If it’s cooled in an “open cycle”, it means that the water vapor is released in the atmosphere, via these huge aero refrigerators towers. It will eventually fall back down as rain or snow.
Water is not a scarce resource in Germany. Shutting down those plans was an ecological and economical disaster bordering on high treason.
Actually, water is scarce in some parts of Germany [1], it might not look like it, but there are still drought conditions in the soil of some parts of Germany [2].
nonsense. the economy didn't even notice the shutdown. and those plants were more costly to operate than renewables are, so we're enjoying cheaper electricity now.
it also wasn't an ecological disaster, in fact it didn't change anything in that regard.
I'm pro renewable build-out, and a lot of new nuclear projects seem to my layman's eyes uneconomical, at least at today's cost (maybe we'd get better at doing it cheaper again if we invested, I don't know), but your claims seem false.
> Renewables have currently offset less than half of year 2000 nuclear generation
This is simply incorrect. You cite the iea as source, which is of course incentivized to creatively present the facts. In this case, by counting created heat (instead of electricity generation) for nuclear plants, and comparing this with purely electrical output power of PV/wind energy.
Actual power from nuclear plants in Germany, year 2000: ~180TWh, Solar + Wind now: >190TWh. Note that total electricity demand has decreased. Electricity from biomass has also grown significantly (also renewable).
Renewables are very cheap if you only consider LCOE and not the systemic costs - which is what people like Zoadian love to do. Just ignore all those grid and backup costs. The grid fees alone have been increased substantially and Germany pays out an additional 7 cent per KWh through a fund that is not shown in the electricity bills anymore.
actually mostly coal was used to fill the energy gap, increasing pressure to expand rollout of renewables.
The media pitch making all this highly political is that fossil fuels from Russia should be / must be used instead of nuclear power, framing the choice to be either pro-Russia or pro-Nuclear (discarding renewables or potential pan-European energy coalitions).
In reality the impacts of the shutdown are foreseeable transitional pains.
Of course Germany wasn't producing a massive surplus of energy that made it seamless to switch off their nuclear power-plants, so now they need to compensate the gap and make plans to close it.
Let's hope they're not all giving up again half-way thanks to politics and revert the decision...
Did you miss the natural gas crisis? All of Europe has been scrambling to replace Russian gas with LNG. If I remember correctly Germany even decided to postpone some nuclear reactor closing because of it. European industry and especially Germany industry is facing major stress due to high gas and energy prices.
According to eurostat [1], Germany has one of the most expensive electricity (if not the most expensive due to a negative tax in Ireland) in Europe at ~0.35 to 0.40 EUR per kWh.
28.72ct/kwh is the cheapest for my location and 45.51ct/kwh if im in the Grundversorgung(if i fall out for whatever reason out of my regular contract this is the fallback)
Is that why Germany is pissing and shitting itself over issue of energy from Russia, America and NS2? This is not symptomatic of a healthy and secure energy economy.
Solar and wind cannot replace base load power. Especially not in Germany. They have to rely on peaker plants even more, and those are burning gas, emitting CO2. And they built more coal power plant units, like Datteln 4: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datteln_Power_Station
This is incorrect, and also completely misunderstanding how electricity pricing dynamics work.
Power grids don't need base load providers at all. They need enough dispatchable sources (and/or imports) to cover demand at all times (at least if they want to avoid rolling blackouts like in SA).
Providing base load is a privilege you get to enjoy if you have the lowest marginal price at all times (or are technically unable to regulate your output down, and would rather pay not to)-- cheap intermittent sources (solar/wind) make it very difficult for conventional plants to act as "base load provider" profitably.
It's a fair point to distinguish that baseload is just one mechanism to reduce the amount of surplus renewable capacity required to cover demand. However, what is the alternative in the face of a grid that's designed for centralised large power producers, and an environmental policy that disincentivises us from using gas?
Yes, in a hypothetical world we can just scale up storage and decentralise production, but what are the timelines and costs on that? Because my understanding is that realistically something like nuclear is the best way of making that problem tractable over the timelines that e.g. a nuclear plant can operate.
> Yes, in a hypothetical world we can just scale up storage and decentralise production, but what are the timelines and costs on that?
Why a hypothetical world? I think that current timelines, while not particularly awe-inspiring, are quite realistic (Germany: no more coal for electricity within 2038).
I also see no problem in using gas peaker plants provisionally for the next decade, and gradually phasing them out in favor of storage as batteries get even cheaper.
Newly built nuclear power is basically useless by comparison-- construction alone currently easily takes a decade (see: Olkiluoto 3 >15y, Flamanville 3 >15y, Vogtle 3/4 >10y, Shin-Hanul 1/2 >10y), local resistance is very large, costs are astronomical.
ROI for those plants is completely abysmal already and continuously getting worse, because they are completely unable to compete with solar/wind energy prices whenever those are available.
So going "full nuclear" now would mean that all the extremely expensive effort is completely useless (climate-wise) for at least a decade (until first plants finish), while spending the same on solar/wind improves the situation right now (by allowing us to rely on fossils less often), and those projects also tend to finish within years instead of decades, and they don't need astronomical sums (and guarantees) from taxpayers to get financed.
> I think that current timelines, while not particularly awe-inspiring, are quite realistic (Germany: no more coal for electricity within 2038).
I am not an expert on this, at all... but I'm not sure that's the case. c.f. Wikipedia:
> In March 2024, Federal Audit Office published a report in which it assessed the policy as not meeting goals on a number of points: the planned 80% share of renewable energy requires dispatchable sources but the assumed 10 GW in fossil gas generation is neither sufficient nor on schedule; extension of electric grid is behind the schedule by 6,000 km (3,700 mi) and 7 years; security of the supply chain is not sufficiently assessed; system costs to ensure 24/7 generation are underestimated and based on "best-case" scenarios; capacity installed in renewables is behind the schedule by 30%, whereas demand is expected to grow by 30% as result of electrification of heating and transport
As for
> ROI for those plants is completely abysmal already and continuously getting worse, because they are completely unable to compete with solar/wind energy prices whenever those are available.
That's because the pricing model is arbitrary. If we need nuclear, we can make it economically viable through reforming the way we purchase electricity. But,
> construction alone currently easily takes a decade
is the real problem. Unless SMRs actually materialise _and_ have fast build times, it's just not happening (and realistically, I think _that_ ship has already sailed).
I'm not really making a point here much beyond "it's one thing to say nuclear is no longer viable given our lack of investment" and another to say "it was a good thing to drop nuclear N years ago". You're not saying that for the record. By dropping nuclear, we have to deal with a bigger shortfall and that means gas peakers, etc.
> That's because the pricing model is arbitrary. If we need nuclear, we can make it economically viable through reforming the way we purchase electricity
I don't really agree on this. The problem is that intermittent sources (wind/solar) have become really cheap per MW. Whenever those sources are available, nuclear power just cannot compete, so you basically build nuclear plants as glorified peaker plants (even if you run them full throttle all the time, when wind/sun is available the power they provide is effectively worthless).
You can see this very effect in China, where the capacity factor of coal power plants is going down every year (and coal power is not very suitable for that).
> By dropping nuclear, we have to deal with a bigger shortfall and that means gas peakers, etc.
I completely agree on this. Having built like 30 nuclear power plants 40 years ago would be a godsend now for almost every country (=> see e.g. France, which is still reaping the benefits).
But its important to consider: The whole concept shares similar weakness with renewables (=> need additional dispatchable sources), and it also works pretty well for France because not every nation around them is doing the same thing (=> somewhat cost effective power imports, because not every neighbor needs to smooth out the exact nuclear-caused daily load profile).
Another point is that back then, there was
1) Much less local resistance (pre-Chernobyl)
2) Much cheaper labor and more economy of scale in building reactors
And it still took a lot of additional national commitment (from France) to fully nuclearize (mainly for strategic defense reasons, i.e. oil independence).
Seeing people advocate for nuclear power now is really frustrating to me, because we had that opportunity half a century ago, but now it's become unrealistic, unhelpful against climate change and insanely expensive, compared to much better alternatives (which are straightforward and just need to be executed). Arguing in favor of nuclear power now instead of wind/solar/batteries just feels stupid.
Germany relies mostly on oil, coal and gas for energy production [1]. Shutting down reactors that produces energy at a very low carbon cost (especially since a huge part of that was building the reactors) means you keep using fossil fuels. At the time of writing, Germany produces power at 432gCO2eq/kWh [2] (compared to 169 for UK, 13 to 37 in Sweden, 42 in France, 309 to 600 in Italy and 759 in Poland).
In practice, Nuclear was replaced with renewable but fossil fuel usage didn't go down.
I'm no expert but the water evaporates and is released into the air through huge cooling towers. Cooling the water in a closed-loop system requires a huge cooling and storage infrastructure. Evaporation is around 2% of the water taken from rivers, the other 98% are released back into the river.
My understanding is that with most current reactors there is an inner loop that is constantly recirculating (reactor to turbine) that does not leave containment. This goes through a heat exchange with other water to jettison waste heat from the system. This waste heat can be something like taking water from a river and ejecting it back into the river, just slightly warmer.
I’m curious how much using less water actually matters. It’s not like the jettisoned water is dangerous or radioactive
Evaporating water consumes a lot of heat. First the energy to get it to 100 degrees, then the latent energy to do the actual evaporation. Then the steam floats away so that is disposal handled.
I'd imagine the volumes of heat are too large to the sort of refrigeration cycle you're talking about. It'd just boil the local rivers and lakes, or lead to a very hot block of dirt then stop working. Note that we're talking double-digit percentages of a country's water consumption here.
Why can't it take the heat, be piped somewhere else to cool down again, and then be used again?