Yes. Originally, the social-democrat/green government of 1998-2005 planned to shut down all nuke plants until 2020 or so, but the conservative/liberal democrats government that took over in 2009 stopped that, mostly against the will of the public. After Fukushima, there was such a huge backslash that our dear chancellor decided it might help her popularity more if she changed her mind.
And while tsunamis are rather rare in Stuttgart, the upper rhine rift is an active earthquake zone, and since we unfortunately are not allowed to just sell the waste to Russia to dump in Siberia, we also have to dispose of it somewhere in Germany. If you look at a population-density map, you will find few places with few enough people to accept highly radioactive nuclear waste.
You are right, however, that it is economically somewhat senseless to shut down the nuke plants basically shortly after the subsidies/initial costs paid off, but, well.
Yes, but it has to be permanently stored within Germany (if it comes from a German plant), i.e. is sent back here after reprocessing. Furthermore, you cannot reprocess this stuff indefinitely, so you’ll have to store it eventually.
Really, just dumping it in a large area somewhere in Siberia with a sufficiently scary fence around it and generous compensation for the few people who have to relocate for it would be the best solution.
>You are right, however, that it is economically somewhat senseless to shut down the nuke plants basically shortly after the subsidies/initial costs paid off, but, well.
How is it more senseless than shutting them down any other time before the end of their useful life? Sunk costs are sunk.
You answer your own question. The amount of useful life they have left that goes unused is an opportunity cost. The earlier they are shut-down the larger that cost (which necessarily must be taken up in providing power through some other means).
Sunk costs are sunk, yes, but at the moment they provide cheaper energy than during most of their previous lifetime. Or put another way, the earlier you shut down a plant, the more you pay per kilowatt-hour generated.
Comments
> Was there a public outcry after Fukushima?
Yes. Originally, the social-democrat/green government of 1998-2005 planned to shut down all nuke plants until 2020 or so, but the conservative/liberal democrats government that took over in 2009 stopped that, mostly against the will of the public. After Fukushima, there was such a huge backslash that our dear chancellor decided it might help her popularity more if she changed her mind.
And while tsunamis are rather rare in Stuttgart, the upper rhine rift is an active earthquake zone, and since we unfortunately are not allowed to just sell the waste to Russia to dump in Siberia, we also have to dispose of it somewhere in Germany. If you look at a population-density map, you will find few places with few enough people to accept highly radioactive nuclear waste.
You are right, however, that it is economically somewhat senseless to shut down the nuke plants basically shortly after the subsidies/initial costs paid off, but, well.
> and since we unfortunately are not allowed to just sell the waste to Russia to dump in Siberia, we also have to dispose of it somewhere in Germany.
Isn't it actually sent to France for reprocessing ? (La Hague factory).
At least part of it is.
Yes, but it has to be permanently stored within Germany (if it comes from a German plant), i.e. is sent back here after reprocessing. Furthermore, you cannot reprocess this stuff indefinitely, so you’ll have to store it eventually.
Really, just dumping it in a large area somewhere in Siberia with a sufficiently scary fence around it and generous compensation for the few people who have to relocate for it would be the best solution.
>You are right, however, that it is economically somewhat senseless to shut down the nuke plants basically shortly after the subsidies/initial costs paid off, but, well.
How is it more senseless than shutting them down any other time before the end of their useful life? Sunk costs are sunk.
You answer your own question. The amount of useful life they have left that goes unused is an opportunity cost. The earlier they are shut-down the larger that cost (which necessarily must be taken up in providing power through some other means).
Sunk costs are sunk, yes, but at the moment they provide cheaper energy than during most of their previous lifetime. Or put another way, the earlier you shut down a plant, the more you pay per kilowatt-hour generated.