Why Germany is Ending Nuclear Power
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Germany is rapidly shutting down their Nuclear Power Plants. After opening the first Nuclear Plant in 1969, Germany has relied on Nuclear Energy for a large part of its electricity production. This has resulted in Germany becoming more reliant on Russian Energy in forms of Oil and Gas. The electricity shortages spread all throughout Europe but are affecting Germany the worst due to its lack of energy independence.
Due to Germany planning to shut down every single one of its Nuclear Power Plants by the end of 2022, their dependency on Russia's Oil and Gas will only increase throughout the next few years. To avoid this potential outcome, Germany has stated that they plan to be 100% energy independent by 2050 and rely completely on renewable forms of electricity production.
Germany is a Western European Country with a population of over 83 million people. Germany borders France and Poland. Russia is a country roughly 6 thousand kilometers from Germany.
Thanks for Watching and subscribe if you enjoyed the video!
#Germany #Nuclear #NuclearPower © 2023 Arkive Productions LLC
Thanks for Watching!
What topics would you like to see in future videos?
Edit: at 2:40, I apologize for any confusion. The German Democratic became a part of The Federal Republic of German to form the reunited nation of Germany.
Maybe Pakistani cities like gwadar which is thr future dubai . Or the capital Islamabad which is the most beautiful capital in the world you can make a video about them or about Istanbul or anything its just a suggestion
Should probably pin this chief
3:33 once again showed the extreme dangers of one in a centruy earth quakes combined with unexpectedly high tsunami and a hastely botched evacuation as well as TEPCO's irresponsibility.
5:02 renewable energy supported by natural gas
Fixed these for you.
Maybe make a video on how much of German energy mix is actual renewable energy and how it compares to other countries. Or the cost of nuclear power and nuclear waste management. Or Risk management, like how risk is the sum of impact and time. Liquid salt reactors are also a fun topic.
@@HansTheGeek you guys use coal and gas from russia 💀
A little disappointed in the nasty tone taken in this video towards nuclear. It was implied that nuclear is not safe, that all reactors are like Chernobyl and that people actually died from radiation at Fukushima. None of which is true. Germany actually uses a lot of nuclear generated electricity they purchase at a premium from France. Reminds me of California who shut down all their coal and is closing their nuclear while buying 30% of their electricity from out of state. Some of that out of state power is from coal and nuclear so other than virtue signaling to the like-minded, what are they accomplishing?
Well, at least they didn't portray NPP as something that will explode violently if someone as much as sneezes in the ten-mile-radius, leaving behind a crater as deep as Mariana Trench, and turn several countries into a Fallout theme park.
SoCal Edison owns 16% of the Palo Verde Generating Station in Arizona
You didn't mention at all what has been the consequence of shutting down its nuclear plants, like dependence on Russia and significantly increased carbon emissions.
Like most shitty takes on UA-cam they’re likely anti-nuclear energy, therefore they don’t dispute public opinion concerns, mention efficiency, or challenge Germany’s procedures on decommissioning reactors.
Carbon emissions go down in Germany all the time. Nuclear is mostly replaced with renewable sources.
@@HansTheGeek Nuclear has not, nor will be replaced by renewables. In every case nuclear is shut down it is replaced by fossil fuels
@@SpectreLance You should take a look at Germany. That’s not the case here sorry.
@@HansTheGeek Your country is the reason we know that is what happens. Your carbon emissions went up as you shuttered your perfectly safe and functional nuclear plants
Arguing that Chernobyl shows that nuclear plants based on completely different tech can be dangerous is akin to arguing that 9/11 shows that planes are inherently dangerous and we should stop all aviation. 🙄
because of 9/11 there are many things we can not take on planes anymore, "security" / surveillance was ramped up because of it
So yes they basically said that. And nuclear plants have many more deficits, like mining uranium, which u can't do in many countries and countries who have uranium mines are pretty exploited + mining uranium does not only producee a lot of c02 but destroys nature around the mine as well.
So you say 9/11 happened because of bad plane design?
@@MerlossLP And likewise nuclera plant design was deeply altered after Tchernobyl and after Fukushima to improve safety. So the point of the OP remains valid.
Also you'll note that mining lithium, silicium and other rare eath materials for "sustainable" energy production poses the exact same issues as mining uranium.
Not even that, it’s like arguing why you shouldn’t fly because the Soviet version of the Concorde was dangerous to use. Chernobyl is (as all Soviet technology was) inefficient garbage operated by overworked staff.
@@therealnocam Fukushima is also a Soviet design without earthquake protection then?
It's better to invest billions into the safety of these power plants rather than lose billions just by closing them
Even with billions you cannot make them more safe. They are at the end of their service life. And you to pay for the demolition anyways.
They're safe as it is.
They are already the safest power known to man. I understand closing the ones in the former East, as those were problematic Soviet designs.
More people die every year from falling off roofs installing solar than the total number of people killed by nuclear power in it's entire history.
@@Rocketsong the main issue isn't the lives lost, its more the environmental costs. Its sad thought cause even from an environmental perspective nuclear is better, its just that fossil fuels ruin the environment slowly and on a much larger scale, meanwhile nuclear disasters ruin the environment quickly, localy and in a more flashy manner.The flahy disaster will always be more feared by the simple minded/uninformed.
@@Rocketsong the main issue isn't the lives lost, its more the environmental costs. Its sad though cause even from an environmental perspective ,nuclear is still better. Its just that fossil fuels ruin the environment slowly and on a much larger scale, meanwhile nuclear disasters ruin the environment quickly and in a more flashy manner.The flashy disaster will always be more feared by the simple minded/uninformed.
The big issue is that Germany replace all its nuclear capability with coal and fossil fuels. So now it sort of went backwards in its environmental action
and rely on russia
it's not about CO2, it's about socialism.
@@losttale1 It's all about ideology
Plus, every extra penny they now spend on wind and solar actually harms their emissions due to the lack of storage.
Natural gas in combination with heat pumps is very clean. Replace the gas with green hydrogen and you are much cleaner than nuclear. That’s still the plan so let’s discuss this again in 20 years.
even when we consider Chernobyl and Fukushima, those were outlier situations that were brought about by a specific set of circumstances, even with that, Nuclear power is still considered one of the safest forms of energy production in the world, alongside Solar and Wind.
It is not safe. It is dangerous. The waste product is at best horrifyingly dangerous. And sometimes it lays waste to an area and a population forever.
I hope you'll never get to be near a power-plant that melts down. But with your attitude you probably will.
not to mention, that 3rd generation is even saver now
@@fex144 just immerse it in water dude, and all the radiation will go away.
Chernobyl didn't have a containment structure and Fukushima was because of the worst Tsunami in recorded history that killed 20,000 people. Those things can't happen in Germany. They're fools for getting rid of nuclear power and now they're paying the price.
@@fex144 Take a look at Sabine Hossenfelder video titled "Is Nuclear Power Green?"
Idk how germany could build such great country after ww2, and then young generation manages to ruin it
What are you talking about? Germany is one of the best countries in the world. A light pointing towards green technology. Instead of an irradiated nuclear desert.
@@fex144 xd, coal kills 1000x more ppl then nuclear energy
@@thecreator6065 germany is subsidizing solar energy heavily. Siemens make some of the worlds biggest windmills. So XD you right back cnut.
@@fex144 Ah but the reactor in the desert can produce desalinated water to irrigate the land and to bring life. It brings heat and light to people 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. It is the beacon that points to a brighter tomorrow.
@@daniellarson3068 you wrote irrigate, the correct spelling is irradiate.
Go Green: Go nuclear. Nuclear energy is one of the safest, cleanest, most reliable energy source known to men, people die because of our unjustified fear of nuclear energy.
Nuclear is not green. You can use it as bridge technology until you are ready to go full green but it is clearly not green. A low risk with huge impact over a long time is a big risk.
"unjustified" tell that to Chernobyl or Fukashima. They aren't green really, just replacing one problem with another (also nuclear waste). It's not a question of if something will go disastrously wrong but when, nothing can be 100% safe and the effect when it does go boom is severe.
@@fastertrackcreative You want to drive a car, but tell that to the people that died in a car accident. This is how foolish you sound. The waste of fossil fuels is in the air and is estimated to kill 1 million people per year.
As long as they store all the waste at your place i'm down with it.
@@fastertrackcreative Chernobyl used old nuclear tech, current ones are way more stable and safer, Fukushima got destroyed by a giant tsunami and not by the Nuclear issue, even so, if fukushima was using the same tech as chernobyl, we could easily say goodbye to the whole Japan, but it seems like none of it got affected mmmm
I dont think its a good a idea close a reliable source of energy, maybe they could try thorium salt or small modular reactors , but having less diversity of production only leads to dependence.
Germany did that in fact and it introduced more issues than it solved. Plus: It wasn’t that reliable and cost effective in the first place.
@@HansTheGeek source please
You need to see the bigger picture, those policies are implemented by polaticians, polaticians that can and will be bought by foreing interests
@@HansTheGeek Hans - I think you should reread. I do not think they built small modular reactors. I think there is a very good chance they will have them in the future.
Perhaps we should save the money for building renewables. It brings us a lot more kWh. Our neighboors are enough of an example that burning uranium is burning tax payer's money. A discipline we are already olympic today without that dirt.
Germany is facing a grim future of exorbitant electricity prices and massive rolling blackouts without nuclear.
Germany has lots of coal.
@Peter from NZ None of the dozens of energy storage options have proven practical for energy storage. Wind and solar are much more expensive than you meme. They also have to be replaced 2-3 times to match the lifespan of a typical nuclear power plant.
@@Crashed131963 Germany has vowed to go 100% renewables by 2035 so coal is off the table to meet this goal. Besides, coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.
@Peter from NZ All addressed, you were just butt hurt by the answers given. Can't help it if you intentionally wish to remain ignorant.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk not possible.
For a country producing soo much renewable energy,
one could wonder why they are consuming soo much of Russian gas to the point it became a military risk.
(Nowaday much more concrete and destructive for somes, that of a nuclear central accident.)
Renewables are not reliable so need to be backed up with gas power stations.
Because it is the cleanest fossil fuel, it can be replaced with hydrogen and there is currently no alternative for industrial applications.
@@HansTheGeek Nitrogen???
@@schrodingerscat1863 Sorry, Hydrogen
@@HansTheGeek That's what I thought 👍
Storage is the first thing we should think when we hear "renewables" if we are serious about climate change.
@Dacia Sandero guys
Not only the solar panels, the windturbines as well. The blades of these vaunted windturbines are NOT recyclable. Currently, in the US they are filling entire ravines and landfills with these blades because they don't know what to do with them. Add to that that they actually emit one of the most damaging greenhouse gases (SF6, which is used as an insulator/ arc suppressant for electrical installations like...wait for it...the generators in a windturbine) out there, and there goes the "renewable" fairy-tale right out the window.
@Dacia Sandero guys
Yep, that's another thing. Not only the things you already mention, but the mining for these rare minerals is usually done by child slave labour. Another inconvenient truth the E-car proponents leave out. And don't get me started on the batteries after their life has expired. These aren't exactly the epitome of recyclability either.
@@fransva1
Now there is the problem, we're using a thing called logic. Something that is lacking entirely with the Climate Change lot. With them it's all "rainbows & unicorns" out of your @$$. Forget tenable, forget feasibility, those are all dirty words. It must feel good, don't you get that?😜
"I don't understand why Germany do it. They also said that they don't want our gas, with what will they heat their house? Woods? Those woods come from Siberia!"
-- Vladimir Putin speaking about Germany free nuclear policy
Like him or hate him, he got a point there.
because ppl like you, we are in the situation we are in now. blocking the renewable revolution.
if we would have invested in renewables much earlier instead investing in the extension of gas pipelines etc, we would be independent by now
You watch too much Russian propaganda.
There are only 3 nuclear power plants left that are online and every house is warm. 😂
60% of German Gas is NOT from Russia.
Only half of that is used for households
We don't need russian oil.
It will be 0% until the end of this year.
Germany has more than enough coal.
Almost nobody heats with wood. But look at the map. Germany is full of woods.
There is wind, solar and thermal energy all over Germany.
2:40: East Germany was the German Democratic Republic (GDR), which reunified with West Germany. The GDR ceased to exist, it wasn’t the new combined country.
Shows how well researched the video is I guess.
I apologize for the error.
Nuclear power stations are not inherrently more reliable than coal powered power stations. However both are so much better than renewable power stations. Germany's mistake, as is the U.K.'s, was to build so much renewable generation which is a negative for running a stable and reliable grid. Germany is fortunate in being grid connected to so many neighbours which masks much of this unstable and intermittent power.
“Nuclear power … not inherently more reliable than coal”
The numbers show that nuclear power is more reliable than any source, as we would guess. A big coal plant needs a large coal train delivery every *day*. All the coal plant emissions controls need to be regularly cleaned. That mountainous ash pile needs to be hauled away.
Nuclear plants run 1.5 years continuous or so on one fuel load brought in by a semi trailer. There are no emissions. In the US, average uptime is 93%. Nothing, not even hydro comes close.
Falstaff,
while both plants have their complexities and yes there is significant supply requirements for coal stations, they can and often do stockpile coal on site.
Looking at uptime is misleading as nuclear runs differently to coal, gas and hydro, simply because nuclear is base load and runs at near maximum as much as possible, scheduled down time obviously impacts that figure. The other gerators balance the grid demand and supply so modulate output, this does impact uptime but generally all can increase power at will when required.
It is not a fair comparison.
@@iareid8255 Onsite coal stockpile is counted in days.
At the end you’re referring to load following. Reactors designed to do so, can. German, French reactors ramp when necessary.
Until the last coal, oil, and fossil gas plants are shut down no one should shut down a nuclear power plant early. Indeed, if one can add new reactors to your infrastructure in a cost and time efficient way to replace fossil fuels they should. This is such a mess.
Fun fact: Nuclear is also fossil.
@@HansTheGeek I am curious how you come to this thought.
@@Dr.Gehrig It’s of cause not fossil I got that wrong. But it is also mined like fossil fuels mostly in political unstable regions like Kazakhstan.
@@HansTheGeek it's mined in alot of places. And a little fuel goes a long way for a long time. Easy to buy when cheap and save up... and many sources all over the world. But most importantly, very low carbon.
@@Dr.Gehrig It becomes rare and the largest occurrences are in Russia and Kazakhstan. Plus the making of the fuel is energy intensive and has a huge environmental impact. Not to speak of the waste for which we have no solution yet and all the plants we have to dismantle in the coming years without having a efficient way to build new ones.
Now they just get all their energy from Russia 🥴🥴🥴
This guy makes it out like renewables will replace these Nuclear power plants soon.
Gas contracts with Russia replaces them .
Not really..
@@mimimi8238 Please elaborate..
@@mimimi8238 yes really
@@mimimi8238 google Nord Stream 🤡
Who’s here now that they are shutting down the last few plants?
the end game for the world. high cost intermittent energy, under the guise of 'loving the planet.'
You Vill Own Nossing Und You Vill Be Happy
ya. the high costs eradicate the poor and pushes the middle class as low income class. i wonder how that solves the issue. its evident, that germany has too many taxes and costs on renewables and they arent even green, considering you have to build cement on shores and in forests and therefore you kill the environment there - forever. its just a dangerous ideology but the greenies dont want to get slapped in their face with the truth. nuclear power plants are much safer nowadays and also offer less emmission than renewables. renewaqbles are also made out of material which isnt recycle-able so ya. I dunnow how much lobby money these german idiots got from renewable lobby to talk nuclear power plants down and misinform the folks for making it happen that renewable dominate our country in a danger energy monopoly instead of diversity.
Is Nuclear Power Green? Sabine Hossenfelder is a good video on this topic. She points out, as hinted by the current video, that Germany imports electricity from France, which is nuclear powered. So Germany imports some politically unpopular in Germany nuclear power...from France.
Yes she actually understands the science and fairly weighs costs and benefits.
yes nuclear power is green, safe and reliable.
Pretty shallow video.
This is their worst idea since WW2
As a German I have to say: We f*ckd up!
You voted for it! That’s collective culture!
@@Labyrinth6000 well I didn't
@@jakobj55 blame your fellow people who apparently made it illegal to make fun of people.
you should have mentioned the practical consequences of this, where Germans pay highest price in the world for electricity - twice as much as France, for example. What are the consequences of this? Will the Germans try to "recoup" this by forcing other EU countries to pay for this using their hegemon position?
Let’s see how prices develop when France begins to dismantle its nuclear plants, builds new ones and tries to find a storage for the waste. In Germany the company’s that run the plants have to hold back money for that. In France it is the responsibility of the state to handle that.
@Futura We do the same with the U.S and Brittain. If it means getting of Russian gas and securing our place so we can't be displaced by a probably aggressive Russia and China, and just as long as we socialize it though to streamline the economies for efficiency along with it I'd say it would be well worth it all
@Futura World bummed of France a few decades ago. Come 2000s we here in the U.S bit the bullet ourselves and secured Iraq and ultimately Saudi Arabia for a literally hell of a price establishing the safety net all of Europe and the Americas needed for its energy needs, and ever since we've been trying to move away from Iraq and take a step apart from Saudi we've been growing increasingly dependent on a aggressive Russia and China
Its time we all take a bite and get off single sources, and especially in states like mine where we use up disproportionate amounts of oil where the yields and savings alternative supplies are higher
@Futura I don't ever want to live in a Chinese sub-state. My little town and the whole region around us would get a ton of benefit putting 200-800 Watt solar panel sets on the houses every couple hundred yards, and less rural areas that still require shipping would stand alot of benefit if we changed designs so higher yield wind turbines were able to take faster renew oils
Then that's not mentioning the benefit larger cities would take if they started leaning into nuclear as soon as we don't need to worry about sabotage or bombings
@@HansTheGeek better than putting it in the air dont you think? If you dont like nuclear you can just outright say you hate human lives and dont care if they die.
Not sure if the UA-cam algorithm recommended this video, or the comments to this video...
I think that you take an unnecessarily harsh tone on the safety of nuclear, a technology that has been shown to be comparably safe to renewable energy sources nowadays. The primary issues with nuclear are not about its safety, but with its economics. Concerns for safety are a reactionary (but politically relevant) concern that need to be chipped down by being well informed. Nuclear has potential to help push out fossil fuels and offset some the resource load that traditional renewables will be experiencing as we continue to build more. Worry about the economics, not the safety. That's what engineers are for.
0:20 you mean 11% of power production. The amount of "primary energy" of nuclear is even lower in germany
1:00 "8000 times more efficient" no, that is not what efficient means in that context, efficancy means how much of the energy created is usable, both coal and nuclear have efficiancy rates around 60-80%.
2:53 "All nuclear power plants in eastern germany were forced to close" yes the 1 nuclear power plant Greifswald in eastern germany was closed, because of SEVERE safety issues. This was only 2GW of 24GW nuclear total, not like half the nuclear power you make it sound like.
5:05 "With renewables taking over as the primary power" nuclear was NEVER the primary power in germany, that was coal and renewable took over as the primary power source in 2018.
And you miss out that in the time we shut down those 17 reactors, the renewable got from 10% up to 50%, so we build nearly twice the amount of renewables we loose by shutting down the nuclear reactors, so we didn't substitute it with coal plants like you imply in the video, but also reduced the amount of coal plants used at the same time.
Since when did renewable power take over germany? Since when is russian gas renewable? Since when can solar panels and wind turbines power the whole grid of germany?
Where is all the electricity going to come from? Given current gas prices and the meagre advance in eolian and photovoltaic power plants, it's either coal from the Rhineland, either inports of electricity from France/Belgium/Netherlands/wherever it is possible to obtain it from.
Germany is heavily dependent on Russian gas due to their closing their NPPs. This is one of the biggest reasons Europe hasn't been able to put an import embargo in place for Russian gas yet. Because if they do, Germany will be up sh!t creek without a peddle in a hurry and they know it. It was utter folly to shut their NPPs without having a proper replacement in place. Most certainly with current world event in mind.
That's what you get when you let public opinion dictate decisions that should be taken by scientists and specialists...
Germany should start those reactors back up.
The fukushima nuclear accident of 2011 was the turning point!
Now build them back up Germany
People don’t realize that we still have no way to deal with nuclear waste and Germany is densly populated. Most nuclear power plants in Germany have reached the end of their live circle anyways. Also, nuclear power isn‘t cheap, the government has to give massive support to have these power plants built. If Germany had invested as much money in renewable energy sources as in nuclear power, they would be less dependent on fossil fuels. Besides, only 17% of the energy came from nuclear power plants when all were running.
Except we have a way?
@@Gigachad-mc5qz Which is? I‘d really love to hear your solution to process nuclear waste because last time I checked a great deal of Germany‘s nuclear waste was rotting somewhere in Siberia..
@@sandyberger-r9j btw since youre so pro fossil fuels since you hate nuclear: coal production causes heavy metal pollution and if you didnt know heavy Metal can NOT decay so it stays toxic forever and you drink that shit. Also the snoke causes cancer and other respiratory issues. Id rather have waste underground than ash in my lungs. Same goes for water solar and wind. Waterpower creates shit ton of carbon, solar panels create heavy netal pollution and windmill blades dont decompose and are buried in landfills. They are like plastic and cant even be reused
@@Gigachad-mc5qz What on earth makes you think I am pro fossil fuels? I am all for renewable energy sources! I am a big fan of solar power since I got my first pocket calculator without a battery. That was centuries ago and it worked about 30 years. I even support my country’s „green party“ and help when there is an election coming up, so don’t judge me wrong.
By the way, the nuclear accident at Tschernobyl over 30 years ago has lasting effects in my part of the country. We are still advised to eat mushrooms from the forest sparingly and not too much meat from boars or deer because it’s still contaminated.
“11% of Germanys energy production”
No, of its *electrical* production, on its way to zero. German nuclear produces only 2% of total energy, all kinds, ie inc heat, transpo, etc. Solar and wind generation is also in the single digit share.
Sounds like Germany needs Tesla to build 3 MW grid batteries throughout their country to balance all their intermittent renewably powered electricity from wind and solar pv facilities.
@@fransva1 Let's say a 3 MW megapack grid battery can power 1,000 homes. Then when it is sunny it can be recharged with solar pv electricity and same for wind generated electricity. These grid batteries save the excess electricity from being wasted and discharged when the grid is full. My first step is super high insulation.
Germany thought it would continue to get cheap energy from Russia...guess what!
Somebody highlighted this and I want to point it out again. Their shutting them down not dismantling them, which means Germany is at least considering the essential nature of nuclear as we try move from all the toxic alternatives
we are talking about 17 npps, we are alting about a fiew coal driven plants.... in the mean while there are more than a thousands coal - and stone coal plants in develpoment on the lagrest continet planed: africe....
Luckily All of europe does the opposite. Building New nuclear energy at a rapid pace to secure the climate, delivered effect all times of the year and a cheaper price tag for the customer. Germany is moving towards sn economic collapse within 5 -7 years
Why don’t they keep the plants open and under full load doing things like desalination to produce fresh drinking water and recharge underground aquifers and produce hydrogen for the future of transportation? They can use renewables for swings/surges/changes in demand to the energy grid, as they could be switched on and off significantly faster than nuclear power plants. In this way, it creates a full cycle for energy and places Germany at the forefront of Hydrogen fuel technology, because batteries don’t have the energy density and take a long time to charge off a dedicated fast-charging grid and the mining and refining of rare earth metals like Cobalt, lithium, tantalum, nickel and magnesium, is horrifically damaging to the environment.
Hydrogen isn't a practical option either, that's why it's not being done widespread on a utility scale.
Holy shit, how much did you pay for your modded Kermit the frog voice box?
Germany not so smart this time
Very great video! I appreciate that you don't drag videos out and include very valuable information!
Bravo! Plurple earns a ❤️. 🤣
@@koanbonwa so do I
Except he forgot to mention that the phase out of nuclear now means more dependency on Putin, increased coal plant activity, less electrical powergrid reliability and increased energy prices.
@@AudunDragland Why mention something that is extremely obvious? It’s extremely clear that phasing out nuclear energy is idiotic, and only results in more reliance on oppressive regimes.
Germany has proved that fear is the mind killer.
While the rest of the world proofs that people are bad in assessing risks. Which is underlined by psychology research.
dont forget to get a refund back 400 billion of your german money, awarded by international tribunal illegally, acts of judges that are illegal, shouldn't be seen as anything but criminal, in a sane world, this is about the plant that was faulty and germany shut down to protect germany, but international court found in favour of the criminals running the faulty plant awarded your money. this is your momey they stole. and a judge saying he intends to steal. doesn't make stealing any different. it's still stealing. and when stolen from, you do deserve to write a note, for future reference of what you are owed. ( just like in other examples, debts or thefts, all get paid, either by the judge himself, or by the country he is from. there is no such thing as forgetting stealing. the UK had to pay their stealing last year to arabia, several million, 30 million. take a note of who owes you who steals, which international court has stolen. it will be useful card to play later down the line to ask to be un-stolen, when times are more lawful again.)
So they end up in porting a load of nuclear generated power over the interconnector from France and make up the rest by generating with inported Russian gas.
If war ever broke out, they don’t have to worry about nuclear facilities getting hit. No need for nuclear bombs when you could hit a nuclear facility.
Considering the issue with Russia this is an even dumber idea. If there are any left they should stop and reactivate them
Nice video! Also, wouldn't it cost Germany a ton of money to take down these power plants, also wouldn't it be dangerous?
the waste disposal cost the tax payer much more, than the dismantling. also.....all shut down NPPs were already exceeding their lifetime. only the 3 remaining could operate 5 years longer.
the topic of waste disposal is a very very hot one. this "nuclear deal" was the biggest mistake of the former governments. nuclear power is only "cheap" because the tax payers have to pay for the disposal, not the power companies running the NPPs. would you add these cost on the power price, nuclear is by far the most expensive! so it directly funded by the state and its citizens.
@@IceyJones isn't it Germany problem alone? I mean other countries like the U.S. and France do not have much problem with waste disposal. I believe in U.S. we pay around 6 billions in total per year for nuclear waste that is something but it is just a fraction of the value of the nuclear plants.
@@super_hero2 no its not really only a germany problem. there is still no final storage facility on the globe! only finland will have one in the next years by the looks of it. the US is just hiding the problem, by storing all high grade nuclear waste at the NPPs where its produced, and the storages are so full already, that nobody knows where to put all that. france does the same. putting the carpet of ignorance over it....
but in my opinion the waste topic is not even the most critical one......its just the overall cost of nuclear power.
its just not feasable in the long run, while we have cheaper options that are even cleaner and without waste
@@super_hero2 other countries have no problems because they don’t tackle them. There is only one facility world wide where waste could be stored. In Germany we tried one place and it did not work out and the impact to the environment is unknown but likely big.
@@IceyJones There are cheaper options but they are not there yet. It takes time to build them and shutting down nuclear plants while Germany is in need of them is madness. I am all for renewable energy but it has to be ready before you shut other energy sources down.
Nuclear power is a reasonable way to make power..
Safe nuclear plant design with a safe way to store the waste can be achieved..
But recent accidents and below par waste storage has put a big stigma on this type of power generation...
I can only laugh with disbelief for the ignorance and absolutely laughable level of knowledge, basically inexistent. And no, so called "renewable energy" will never be able to quench current thirst for power. GG germany for actually regressing.
One of Germany’s worst non war related decisions in history. Now you are at the mercy of Russia oil that they have officially cut.
It is very unlikely that we will have no issue with that technology over the next several thousand years. And one issue is enough to make the small environmental impact so huge that the environment is not able to support human life any longer. A smal risk with huge impact over a long period of time is a big risk.
There is exactly 0 scenario in which a nuclear plant makes Earth unsuited for human life. You're safe :)
@@felix4833 You mean none you can think of?
@@HansTheGeek Be free to educate me
@@felix4833 What would happen if a rocket blows up a reactor in Ukraine and makes the land unusable for farming? Or what if the wind had been blown in the direction of Tokyo on the day Fukushima blowed up? If you feel safe with hat scenarios in mind you must be very naïve.
So you described a scenario in which a few square kilometers of land becomes unhabitable for a few years. Basically the same result as a large open air mining exploitation.
In the second scenario, people may receive radiation equivalent to a long haul flight.
In both cases, it would not make Earth unsuited for human life.
You may keep trying to come up with such scenario.
Why has Putin built more and more nuclear power plants in Russia when they have all the oil and gas in the world ? Could it be because the less oil and gas Russia uses thr more it can export, and the more it exports the more power and dependency it creates
I'm German and self-critically I have to say the title of the video is quickly answered. Because Germans are ideological and naive. The policy on energy is just upsetting.
Young generation is spoiled af, were too rich for while
ya its dangerous ideology policy which costs too much for the poor and middle class. meanwhile richkids from fridays for future and shit say nuclear power plants are no gos. well they get money from rich papi and rich mami. they NEVER worked or have any significant qualification but wanna teach others how shit works lol stupid richkids ruin everyone elses life.
I would have loved to see some actual statisticks from the poles about the nuclear energy at the times they decided to close those plants.
And u buy nuclear power from France to replace par of energy needs how did dat fix things?
Incredible vid 👏
-Walmart Employee yddet
They know something that we don't,they're not foolish
FYI more people have died from windmills than nuclear energy per TWh
In 2:45, West and East Germany unified to form the Federal Republic of Germany, not the German Democratic Republic (which actually is East Germany)
It's called "The great reset".
closing nuclear power plant, while still running coal power plants..... great hypocrisy while importing gas from Russia, and if you remember Gerhard Shroder and his involvement in Gazprom even when he was chancellor
This video misses another critical point in Germanys decission making. Between Chernobyl and Fukushima also 9/11 happened. And with it came a complete check-up of Germanys nuclear power plants, regarding safety against terrorist attacks, like kamikazee-piloting a plane into one of them. They failed this test and all of them were judged as being vulnerable for this threat.
Have fun staying cold
Bavarians were opposing the idea of end-storage so hard, that the waste had nowhere to go. So how should Germany keep running the plants without any place to store the waste. Simple as that.
The thing is solar energy is not very efficient there due to weaker sunlight so it will be quite a challenge to make it work on such a scale for them, and the wind is unreliable. So they will have to build about 3X more panels for the same results than in Africa. So you would need a lot of those panels, but maybe they can make it work despite that idk we will see.
This aged well.
Germany should close the Coal plants first !
2038 🤦♂️
I really don't understand why there is so much public backslash against nuclear power
Germany wants nothing to do with renewable energy what are you talking about
Since februayr it went out that they were completely wrong. And what makes it out if The Netherlands, France, UK, Belgium, Finland,... are still using nuclear energy. Merkel and Schroder has a big responsibility in the Ukraine war.
Can you please do a video explaining solar energy?
nuclear is dirty and dangerous: nuclear waste needs to be shut away for 1 million years - even IF it can be recycled in the future, it's still 500 years dirty and dangerous.
nuclear is expensive: you have to spend more money per kilowatt hour than most other energy sources. The german Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft calculated that it's 5 times aß expensive as renewable energy.
@@madhurikulkarni9541
hello, my empty profile shows you that i'm only on UA-cam to comment. And i always discuss in favour of bollion bollar industries.
Get a job with some dignity please.
My Answer: it's because we are dumb... Finish.
Look like a huge mistake. They need to re assess the pros and cons.
Why is this video adding to public fear of nuclear power? Only at the very end you claim that ‘critics’ are opposed to this, who are these ‘critics’? Since the 1960s (about 60 years) there’s only been 3 notable accidents with nuclear power, Three mile island showed how well we can contain accidents as there were 0 deaths, Fukushima was a rare natural disaster, and Chernobyl was an example of old inefficient Soviet technology and overworked staff. Even if you take all of nuclear accident death toll into count, it has killed significantly less people than coal power and doesn’t produce a large amount of E-waste like solar panels. Eventually nuclear energy even pays for itself, as it is cheaper in the long run compared to alternative energy options. Fearing an extremely efficient source of energy is our downfall as a species and this video does a pisspoor job at representing how braindead Germany is on decommissioning reactors and opting for Russian energy to cope with their horribly bullshit plan.
There have been many more noteable accidents but let’s assume 3 and on all we got lucky. So 0,05 per year. Multiply by, let’s say 1000 years for the waste to become a bit less worrying, and we have 47 more where we have to have good luck.
@@HansTheGeek No one in world history has ever been harmed by stored 'nuclear waste'.
I wonder if Russia had a hand in steering towards the shutting of German nuclear!
What a waste of German engineering
Well, its quite simple honestly, stupidity and arrogance...
Thats fine but they went with the green deal and it not working so they opened up al there coal plants back up . So there green deal does not get enough energy from what they where told. So they burni g more coal now than a few yeaes ago .
Because they're insane.
This video and Germany's decision looks so wrong now .
We must find other ways of generating Power and stop using nuclear fission. One accident is one too many. There Will always be accidents wheter by Human fault or environmental extreme conditions which Will make them GO bust spreading their poison everywhere. IT really is not a worthy risk.
Go woke go broke
SMR,s would be more reliable. And cost effective.
Informative, perfect thx.
Very short sighted.
Power plants as a target by russia only adds to the paranoia
Because we are stupid.
**Laughs** in Russian
Cos of cheep gas from Russia 😅
@HansTheGeek You go on about your children's children's net zero and reliable energy is more important steel cement bricks glass Fertiliser are very energy dependent. Wind mills and solar are not up to the job.
How are you helping your children's children the world is going into poverty they will have no money and no food to live. How can you not see the house on fire.
should listen to certain orange man germany
Renewables wont.
this was a cool video
Too bad they couldn’t suspend the solar panels somehow in mid air to avoid using the square footage or Miles on the terrain or what about atmospheric solar panels like solar satellites just above the atmostphere we would just have to figure out how to transfer the power back lol 😂 hey you have to think outside The box, or long extension cords just dangling from the heavens or one extra large cord hanging like jack and the bean stock 😂
✌️❤️🙏💪
Stupid mistake.
Because Merkel wanted to increase German dependence on Russia