This proves once again that politics plays a big role everywhere. Electric vehicles and nuclear power are great for humanity and now there is push back because Musk supports it.
Just as an FYI: The interview was conducted with Axel Springer, which owns BILD, Germany's biggest daily newspaper, comparable to the Daily Mail in the lack of quality and journalistic integrity. BILD is trying hard to push against any "liberal" or "left-leaning" party, especially with the upcoming elections. The German far-right AFD party also just met with Musk and has been indorsed by him.
Ok, but shutting down nuclear plants and becoming even more dependent on Russian oil is insane. If there’s anyone id trust to run nuclear plants safely it’s the Germans.
Germany has very quickly changed their import sources, for example by building LNG terminals, and isn't reliant on Russian imports anymore. This doesn't change the idiotic decision of the past to make oneself so reliable on Russia, but still.
The problem with nuclear is threefold: expensive, slow, blocking. In comparison to other energy sources it is expensive (build + produce) and takes a long time to build. These to factors make it a bad solution if one wants to solve current problems, thus investments in nuclear are potentially blocking better solutions right now. Small Modular Reactor etc. may be a solution to these issues, but right now new nuclear is not viable for the short term.
That however doesn't answer why they were shutdown in the first place: After Fukushima Germany decided (+10 years ago) to shut down all reactors. The plan was to invest heavily in renewables and thus create a fluent transition. The latter part didn't happen because Germans like to plan but don't like to spend. However, the plant owners still planned for the decommission. Ironically this of course coincided with the economic fallout from Russia's invasion in Ukraine. The plants were kept online a bit longer (which was extremely expensive) just in case, but it turned out to not be necessary.
On the plus side: In the last few years investments in renewables and energy infrastructure are ramping up massively. Should have happened earlier, but it's the right direction for now.
Tl;dr: It was planned for renewables to replace nuclear over time, but that didn't happen. Building new is too expensive. Keeping them online now it to expensive. Renewables are ramping up now, so this shouldn't be an issue in a few years. Still, the execution was dumb.
Nuclear power plants have a design life. The flux from the reactor causes
permanent damage to the surrounding structures. Think of putting a bullet
through a wall of your house once a day. Do you still think it will be safe
after 40 years? MIT has a free course on nuclear reactors and they mention
this damage as a lifetime limiting factor.
Per se it's not interesting to hear the bombastic or charged exclamations from any one person. Musk, for example, has neither control or accountability in Germany... so musk's words are just more flotsom in the media sphere.
It interesting to hear what is to be impacted and how and why nuclear can help.
musk offers on a voluntary base competitive products/solutions that help with the climate issues, leftist cant offer solutions that appeal to the republican base, only compulsory "selfsacrifices"
This proves once again that politics plays a big role everywhere. Electric vehicles and nuclear power are great for humanity and now there is push back because Musk supports it.
> and now there is push back because Musk supports it.
Musk is absolutely no factor in this.
Just as an FYI: The interview was conducted with Axel Springer, which owns BILD, Germany's biggest daily newspaper, comparable to the Daily Mail in the lack of quality and journalistic integrity. BILD is trying hard to push against any "liberal" or "left-leaning" party, especially with the upcoming elections. The German far-right AFD party also just met with Musk and has been indorsed by him.
Ok, but shutting down nuclear plants and becoming even more dependent on Russian oil is insane. If there’s anyone id trust to run nuclear plants safely it’s the Germans.
Riddle me this: how did the Germans screw up their trains? I mean, that's kind of at the center of the trope of German competency.
Germany has very quickly changed their import sources, for example by building LNG terminals, and isn't reliant on Russian imports anymore. This doesn't change the idiotic decision of the past to make oneself so reliable on Russia, but still.
The problem with nuclear is threefold: expensive, slow, blocking. In comparison to other energy sources it is expensive (build + produce) and takes a long time to build. These to factors make it a bad solution if one wants to solve current problems, thus investments in nuclear are potentially blocking better solutions right now. Small Modular Reactor etc. may be a solution to these issues, but right now new nuclear is not viable for the short term.
That however doesn't answer why they were shutdown in the first place: After Fukushima Germany decided (+10 years ago) to shut down all reactors. The plan was to invest heavily in renewables and thus create a fluent transition. The latter part didn't happen because Germans like to plan but don't like to spend. However, the plant owners still planned for the decommission. Ironically this of course coincided with the economic fallout from Russia's invasion in Ukraine. The plants were kept online a bit longer (which was extremely expensive) just in case, but it turned out to not be necessary.
On the plus side: In the last few years investments in renewables and energy infrastructure are ramping up massively. Should have happened earlier, but it's the right direction for now.
Tl;dr: It was planned for renewables to replace nuclear over time, but that didn't happen. Building new is too expensive. Keeping them online now it to expensive. Renewables are ramping up now, so this shouldn't be an issue in a few years. Still, the execution was dumb.
Nuclear power plants have a design life. The flux from the reactor causes permanent damage to the surrounding structures. Think of putting a bullet through a wall of your house once a day. Do you still think it will be safe after 40 years? MIT has a free course on nuclear reactors and they mention this damage as a lifetime limiting factor.
Per se it's not interesting to hear the bombastic or charged exclamations from any one person. Musk, for example, has neither control or accountability in Germany... so musk's words are just more flotsom in the media sphere.
It interesting to hear what is to be impacted and how and why nuclear can help.
I am looking forward to the reckoning between Musk’s belief that human caused climate change is real and the Republican line that it is a hoax.
Or even the more immediate question of whether EVs are a good thing...
But such reckoning requires rational thought, and Musk has demonstrated that he's happy to warp reality to his liking because he's Tony Stark.
musk offers on a voluntary base competitive products/solutions that help with the climate issues, leftist cant offer solutions that appeal to the republican base, only compulsory "selfsacrifices"
... says Elon Musk