Thread by @maurerchr

Especially as TSOs explain that all three plants would contribute to reducing adequacy concerns not only in Germany

https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/1566822069299462146

Stefan Kapferer, @50Hertzcom, says that availability of nuclear plants could help manage critical situations

Would save 2.4 TWh electricity production in gas-fired plants in Europe (i.e. roughly 5 TWh of natural gas)

Results can of TSO calculations be found here: bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/D…

#Habeck seems to blame (availability of) foreign generation capacities for potential problems (not sure if this is intended, but it sounds like this)

#Habeck: one cannot exclude that nukes could deliver contribution, therefore reserve operation for two nukes foreseen. Trade-off because of high risk of nuclear technology

#Habeck: We will watch how situation in France, river and reservoir levels and will decide then.
My Interpretation;: Hence, uncertainty about availability of nukes will remain, unclear how much time would be needed to reactivate them.

#Habeck: Reactivation might take a lead time of a week. #stresstest will provide hints when nukes could be needed

#Habeck: Open borders are a crucial element of the internal market.

(I liked that one, although there were some fuzzy remarks about asymmetric import-export balances causing problems for Germany afterwards)

What I'm wondering: TSOs argue that 3 nukes could prevent load shedding in DE in ++ scenario.
Will 2 nukes also be sufficient for that?
And I miss a detailed statement on the European adequacy effect of prolonged operation in the report/slidepack.

Asked why reserve operation only for two nukes, #Habeck talks about trade-offs. Emsland's contribution exists, but according to his opinion, is not worth keeping.

Kapferer, @50Hertzcom, confirms that TSOs had proposed to keep all three nukes but acknowledges that contribution of southern plants is higher. Claims this is a political decision.

#Habeck claims proposal of reserve operation for two nukes is balanced and clever.
Excludes possibility of re-fill with new fuel for nukes, would be "absurd"