Nuclear Power in Germany

[minionofmidas]

The Laufzeitverlängerung is fairly likely to be shot down by the Supreme Court anyways.

Everybody knows that the older plants like Biblis A and Neckarwestheim are expendable, and that RWE and (uh, whoever owns Neckarwestheim) used every trick in the book to keep them running until the law change "only" because it meant millions of free money - we would probably have seen their brandnew extra Reststrommengen, or at least a large part thereof, transferred away as soon as appeared semi-decent after all was dried & dusted, if the SC case is won.
Why give away millions of free taxpayer money to greedy dog clients who can never have enough if looks like it might cost votes - especially if the base policy behind it was never popular and you yourself are maybe less than entirely happy about it? Röttgen certainly would always have preferred not to extend those two's official life in the first place. (Isar I is almost as old, but has never been in the news much.)

[minionofmidas]

See? Only 39% of the population are complete idiots. Doing pretty good, then. (And I bet quite a lot of them are taking a line similar to jmf's. A crosstab between that one and one of the exit yes/no questions would be welcome.)

[minionofmidas]

In Germany it seems to be an issue on which everyone has a genuine opinion.

THat's an exaggeration.

Apart from that, broadly what Old Europe said.

[minionofmidas]

I really don't like it when people frame the issue in the light of Chernobyl alone (though what's happening in Japan right now makes is less silly-sounding than before)...

So, quick reality check for the American Nuclear Brigade. Tell me how old the newest American nuclear power plant is, and speculate on the reasons why. Thank you.

[minionofmidas]

Three Mile Island happened six years after the completion of the last reactor, so no, guess again.

[minionofmidas]

That's a minor part of it.
End of massive subsidies (as in, basically built by government and given away for free) is the main reason. No shareholder company would ever build one in a free market environment, the initial outlay is just too high. And dismantling a closed down one costs just as much... which is a minor part of the reason why all those ancient ones are still running (the major one is that keeping them running is a moneyspinner, of course. At least as long as uranium prices remain this low - ie, exactly as long as McCainish fantasies about building lots of new ones remain fantasies.)
Obviously, all energy sources are massively subsidized one way or another, but nuclear just about takes the cake. I'd need to check the American situation in detail, but I'd be surprised if nuclear waste disposal wasn't payed for by the taxpayer in America just as everywhere else.