gonna need that number converted to refrigerators

Shutting down perfectly good nuclear plants is silly, but we also need to recognize most nuclear plants are either nearing their original designed lifespan or have already surpassed it. We need to be building new plants, not just keeping ones from the 1970s going forever.

Do I get to select the exact 37?

Biggest world energy mistake over past 30 years has been not building more nuclear power plants. Coal especially and eventually gas should be replaced w nuclear.

Indeed. Modern designs are safer, too.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

> estimating that added global emissions from Germany’s nuclear phaseout alone will total 1100 Mt of CO2 by 2035

Did this study assume you could just keep on using a reactor designed for a 40 year life span until it was 55 to 65 years old?

What a silly idea!
Everybody knows that's ridiculous, just ask:
USA, 88 out of 96 plants are already ready for 60 years, Turkey Point, (from 1972 and 73!), are good for 80 years, Peach Bottom, 1974, 80 years, Surry 1972-73, 80 years, about twenty others are lining up.
or Finland, Hungary, Slovenia/Croatia, Japan, Canada, South Africa, Mexico (65 years), Argentina (34 years? Power upgrage and get 30 more!).

Also, Germany used to think they could do it too.

[removed]

It would have been smart to aggressively phase out coal and ramp up nuclear production 40 years ago. But wind and solar have matured to the point that building nuclear now is a waste of money.

lazard comparison of energy production costs

> Also, Germany used to think they could do it too.

Does that graphic show the "Laufzeitverlängerung", including shutdown and upgrade to increase the life span by a decade or two? I wonder what this paper includes. Does it just assume that you can keep on operating all plants, or does it take the Laufzeitverlängerung plan from early 2000s into account and calculate what that would have brought. In reality the phase out in Germany was decided in the 1980s by not building new plants. And in a way France has also decided to phase out or drastically reduce their nuclear share because they are not building or only very slowly building new plants.

This was my issue as well. I'm sure there are 37 rural countries that collectively have significantly less emissions than the city of Singapore or New York City. It feels like the data is being presented to garner sympathy for a specific point of view, it's sets off my "sus" alarm and I don't trust it..

Disagree. Diverse energy sources are needed — pursuing “all eggs in one basket” approach has numerous problems. What we definitely need are cost-effective non-carbon energy sources; renewables AND nuclear are the answer.

This is what happens when you put 16 yr old Swedish girl named Greta as head of the German energy ministry. I can tell ‘Olaf’ doesn’t want to do his job.

It all depends wether you prefer to trust investment bankers or climate scientists.

Also, wind and solar do not exist. It is always wind and solar and an equal dispatchable capacity, which is most often fossil-burning, carbon-spewing. A true comparison would include the cost of these double infrastructure and double-maintenance, as well as the costs of continuing emissions of carbon dioxide.

This oft-cited Lazard study completely ignores one fundamental characteristic of electric grids : production is strictly on-demand, zero-stock and zero-delay.

The original lifespan of an NPP is most often a matter of accounting : it's the time it takes to amortize the initial investment, including compound interests.

Of course, this is measured in decades. When the time comes, a major overhaul is most likely a good idea, which means new investments and a new multi-decade business plan. The bottom line, however, is that you get a brand-new NPP almost for free.

Centenarian NPPs will exist sometime this century.

E.g. : Beznau