Germany is moving beyond nuclear power, but at what cost? • Hacker News Board

Re: Germany is moving beyond nuclear power, but at what cost?

#71

Post by beloch » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

"Nuclear energy, to start with, is ultimately not safe, and the Germans have always been particularly uneasy with it. After the nuclear accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan in 2011, Chancellor Angela Merkel ordered the “Atomausstieg,” the exit from nuclear energy once and for all. Why? Because, as Ms. Merkel put it back then: “The residual risk of nuclear energy can be accepted only if one is convinced that — as far as it is humanly possible to judge — it won’t come to pass.” After Fukushima, Ms. Merkel, a trained physicist, was no longer able to believe that a nuclear disaster would not occur. That there was a catastrophe even in a high-tech country like Japan made her change her mind."

This article dismisses nuclear power as "not safe" with nothing more than the decision of Merkel to justify it. Yes, Merkel has a background in physics, but she made that decision as a politician. It's an unfortunate truth that science is rarely the first consideration in political decisions.

Merkel's decision ignored the truly extraordinary circumstances of the Fukushima disaster, which was triggered by an earthquake and tsunami that, each individually, exceeded the design parameters of the reactor, which was 40 years old at the time of the disaster. Updated studies indicated the reactor was vulnerable to tsunami, but were ignored. Repeatedly.

The reactors of 40-50 years ago can indeed be unsafe if operated poorly (e.g. Chernobyl) or if necessary threat mitigation is totally ignored. Newer designs are safer, and older designs can be made safer if people don't bury their heads in the sand about necessary updates.

Ultimately, nuclear reactors are designed and operated by humans, and mistakes do happen. However, the fact is that the Fukushima disaster has killed fewer people in total than coal power kills every year under normal operating conditions.

Is Germany paranoid about nuclear power? Yes.

Re: Germany is moving beyond nuclear power, but at what cost?

#72

Post by lispm » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

looping__lui wrote: post #50

this_user wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So after Fukushima shrewd politicians moved to shutter nuclear plants and return to coal. That's not true. The phasing out of nuclear energy was decided in the late 90s after the Social Democrats and Greens had taken over the government. This was part of a larger green energy package. This had been a major issue for the Greens since at least the 80s when the party was founded. The Merkel government attempted to rol…

Yeah, well, the phasing out of coal has been decided long time even before that - and still nothing happened. So “was decided long time ago by the Green party” is more a “who cares - I believe it when I see it”. Merkel made it happen for real (unfortunately). The decision to end nuclear power has been one of the “Merkel just decides without really caring” decisions. Germans are not entirely stupid. We have lived thro…

> and still nothing happened

Coal is on the move out. Most coal production in Germany has been closed or will be closed. Last year coal use for electricity production was on an all time low at 28%.

> 100% higher than France

The electricity price is political in France and electricity production is basically state owned. The losses are paid by the tax payer.

Re: Germany is moving beyond nuclear power, but at what cost?

#73

Post by lispm » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 7:00 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #19

BitwiseFool wrote: post #2

Sadly, the anti-nuclear movement in Germany is very strong. Germany also has a declining Coal industry. So after Fukushima shrewd politicians moved to shutter nuclear plants and return to coal. The worst part? German coal is some of the worst in terms of sulfur and pollutants.

The sad part is that the results of Fukushima ... might generally be a example of how safe / what the risks of modern nuclear might be as I understand it. Fukushima was not updated like modern plants, and it did not experience a 'China Syndrome' type meltdown where the core melted and then kept breaking through all the containment material, rather it fused to the material (sand I belive) of its container and stopped…

Probably a really hard sell that a single event took out mostly all nuclear power plants in Japan for a decade...

Re: Germany is moving beyond nuclear power, but at what cost?

#74

Post by philipkglass » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

looping__lui wrote: post #50

this_user wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So after Fukushima shrewd politicians moved to shutter nuclear plants and return to coal. That's not true. The phasing out of nuclear energy was decided in the late 90s after the Social Democrats and Greens had taken over the government. This was part of a larger green energy package. This had been a major issue for the Greens since at least the 80s when the party was founded. The Merkel government attempted to rol…

Yeah, well, the phasing out of coal has been decided long time even before that - and still nothing happened. So “was decided long time ago by the Green party” is more a “who cares - I believe it when I see it”. Merkel made it happen for real (unfortunately). The decision to end nuclear power has been one of the “Merkel just decides without really caring” decisions. Germans are not entirely stupid. We have lived thro…

Coal's contribution to German electricity is not flat. It declined markedly in 2019:

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/drop-coal-use-pushes-ge...

German electricity from coal is down 35% since 2010 and 46% since 2000:

https://www.bdew.de/media/documents/20191212-BRD_Stromerzeug...

Re: Germany is moving beyond nuclear power, but at what cost?

#75

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

lispm wrote: post #68

close04 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this narrative of the demise of nuclear energy largely being politically motivated It's politically motivated to the extent that people are scared of nuclear and any political move to support it or finance research could be career suicide. Without any attempt to research improvements we are stuck using old technology and anyone advocating against nuclear power has good reason to keep doing so. It's a bit of a vicio…

Germany has invested zillions in Nuclear. Breeder technology, Thorium pebble bed reactor, storage sites... Failed costly experiments. Nuclear is simply not cost effective in a democratic society.

> Nuclear is simply not cost effective in a democratic society.

Phrased this way, this is less of a problem with nuclear and more a problem with said democratic society.

Re: Germany is moving beyond nuclear power, but at what cost?

#76

Post by fhars » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

beloch wrote: post #71

"Nuclear energy, to start with, is ultimately not safe, and the Germans have always been particularly uneasy with it. After the nuclear accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan in 2011, Chancellor Angela Merkel ordered the “Atomausstieg,” the exit from nuclear energy once and for all. Why? Because, as Ms. Merkel put it back then: “The residual risk of nuclear energy can be accepted only if one is convinced th…

> Updated studies indicated the reactor was vulnerable to tsunami, but were ignored. Repeatedly.

And this is why nuclear power is fundamentally unsafe: the operators have conclusively proven that they just cannot be trusted. Repeatedly.

Re: Germany is moving beyond nuclear power, but at what cost?

#77

Post by lispm » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #44

PeterStuer wrote: post #25

The pro-nuclear lobby likes to pretend it offers a clean solution. I really want to believe, as it would make things easy. Sadly, not only is nuclear not clean, the worst part is humans can't handle the required responsibility for this technology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU

The French seem to have handled nuclear technology quite well for many decades now.

Not sure if the people in the Uranium mines in Niger think the same.

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/health-in-africa/extract...

Re: Germany is moving beyond nuclear power, but at what cost?

#78

Post by masterofpuppets » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

beloch wrote: post #71

"Nuclear energy, to start with, is ultimately not safe, and the Germans have always been particularly uneasy with it. After the nuclear accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan in 2011, Chancellor Angela Merkel ordered the “Atomausstieg,” the exit from nuclear energy once and for all. Why? Because, as Ms. Merkel put it back then: “The residual risk of nuclear energy can be accepted only if one is convinced th…

True. I’d also add that the reactors at Chernobyl also suffered from an inherently unsafe design and they had no containment structure.

In the the west there haven’t been any deaths from commercial nuclear power radiological accidents.

Re: Germany is moving beyond nuclear power, but at what cost?

#79

Post by lispm » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 7:11 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #75

lispm wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany has invested zillions in Nuclear. Breeder technology, Thorium pebble bed reactor, storage sites... Failed costly experiments. Nuclear is simply not cost effective in a democratic society.

> Nuclear is simply not cost effective in a democratic society. Phrased this way, this is less of a problem with nuclear and more a problem with said democratic society.

> this is less of a problem with nuclear

It's exactly a problem with Nuclear, because it thrives only in centralized, monopolistic, authoritarian, non-market situations and actually supports those structures.

It's such in many countries. That's why Nuclear is on the way out in the West. The struggle will be to build new ones and even keep the current level. The French EPR is way over budget&time in France and Finland.

Basically Nuclear is also not insurable. That's why all risks are state owned. Building them is only possible with large amount of state money and protected markets (see the new EPR for the UK).

Re: Germany is moving beyond nuclear power, but at what cost?

#80

Post by Dagonfly » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

looping__lui wrote: post #50

this_user wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So after Fukushima shrewd politicians moved to shutter nuclear plants and return to coal. That's not true. The phasing out of nuclear energy was decided in the late 90s after the Social Democrats and Greens had taken over the government. This was part of a larger green energy package. This had been a major issue for the Greens since at least the 80s when the party was founded. The Merkel government attempted to rol…

Yeah, well, the phasing out of coal has been decided long time even before that - and still nothing happened. So “was decided long time ago by the Green party” is more a “who cares - I believe it when I see it”. Merkel made it happen for real (unfortunately). The decision to end nuclear power has been one of the “Merkel just decides without really caring” decisions. Germans are not entirely stupid. We have lived thro…

> 2002 wurde der Vertrag („Atomkonsens“) durch Novellierung des Atomgesetzes rechtlich abgesichert.[100] In der Folge wurden am 14. November 2003 das Kernkraftwerk Stade (640 MW)[101] und am 11. Mai 2005 das Kernkraftwerk Obrigheim (340 MW)[102] endgültig abgeschaltet. Für alle anderen Atomkraftwerke wurden Reststrommengen vereinbart, nach deren Erzeugung die Kraftwerke abgeschaltet werden sollten. Feste Abschalttermine wurden nicht vereinbart, die Strommengen waren so bemessen, dass ein Betrieb der letzten Kraftwerke etwa bis in die Jahre 2015–2020 möglich gewesen wäre.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomausstieg#2000:_Deutschland

The phase-out was decided in 2002, with precise amounts of energy allowed to be generated until shutoff. That was not a hand-wavy "we'll do it sometime in the future" thing. The "grace period" was then extended by Merkel's government in 2010 under heavy pressure from energy providers. Only to be reversed in 2011. I and you are pro-nuclear, but the decision was made by the German public: 77% were against the 15 year extensions in 2010 (https://www.zeit.de/2010/30/Atomausstieg). After Fukushima 79% were for a phase-out until 2022 or earlier. (https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/190403/umfrag...)

That's democracy if we like it or not.