cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/20792066

The video shows the demolition of the two cooling towers of the Grundremmingen nuclear power plant in Bavaria / Germany on October 25.

The plant had been switched off four years before. Like the other German plants, it would have required a mayor overhaul to accomplish for modern safety requirements, and it was not deemed economical to do so.

There was a final decision to phase out nuclear power in 2011, after the tsunami catastrophe in Japan, which caused three of the four plants in Fukushim to melt down and explode, and severe further problems with a larger cooling storage for hot spent fuel rods.

That final decision for phase-out was taken by Chancellor Angela Merkel after big losses in elections. Her conservative party CDU was about to lose power. Merkel had reversed an earlier decision for a nuclear phase–out and could not sustain it politically.

And that earlier decision had been made by the former Green-Social Democrat coalition which had been following a renewable energy strategy. Experts had been working on that transition for years and the majority expert consensus was that continuing nuclear energy would not only be expensive, but that it also in the long run would hamper this renewable transition.

Returning to the topic of Fukushima and Merkel’s political emergency stop - Why had this event such a big impact on the public opinion in Germany?

Well, there had been a fierce discussion around nuclear power since the mid-eighties. That discussion had a broadness, technical depth and persaviveness that is hard to imagine in today’s world of tweets and video shorts. One literally could not open a newspaper or even a boy scout’s magazine without it having a drawing of a nuclear power plant, how it was supposed to work, and what were possible weak points.

One constant argument of the pro-nuclear side was THAT NUCLEAR PLANTS CANNOT BLOW UP AND A MELT-DOWN CAN NEVER HAPPEN, BECAUSE OF THEIR TIGHT TECHNICAL PRECAUTIONS. And that major nuclear accidents WILL NOT HAPPEN MORE OFTEN THAN ONCE IN TEN THOUSAND YEARS.

It turned out that this was not true.

Germany also had experienced the consequences of nuclear fallout in 1984 after the Chernobyl plant had exploded. Kids were not allowed to play outside for weeks. Agricultural produce was disposed of and some stuff disapeared and showed up as far away as South America. Newspapers printed Becquerel numbers of food for months, and foraging mushrooms was discouraged for many years in parts of Southern Germany. And all that because as little as a few hundred grams of Caesium isotope from Chernobyl.

Interestingly, at the end of the eighties a technical report came out which made a bit of waves. It was titled, I think, “Risikostudie Biblis B Phase II” or so, and was concerned with what would happen in a loss-of-cooling accident in a pressurized reactor. The conclusion was that the steel vessel would be able to contain the radiactive material only for a very short time, and then would burst, with much of the radioactive inventory shattered outside. By the way, that loss-of-cooling scenario was almost what happened in the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, which, as we know today, also led to a partial melt-down. America was probably lucky that its president at that this time happened to be a real expert on nuclear safety.

Another part of the discussion originated from the fact that early proponents of nuclear power, like the Bavarian politican Franz-Josef Strauß were also fans of nuclear arms. But the majority of Germans were opposed to nuclear arms, and these decades of discussion made it really clear that Germany - unlike perhaps the US - could never survive a nuclear war, because its small size and dense population. After the end of the cold war it became clear that more than 160 missiles had been targeting Berlin alone, and each with a destructive force far larger than the single bomb that marked humanity’s darkest day in Hiroshima.

There were also concerns about the effect of low-dose radiation on kids. In the Merkel years, it had emerged that there was an unusual cluster of child leukemia cases around a plant in Krümmel in Northern Germany. But its operators denied that anything dangerous radiation escape had happened. Statistics were done about risk of leukemia for children living near any plant in Germany, and a clearly elevated risk was found - which cannot be explained by the dominant scientific theory on the effects of radiation. Later, such clusters were also found near the plants in Hamm-Uentrop and AVR Jülich - two experimental Thorium plants.

Another thread of the nuclear discussion was safe storage of spent nuclear fuel rods and waste after use. Nobody wanted to have that stuff in his neighborhood - especially not the home country of Franz-Josef Strauss, Bavaria. There was the idea to store the waste in old salt mines. There were fierce protests of the Green movement as well as local farmers in Gorleben which flared up with every new transport. Receiving the nuclear waste was so unpopular that the federated state did not want to shoulder more bills for the huge police activities.

Public trust was not exactly fostered by what happened in another salt mine, Asse II. It was an experimental store for weakly radioactive stuff. The thinking was that the salt stone which had been there for millions of years would keep the content isolated from groundwater. Long story short, the mine was under water very soon and the whole experiment turned out to be a highly irresponsible mess.

The difficulty with the hot fuel rod store in Fukushima, which was short of melting down as well, was perhaps the final nail in the coffin. It had no concrete containment and nobody had apparently realized how dangerous it was. German plants had the same problem.

    • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      25 days ago

      Coal is in decline as well, and interestingly, abandoning nuclear has only accelerated that. With coal from the Rurgebiet being historically the primary energy source, Germany has still a lot of coal, so there is more way to go.

      The thing is that technically and economically, nuclear competes with wind power, because wind generates all day and especially also in winter. New nuclear is completely uneconomical and coal is becoming uneconomical - new coal plants already are, that’s why their numbers are world-wide in free fall.

      Gas competes with the combination of solar and large battery storage. So, it will have a few years more.

      Retrofitting that old nuclear plants to operate safely would have cost a lot of money which in turn would mean less money for new wind power and solar, and also less money for modernizing grids which is a very important point.

      • turdas@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        In comparison, nuclear has quite constant generation, but demand varies more strongly compared to it. This is why in reality it needs coal in addition, to adjust for deman

        In theory, one could adjust a nuclear power plant by switching it on and off once in the morning and once in the evening, and sometimes in winter. But that “filling up of the mix” with nuclear would just not be economical - nuclear is already by far the most expensive energy source and one can better spend the money by installing battery storage and improving the grid.

        “Modern” (newer than the 90s) nuclear plants can do much more granular load following than that, and it’s what they already do in France and Germany: https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf (see figure 2 for an example from Germany). Or it’s what they would be doing in Germany if they hadn’t been shut down, heh. The French in particular are masters of nuclear load-following, because they use so much of it.

        • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 days ago

          There are two problems with that.

          One is that nuclear plants are, among other stuff, massive heat engines. Because all the steel, tubes and whatever expands when it is heated up, switching it on and off stresses the material. This can be improved on by design but such design has extra costs and has its limits.

          The second is that when you turn down your plant to half the output, you spend essentially the same money to get half the result. Which means you have just doubled the cost per kilowatt hour. And this with the background that nuclear is not any more cost-competitive to begin with.

          In the result, a fleet of wind power plants plus battery or hydro storage is cheaper than such a nuclear plant.

          • turdas@suppo.fi
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            One is that nuclear plants are, among other stuff, massive heat engines. Because all the steel, tubes and whatever expands when it is heated up, switching it on and off stresses the material. This can be improved on by design but such design has extra costs and has its limits.

            Yeah, and this is something that has been improved on for modern reactor designs precisely so that they can operate in load-following mode. There’s essentially no impact on operational lifespan (typically 60 years for modern reactors), because the impact has already been factored into the operational lifespan.

            The second is that when you turn down your plant to half the output, you spend essentially the same money to get half the result. Which means you have just doubled the cost per kilowatt hour. And this with the background that nuclear is not any more cost-competitive to begin with.

            This is mostly an opportunity cost thing. The actual running costs, e.g. the fuel, make up a negligible part of the €/MWh of nuclear. Most of the cost comes from the construction of the plant, which should be publicly subsidized the same as other clean energy is. Lack of subsidies and other public support is one of the main reasons nuclear is relatively expensive, though it is still the cheapest ecological method for meeting base load that we have, besides geothermal which is not feasible in most locations.

            In the result, a fleet of wind power plants plus battery or hydro storage is cheaper than such a nuclear plant.

            The thing about battery storage is that it doesn’t exist yet and may never exist in an economical way. Hydro power and storage, on the other hand, is absolutely devastating for ecosystems, clean though it may be in terms of carbon emissions. It would be preferable if hydro dams did not exist. Now of course you could build a hydro storage system in a completely artificial pair of reservoirs, but that will be incredibly expensive compared to natural reservoirs (read: flooded valleys) so I am skeptical that it would be feasible at scale.