Except it isn't really true. The share of coal in the German energy mix is decreasing too. There was a hike in 2013 and 2014. And the construction of new coal plants in the last 10 years was big mistake but nevertheless, the switch to renewable sources is important and has to continue. In the end it will be cheaper than any new nuclear power plant which might or might not work.
Also renewable energy has a big plus vs nuclear power, while current nuclear plants are huge and build to last 60 years, renewable energy can be small and last for 20 to 30 years. So in 60 years we could have gone through three improved generations of solar panels or wind mills or something else. While the nuclear power plant build today will be the same inefficient one in 60 years.
The pro nuclear faction on HN baffles me every time. Nuclear power is a complex and big machine, the infrastructure and centralised systems you need is also expensive. For example, you need a also a huge grid. Renewable energy makes decentralised system possible, town and cities or even smaller community can produce their own electricity. Nationwide grids might be less important in a 100% renewable energy system than they are today. (At least I hope so)
For me that is an exciting future, which opens up much more possibilities for more people, to get creative, to create businesses, to build new things.
Shutting down nuclear reactors as they age out and replacing them with renewables (even expensive renewables) is fine, but shutting down perfectly functioning nuclear reactors with years or decades of lifespan left to build new coal seems indefensible to me.
Replacing them with coal plants is indeed stupid and indefensible. But shutting them down was the right choice. Some of them were in a bad shape. In one plant, Krümmel I think, they even had trouble getting replacement parts. Another one, it turned out had a flaw in the emergency power system and didn't even have an emergency control centre.
Of course, you could refit them but also that will costs money and it might be better invested in newer technologies than in those old reactors.
And we have enough issues with nuclear power already, no final repository, Asse II is still a problem. At one nuclear power plant it turned out, they store radio active waste in the basement and those barrel are complete eroded over the decades. AFAIK nobody knows what to do. The company didn't put CCTV in place because they wouldn't work well with the radiation.
But that’s not what happened. Merkel arbitrarily increased the lifespan of reactors, without any technical viability tests, then, after fukushima, turned it down to exactly what the experts had suggested originally.
Also renewable energy has a big plus vs nuclear power, while current nuclear plants are huge and build to last 60 years, renewable energy can be small and last for 20 to 30 years. So in 60 years we could have gone through three improved generations of solar panels or wind mills or something else. While the nuclear power plant build today will be the same inefficient one in 60 years.
The pro nuclear faction on HN baffles me every time. Nuclear power is a complex and big machine, the infrastructure and centralised systems you need is also expensive. For example, you need a also a huge grid. Renewable energy makes decentralised system possible, town and cities or even smaller community can produce their own electricity. Nationwide grids might be less important in a 100% renewable energy system than they are today. (At least I hope so)
For me that is an exciting future, which opens up much more possibilities for more people, to get creative, to create businesses, to build new things.
But well, I know what will happening.