave their brown coal plants on. The coal plants kills
lots of people per year via air pollution. Thus, this choice likely net killed
lots of people. They have 45 GWe of coal capacity still, and they use it when
the wind isn't blowing.

Of course, the German people were concerned that a nuclear accident would
potentially kill more. This is easy to understand emotionally, but not
scientifically. Nuclear power plants have killed up to ~4000 total including
latent cancers from Chernobyl. Fossil kills 4-8 million people every single
year. When you divide by TWh produced, nuclear comes out crazy safe among our
energy options. And it's low-carbon to boot (12 gCO2-eq/kWh).

~~~
BurningFrog
It's the same mental mistake as when people are more afraid of flying than
driving.

The shock value of a few high profile accidents overpowers the dull constant
killing of a few random people all the time. The total numbers play no part in
this equation.

~~~
topmonk
But this depends on the person driving. If the person who is worried about
this is a much better driver and would be less likely to get in a fatal
accident than average then why wouldn't this be a valid concern?

~~~
nradov
No it isn't a valid concern. For an equivalent distance, commercial flights
are still safer than even the safest drivers. At 30000 feet you don't have to
worry about some other drunk driver running a red light.

~~~
topmonk
Nope.

From [https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2017/07/20/are-
airp...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2017/07/20/are-airplanes-
safer-than-cars/amp/)

For vehicles, “1.13 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled”

and

“Airline accidents per one million miles flown came in at a rate of 0.0035.”

So with an equal denominator, 0.35 vs 1.13. So if you're in the top 20% of
safest drivers, which is not hard to reach considering all the idiots out
there, you are safer driving.

~~~
nradov
Nope. Your calculations are totally invalid.

