You’re right about climate change. But for Germany, nuclear power is not the awnser.
We don’t have a safe, final place to store the waste.
We would again be dependend on other countrys, to import uranium.
All nuclear power plants are offline and would take a lot of money to modernise / reopen them. To have a significant impact over all we would also need to build more. All of this will easily take more than 10 years.
For us, it is way more cost efficient, faster and safer to invest in solar, wind and battery’s.
I live in Germany. I don’t understand the “no space” argument. Just buy a 1km x 1km farm plot in Bayern at one of the known stable rock locations and dig down. The space is there. The footprint is small. Look at the Onkalo site. The above ground footprint is even smaller.
This being said I think long term storage should be a EU level agenda modeled after the Finnish Onkalo model with shared locations.
Germany is already dependent on importing energy sources. So importing uranium ore from Canada is no different. Except we would import from an ally. Even solar which I support requires imports. Wind less so but even then our wind turbines are only partially domestic.
As far as reopening closed plants yah. You are right. I don’t think that is easy to reopen them after such neglect. The short term answer is to buy low CO2 power from France while Germany continues its renewable path. Aka nuclear base energy by proxy.
Also german here, neighbour to the proud bavarians. Haha „just buy“ and open a site in the kingdom of Markus and the CSU? There may be a Endlager in Germany, but never in Bavaria.
You can not just dig down anywhere. You need the right kind of rock and in a formation large enough that you can dig down and be sure, that no water can ever touch the nuclear waste and transport the nuclear material to the surface. That geology is pretty rarer.
This is true and why I think it should be a EU sponsored agenda. This being said a small plot with the right type of rock/location is not so rare it can not be found in all of the EU. We know this for a fact.
I suspect such a site could also be found in Germany. I mentioned Bayern just because there has been a large study done already that found several durable candidates.
I’m afraid it is rather the opposite. Sometimes Germany exports electricity to France, but most of the time it is the contrary.
“ France has been an exporter on all its borders: a very strong exporter on the borders with Germany and Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and Great Britain”
It’s a back and forth, yes. Though quite often the cause for France needing an urgent power injection is issues with their nuclear powerplants. With ever hotter and drier summers leaving powerplants with little to no water as coolant and the aging buildings requiring more and more maintenance.
I can’t find the article right now but sometime late last year Germany had its yearly “Dunkelflaute” scare (Dunkelflaute refers to a time when neither sun is shining nor wind blowing for renewables) and it turned out during this exact timeframe we even exported to France because of troubles with their reactors.
In 2025 France exported 31TWh to Germany and Belgium and imported 4TWh.
I would say the issue with nuclear is that it cannot follow load changes quickly and therefore needs other sources to compensate peaks.
There has been a time a few years ago with maintenance issues you are right. However right now it is available at 85% which is a high score. In comparison today, a cloudy day, only 14-20% of solar and wind renewables are producing power.
Yes, nuclear reactors can’t do load balancing. However they can neither meet basic demand when they have to be stopped because of a lack of coolant or for repairs.
The ideal solution would be a EU wide low CO2 approach. All countries will experience issues. All countries should have low CO2 base and peak power solutions that can be exchanged in such times.
It’s not about the space it takes to store the waste. It needs to be stored safely for one million years for the radiation levels to be safe again. This timeframe is also required by law. It is very unlikely, that we will ever finds such place in Germany.
Using another countrys storage will most likely come at an even higher price, because they want to make a profit on it on top.
Just buy a 1km x 1km farm plot in Bayern at one of the known stable rock locations and dig down.
See argument above. And: I live in Bavaria. And no thanks, even if it would be possible to store it here, we don’t want it. I guess no one wants a nuclear waste facility anywhere near his home and I fully understand it. That’s another kinda unsolvable problem.
Germany is already dependent on importing energy sources.
Yeah, but just because things are going that way right now doesn’t mean they always have to. Quite the contrary. The Russian war clearly showed us that dependencies like these should be completely reduced as fast as possible. Why be dependent on someone, if you don’t have to.
Even solar which I support requires imports. Wind less so but even then our wind turbines are only partially domestic.
Yes, some raw materials and some parts I would guess. This is the same with nuclear. But the difference starts by operating them. We don’t need a “fuel” for solar panals or wind turbines to work.
We have known good locations in Germany that could be used. I only mention that location because a good amount of the sites are there. This all being said an EU policy based approach would be better than just Germany.
This is the study that shows the good locations in Germany.
Thanks for the study. But this does not support your claim. This is just their interim report which only includes sub-areas and not final locations. They will propose five to ten regions by the end of 2027, which will then be analyzed in more detail and only then a final recommendation is given. These are simply the best regions, not necessarily those that perfectly meet all criteria. And as you can see in the report none of the listed sub-areas meet all criteria. This means that the recommendation is very likely a compromise. With nuclear waste. Just great!
Also take a look at this section:
Section 23 para. 5 no. 5 StandAG, preservation of the barrier effect:
There must not be any available findings or data that cast doubt on the integrity of the
effective containment zone, in particular on compliance with the geoscientific minimum
requirements for hydraulic conductivity of the rock, thickness and expanse of the effec-
tive containment zone over a period of one million years.
Where there is clear evidence or data that the preservation of the barrier effect
appears doubtful, the minimum requirement was considered not to have been
satisfied. This minimum requirement is considered satisfied in all other cases,
until such time as relevant data becomes available.
This references criterion 5. So every time you see “green” indicators, its possible that we don’t have any data on this.
So no, sorry. We don’t have a safe storage location right now. We just have ones, that are better than others. So adding even more waste? No thanks.
Fun fact: No European country has a final waste site at the moment, except Finland. What if no one is able to build one? Should we send everything to Finland? I don’t think their criteria included this space requirement. But it won’t even come to that, as they most likely simply have no desire to deal with the nuclear waste of all of Europe.
But that section clearly supports my claim? All that section says is that there must not be anything that casts doubt on the integrity of the containment zone.
Given that logically you can’t logically prove a negative this seems like the strongest sound phrasing of the validity.
Section 23 para. 5 no. 5 StandAG, preservation of the barrier effect:
There must not be any available findings or data that cast doubt on the integrity of the effective containment zone, in particular on compliance with the geoscientific minimum requirements for hydraulic conductivity of the rock, thickness and expanse of the effec- tive containment zone over a period of one million years.
Where there is clear evidence or data that the preservation of the barrier effect appears doubtful, the minimum requirement was considered not to have been satisfied. This minimum requirement is considered satisfied in all other cases, until such time as relevant data becomes available.
Again this supports my claim:
There must not be any available findings or data that cast doubt on the integrity of the effective containment zone
You can’t prove a negative thus the strongest approach that could be taken is:
Where there is clear evidence or data that the preservation of the barrier effect appears doubtful, the minimum requirement was considered notto have been satisfied. This minimum requirement is considered satisfied in all other cases, until such time as relevant data becomes available.
As for storing everything in Finland. Yes I believe an EU led agenda to store everything in an EU funded, supported and expanded Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository would be the best outcome. The second best would be storage at the nation state level.
This all might be politically difficult but outside of that it is doable.
I do not think all European countries should have a long term storage plan. I think an EU lead central approach would be better.
You’re right about climate change. But for Germany, nuclear power is not the awnser.
For us, it is way more cost efficient, faster and safer to invest in solar, wind and battery’s.
I live in Germany. I don’t understand the “no space” argument. Just buy a 1km x 1km farm plot in Bayern at one of the known stable rock locations and dig down. The space is there. The footprint is small. Look at the Onkalo site. The above ground footprint is even smaller.
This being said I think long term storage should be a EU level agenda modeled after the Finnish Onkalo model with shared locations.
Germany is already dependent on importing energy sources. So importing uranium ore from Canada is no different. Except we would import from an ally. Even solar which I support requires imports. Wind less so but even then our wind turbines are only partially domestic.
As far as reopening closed plants yah. You are right. I don’t think that is easy to reopen them after such neglect. The short term answer is to buy low CO2 power from France while Germany continues its renewable path. Aka nuclear base energy by proxy.
Also german here, neighbour to the proud bavarians. Haha „just buy“ and open a site in the kingdom of Markus and the CSU? There may be a Endlager in Germany, but never in Bavaria.
lol. Politically it may be difficult but technically should be easier. I only mentioned Bavaria because several of the known stable sites are there.
https://www.bge.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Standortsuche/Wesentliche_Unterlagen/Zwischenbericht_Teilgebiete/Zwischenbericht_Teilgebiete_-_Englische_Fassung_barrierefrei.pdf
Unfortunately the decisions here are not made rationally
You can not just dig down anywhere. You need the right kind of rock and in a formation large enough that you can dig down and be sure, that no water can ever touch the nuclear waste and transport the nuclear material to the surface. That geology is pretty rarer.
This is true and why I think it should be a EU sponsored agenda. This being said a small plot with the right type of rock/location is not so rare it can not be found in all of the EU. We know this for a fact.
I suspect such a site could also be found in Germany. I mentioned Bayern just because there has been a large study done already that found several durable candidates.
https://www.bge.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Standortsuche/Wesentliche_Unterlagen/Zwischenbericht_Teilgebiete/Zwischenbericht_Teilgebiete_-_Englische_Fassung_barrierefrei.pdf
The same France that constantly buys electricity from Germany because of constant issues with their nuclear powerplants?
I’m afraid it is rather the opposite. Sometimes Germany exports electricity to France, but most of the time it is the contrary.
“ France has been an exporter on all its borders: a very strong exporter on the borders with Germany and Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and Great Britain”
https://analysesetdonnees.rte-france.com/bilan-electrique-2024/echanges#Detailparfrontiere
It’s a back and forth, yes. Though quite often the cause for France needing an urgent power injection is issues with their nuclear powerplants. With ever hotter and drier summers leaving powerplants with little to no water as coolant and the aging buildings requiring more and more maintenance.
I can’t find the article right now but sometime late last year Germany had its yearly “Dunkelflaute” scare (Dunkelflaute refers to a time when neither sun is shining nor wind blowing for renewables) and it turned out during this exact timeframe we even exported to France because of troubles with their reactors.
In 2025 France exported 31TWh to Germany and Belgium and imported 4TWh. I would say the issue with nuclear is that it cannot follow load changes quickly and therefore needs other sources to compensate peaks. There has been a time a few years ago with maintenance issues you are right. However right now it is available at 85% which is a high score. In comparison today, a cloudy day, only 14-20% of solar and wind renewables are producing power.
Availability values here: https://analysesetdonnees.rte-france.com/en/generation/generation-availability
Yes, nuclear reactors can’t do load balancing. However they can neither meet basic demand when they have to be stopped because of a lack of coolant or for repairs.
The ideal solution would be a EU wide low CO2 approach. All countries will experience issues. All countries should have low CO2 base and peak power solutions that can be exchanged in such times.
It’s not about the space it takes to store the waste. It needs to be stored safely for one million years for the radiation levels to be safe again. This timeframe is also required by law. It is very unlikely, that we will ever finds such place in Germany.
Using another countrys storage will most likely come at an even higher price, because they want to make a profit on it on top.
See argument above. And: I live in Bavaria. And no thanks, even if it would be possible to store it here, we don’t want it. I guess no one wants a nuclear waste facility anywhere near his home and I fully understand it. That’s another kinda unsolvable problem.
Yeah, but just because things are going that way right now doesn’t mean they always have to. Quite the contrary. The Russian war clearly showed us that dependencies like these should be completely reduced as fast as possible. Why be dependent on someone, if you don’t have to.
Yes, some raw materials and some parts I would guess. This is the same with nuclear. But the difference starts by operating them. We don’t need a “fuel” for solar panals or wind turbines to work.
We have known good locations in Germany that could be used. I only mention that location because a good amount of the sites are there. This all being said an EU policy based approach would be better than just Germany.
This is the study that shows the good locations in Germany.
https://www.bge.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Standortsuche/Wesentliche_Unterlagen/Zwischenbericht_Teilgebiete/Zwischenbericht_Teilgebiete_-_Englische_Fassung_barrierefrei.pdf
Thanks for the study. But this does not support your claim. This is just their interim report which only includes sub-areas and not final locations. They will propose five to ten regions by the end of 2027, which will then be analyzed in more detail and only then a final recommendation is given. These are simply the best regions, not necessarily those that perfectly meet all criteria. And as you can see in the report none of the listed sub-areas meet all criteria. This means that the recommendation is very likely a compromise. With nuclear waste. Just great! Also take a look at this section:
This references criterion 5. So every time you see “green” indicators, its possible that we don’t have any data on this.
So no, sorry. We don’t have a safe storage location right now. We just have ones, that are better than others. So adding even more waste? No thanks.
Fun fact: No European country has a final waste site at the moment, except Finland. What if no one is able to build one? Should we send everything to Finland? I don’t think their criteria included this space requirement. But it won’t even come to that, as they most likely simply have no desire to deal with the nuclear waste of all of Europe.
But that section clearly supports my claim? All that section says is that there must not be anything that casts doubt on the integrity of the containment zone.
Given that logically you can’t logically prove a negative this seems like the strongest sound phrasing of the validity.
Again this supports my claim:
There must not be any available findings or data that cast doubt on the integrity of the effective containment zoneYou can’t prove a negative thus the strongest approach that could be taken is:
Where there is clear evidence or data that the preservation of the barrier effect appears doubtful, the minimum requirement was considered not to have been satisfied. This minimum requirement is considered satisfied in all other cases, until such time as relevant data becomes available.As for storing everything in Finland. Yes I believe an EU led agenda to store everything in an EU funded, supported and expanded Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository would be the best outcome. The second best would be storage at the nation state level.
This all might be politically difficult but outside of that it is doable.
I do not think all European countries should have a long term storage plan. I think an EU lead central approach would be better.