Progress has been limited on Germany's shift from nuclear to renewables • Hacker News Board

Re: Progress has been limited on Germany's shift from nuclear to renewables

#91

Post by hef19898 » Tue, May 14, 2019, 7:39 PM UTC

sgift wrote: post #79

hef19898 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The initial pre-Fukushima plan to exit nuclear was solid. What ruined it was the blind actionism post-Fukushima. Also, despite all the fear mongering that renewables will collapse the grid it proofed to be pretty stable and robust. Even high energy industries like the chemical and processing industry adapted pretty well. Some even actively participate in the energy market now. And in case processes can be slowed down…

> The initial pre-Fukushima plan to exit nuclear was solid. What ruined it was the blind actionism post-Fukushima. I have a feeling even with the pre-Fukushima plan we would have the same situation now. The thing was that the CDU never committed themselves to the plan. And the energy industry always hoped that one day there will be a CDU-led government that just kills the plan. So, since the government didn't force t…

That's true. Maybe the sharp turn the CDU took after Fukushima took them by surprise. I had the impression that back then nobody had a plan or even vague idea if what they were doing. Besides getting voter support.

Re: Progress has been limited on Germany's shift from nuclear to renewables

#92

Post by sonnyblarney » Tue, May 14, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #62

jwr wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear plants do not "blow up". This is FUD, pure and simple. People are unreasonably scared of nuclear energy, and we might lose a planet because of this. For real data on how dangerous nuclear energy is, please look at https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

Well, there actually is some unreasonable view on nuclear. Especially in Germany. Doesn't change the fact that long term we should get rid of it. The storage of the waste is just to tricky and when not if something goes wrong we talk about serious damage. That we should IMHO get rid of coal earlier isn't exclusive, so.

Nuclear plants do not 'blow up' this is simply total distortion of reality.

There are ways to help solve the waste issues, and ways to make plants safer.

Given the near infinite latent power in nuclear, and the fact that it's Co2 free ... we should probably be considering this strongly and putting a lot of effort into researching it.

Re: Progress has been limited on Germany's shift from nuclear to renewables

#93

Post by adventured » Tue, May 14, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

EastLondonCoder wrote: post #82

hackeraccount wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that while you can spend a lot of money you can't spend infinite money. There's a finite pile of euros. Every euro you spend on something stupid is one less euro you can spend on something smart.

The only "currency" I know with a finite money supply is bitcoin. I may be misunderstanding you but there certainly isn't a fixed pile of Euro notes sitting in a vault under the European Central Bank. Money creation is essential to any macroeconomy, just look at the countries in Southern Europe. They have to deal with atrocious unemployment because they cant devalue. Germany and France certainly can. Sure runaway inf…

There's a strictly finite value base - assets, economic output, etc - to all fiat money supply. It's the underlying value, things priced and transacted in the fiat currency, that make it valuable. You can easily spook the confidence in fiat by doing stupid things to an economy.

Otherwise Venezuela would be the richest country in world history right about now, given their inflation rate.

It works identical to mathematical halving in concept. Yes you can keep going, and no you'll never reach zero. However every time you debase the currency to pay for something beyond your budget, you destroy some of the value underpinning it. You make the assets and transactions in that currency less valuable. You can infinitely subdivide the currency, and each time you do it, you destroy more of the value base. Eventually you're splitting pennies, so to speak. This is especially true in cases where you're printing to pay for something you can't afford (almost always the reason for such printing), so what you're really doing is eating the nation's asset base through the currency debasement.

Just ask Japan, they sliced more than 1/3 off their standard of living by debasing the Yen over the past decade. They had no choice due to their debt situation (they needed to stealth default), however it reduces the value of the assets that are held in Yen, making it easier to eg use dollars (or gold) to buy those assets (whether businesses or real-estate and so on).

So sure, in theory can you infinitely print currency. In practical application, you destroy the value of the things that underpin the currency and the whole scheme self-destructs given enough time and 'printing.' That puts a more realistic cap on actual potential money supply. The fact is, it inherently must be finite. Eventually your money is not worth anything, as you destroy the assets under it. As that happens, people stop accepting the worthless currency, it becomes too expensive to 'print' it and support it, and it becomes a self correcting system, in all cases and without exception.

Re: Progress has been limited on Germany's shift from nuclear to renewables

#94

Post by hef19898 » Tue, May 14, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #66

hef19898 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long term? Some kind of storage solution in combination with hydro power and, my preference, natural gas as it burns much cleaner than coal. Short to mid term? Same as above, only that storage will have to be replaced with something else. Since coal is clearly favoured by the system in Germany coal has to replaced by itself. Coal is just the worst alternative. Unfortunately nuclear is no option in Germany, until stor…

Natural gas is not a sustainable long-term solution. World emissions need to be brought to zero, in the next five years, in order for us to avoid a climate castrophe. If we are still positive at the five-year mark, that means zero at, say, the ten-year mark, and negative emissions for many decades. Natural gas has no place in this long-term.

Well, it has a place in the energy mix because modern gas power plants are incredibly fast to ramp up. So they are perfect to quickly stabilize the grid. As a base supplier not so much.

Re: Progress has been limited on Germany's shift from nuclear to renewables

#95

Post by hef19898 » Tue, May 14, 2019, 7:42 PM UTC

sgift wrote: post #68

hef19898 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe I remember from my masters that there are plans (underway? to be? already in place?) to actually connect the countries. Would be great if that worked out.

You probably think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORD.LINK ? Building is in progress.

Yep, that one!

Re: Progress has been limited on Germany's shift from nuclear to renewables

#96

Post by jwr » Tue, May 14, 2019, 7:44 PM UTC

anoncake wrote: post #77

jwr wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear plants do not "blow up". This is FUD, pure and simple. People are unreasonably scared of nuclear energy, and we might lose a planet because of this. For real data on how dangerous nuclear energy is, please look at https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

> Nuclear plants do not "blow up". The reactor of Chernobyl did blow up. Just not like a nuclear bomb, if that's what you meant. Which may be a bad thing, Hiroshima is actually inhabitable. >People are unreasonably scared of nuclear energy, and we might lose a planet because of this. People are quite reasonably scared of nuclear energy. What's unreasonable is that they are less scared of global warming. Your data is…

The reactor in Chernobyl was a soviet RBMK-type reactor. These haven't been built anywhere for many decades and I don't think even a single one was ever built anywhere in the West.

Nuclear plants do not "blow up".

Re: Progress has been limited on Germany's shift from nuclear to renewables

#97

Post by DoctorOetker » Tue, May 14, 2019, 7:49 PM UTC

YayamiOmate wrote: post #21

spython wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a radioactive cloud over most of Europe after Chernobyl. It is much harder politically to defend nuclear energy once you lived through that disaster.

Im not sure if it's so hard. There already exist a strong narrative that it wasn't so bad,and severe misconduct and negligence must happen for a big disaster. And that in absolute terms it wasn't so bad. I thinkits easy to politically argue for nukes. They are like planes, when they crash it's a big deal, still comparatively safest method. I am not a fan of mass producing waste that renders some area or space inhabit…

I am really curious about tidal energy projects, since in principle the cost for the wall is linearly proportional to the circumference, but the energy stored is proportional to the area, hence quadratic in price. Roughly speaking a project 10 times as expensive would store and generate 100 times as much energy...

Unlike solar and wind, the tides are very predictable and 2 cycles per day are guaranteed.

The constant false dilemma between nuclear and coal is poisoning the discussions and blinding us from investing in alternatives...

Did the Japanese project for tidal energy get scrapped? Wikipedia is mute about the current status at [1] and doesn't list the Japanese tidal energy project as under construction at [2] either...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan#Ocean_energy

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations

Re: Progress has been limited on Germany's shift from nuclear to renewables

#98

Post by ccffph » Tue, May 14, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #89

vkou wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural gas is not a sustainable long-term solution. World emissions need to be brought to zero, in the next five years, in order for us to avoid a climate castrophe. If we are still positive at the five-year mark, that means zero at, say, the ten-year mark, and negative emissions for many decades. Natural gas has no place in this long-term.

"Natural gas has no place in this long-term." Carbon sequestration is possibly a viable solution. There seem to be solutions in trial (there are numerous questions around it), and even with added costs of capture, it's considerably cheaper and more reliable than other form of energy - moreover, we have it in abundance. Natural Gas is as viable for the horizon of our future we're able to predict. In 100 years, every d…

We have already solved the nuclear waste problem. The issue is that nobody wants to bury it in their backyard, so to speak. Waste containers are incredibly safe and secure, and modern fuel waste is much safer than gen 1 fuel waste. People like feel-good shiny solar panels and wind turbines over concrete near-zero emission solutions.

Re: Progress has been limited on Germany's shift from nuclear to renewables

#99

Post by warmwaffles » Tue, May 14, 2019, 8:14 PM UTC

ivan_gammel wrote: post #29

anoncake wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear fission is a safe source of power that sane people support. Ukraine is LARPing the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone for political reasons. We should just build a lot of nuclear reactors somewhere in Germany that's hundreds of kilometers from anything we'd care to lose.

Somewhere in Germany, but hundreds of kilometers from anything worthy - that can happen only in alternative reality where Hitler won and Siberia is now in Germany.

If factorio has taught me anything, it's that I can just shove it into a steel chest and forget about it.

Re: Progress has been limited on Germany's shift from nuclear to renewables

#100

Post by cygx » Tue, May 14, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #87

cygx wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money is a tool of social organization that lacks instrinsic value. Any time we as a society refuse to do something worthwhile for the sole reason that it would cost too much, that's a capitulation to human stupidity and/or greed.

The value of money is not artificial, it's valued through a measurement of it's availability vis-a-vis other resources and opportunities. Surely countries can invest more if those projects are 'more value creating than other investments' and if it's rational, but the notion that countries shouldn't be afraid of debt either is pragmatically no helpful. All of us are just a few irresponsible financial decisions away fr…

Of course it's artificial. However, that doesn't mean it's arbitrary, or useless, or can be ignored at will given the current system of socio-economic organization. You're absolutely right that in the world we live in, policy makers have to be careful about financial decisions, or suffer the consequences.

But I believe people should be reminded from time to time that our world is pretty far from the best possible one: There's no particularly good reason that a child has to die from undernutrition every couple of minutes, that fusion research stagnated due to lack of funding, that people go bankrupt to pay for healthcare, etc. As a species, we're just too stupid and greedy to do any better...