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

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

#111

Post by Melting_Harps » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #84

masterofpuppets wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Fukushima accident had more to do with the culture in Japan than the industry globally[1]. The government and the regulator were basically in bed with TEPCO. 1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/...

Do you think that this is somehow unique to Japan? How close do you think regulators and operators are in the US? Is there any industry that even remotely seems like it has a healthy relationship with its oversight bodies?

> Do you think that this is somehow unique to Japan? How close do you think regulators and operators are in the US? Is there any industry that even remotely seems like it has a healthy relationship with its oversight bodies?

Yes, and no. TEPCO, and The Nuclear Village are strong powerful entities and lobbyists in Japanese Society. But it was the 'Japanese' way of not asking the global community for help that ultimately ensured that the Abe Government and its subsequent action would take the act of secrecy in the face of one of Man's biggest ecological disasters.

Very, look at how much influence Edison and SONGS have over the Judicial system, and I will remind you San Onofre is home to some of the most expensive real estate in all of the US:

https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/11/edisons-nuclear-canist...

Perhaps, but business interests are always messy things within centralized governance models and I can go on my tirade for the imperative need for Anarcho-Capitalism, but to be honest if someone like Trump hasn't already made it clear to you that these imbeciles (they're all the same) in power will march us off to extinction for yourself, then my arguments will fall on deaf ears.

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

#112

Post by sigstoat » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 7:56 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #102

UncleEntity wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, presumably, you don't have to design signage that will be understandable in 10,000 years...

Why is that a problem? We can still understand all the writings on ancient Roman buildings without any trouble. And it isn't too hard to make pictograms showing that something is dangerous and radioactive. We put some effort into universal pictograms understandable by actual aliens for the Voyager probes; making pictographs understandable by humans is much simpler. Finally, why are you so determined to believe that n…

that was pretty clearly a joke you responded to. (because you can't put a sign on a gas distributed throughout the upper atmosphere even if you wanted to.)

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

#113

Post by gumby » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 7:58 PM UTC

Bittner ignores that energy will be imported — from Danish windmills sure, but also French and Czech nukes

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

#114

Post by cma » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 8:01 PM UTC

yohannparis wrote: post #89

cma wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear costs are heavily externalized ($12 billion liability cap, rest paid by governement and there are plausible >$1trillion accident scenarios). It is as if they only have to pay insurance on a deductible.

The lack of a carbon tax makes any fossil fuel technology heavily subsidies. When all externalities are taking into account, then we can talk about the cost of Nuclear.

Both are heavily subsidized due to externalities. So wind and solar subsidies seem good to do given that reality.

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

#115

Post by lispm » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 8:05 PM UTC

looping__lui wrote: post #106

lispm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, I stand corrected by coal. I may have been biased living somewhat close to the Hambacher Forst and just seeing these giant holes in disbelief. I did not know that electricity is state owned and subsidised. Maybe Germans should ask their french neighbor for an extension cable or two...

There is a lot of protest around Hambacher Forst. It may take some time, but then these things will be history. Like the hard-coal mines in Germany, which have been closed. But the production in Germany of coal is actually useful to remind people, that a lot of coal is imported from much larger coal producers and it's not a great idea to close coal mines in Germany and keep buying coal from elsewhere.

Checkout how many mines have been closed by now for 'Braunkohle' / lignite.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_deutscher_Braunkohletage...

East Germany ALONE produced end 80s almost twice as much lignite as the reunited Germany today.

> Maybe Germans should ask their french neighbor for an extension cable or two...

There's the idea for the EU-wide grid and energy market. It's all happening and will take decades, but it is in the works.

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

#116

Post by Melting_Harps » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 8:06 PM UTC

antris wrote: post #109

Melting_Harps wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact is that nuclear power kills the least amount of people per unit of energy produced, with all accidents taken into account. If that's "unsafe" then you cannot consider any electricity production method safe. This is such a horrible stat, especially when taken in this context; I'm not for coal, I think its filthy and and obsolete form of energy, but do you realize the affects of Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Fuk…

> do you realize the affects of Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Fukushima et al will be felt for millions of years AFTER you are gone? No, because that's simply not true. At least not in terms of radiation. Perhaps politically, or in the general feeling of fear among people who do not understand nuclear energy, the effects might be long-lasting but the no-go area around Chernobyl is very small, Fukushima is basically livea…

This is absurd, are you aware that people in Croatia had a mass epidemic of thyroid failures in children? That is a massive endocrine disruption at a very young age, these people then had children themselves and the affects to them have yet to be discovered, I worked with a woman in Istria that voiced these concerns, her child had to be hospitalized several times for weight loss and and heart beat iregularities. She was a proponent of entering the EU solely because her child may have a chance to have access to more promising medical technology.

Fukushima is habitable? Are you seriously insane? This is Abe's solution to get people to move back:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/10/japan-fukushim...

Chernobyl devastated large swaths of Ag land in Germany when it happened that still haven't entirely recovered...

Listen, maybe these things didn't have a direct impact on YOU so you honestly believe this, but I've seen it and lived with the affects of Nuclear Energy accident first hand, and they are costly environmentally and devastating psychologically. Its what turned me into a staunch environmental activist, but the toll of it is something I have to bear alone, and PTSD is only one of the things I have to live with, and I was an adult when it happened.

I cannot even bring myself to look at what has happened in the near 9 years since Fukushima's children were exposed in masse anymore for fear of inducing panic attacks. I can't even go to my friend's wedding this Spring in Japan because of the fear and panic I feel inside. They were already having a very significant spike in thyroid disruptions in 2012, heart problems soon followed, and the cover up began for pregnancies from that time--just as they were during Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I'd say that the biggest proponent(s) of Nuclear should have to live next to the plants themselves, which incidentally are being phased out in California due to our collective efforts, and see what those 'safe levels' really mean. But go ahead, get a remote job and live next to some of the most grossest offenders in the US for a decade and then we can re-evaluate your position:

https://www.times.org/nuclear-power-back/2018/3/8/the-most-d...

Until then, you're just mis-informed entirely about the reality of Nuclear Energy Production and its consequences, and have at best a very glib understanding of it. Hell, to this day I cannot find a proper study done on them monitoring the radiation effluence from San Onofre and its surrounding areas from before then event and leading up to the massive leak. Let alone the epidemiological impacts of it, my old landlord just died in December from heart-failure and he was a lobster fisherman from the San Onofre region.

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

#117

Post by roenxi » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 8:07 PM UTC

fbender wrote: post #85

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…

But this is exactly the point. Catastrophes like Fukushima are practically always a combination of individual deficiencies in design, process, and operator errors. Designs can be improved, processes adapted, and people trained better, but that will not prevent accidents from happening. This is mostly because human imagination is limited and humans are fallible, and what‘s not covered by the previous two is lack of kn…

> Said in other words, if you wait long enough, a catastrophe is inevitable.

But the catastrophe in nuclear is substantially less damaging than business as usual in coal. I've lived in a coal mining region, I'd have better health outcomes if I'd lived next to Fukushima when it was melting down. And I don't feel threatened by the risk of either.

The damage done by solar/wind is also flying under the radar, but they are being scaled up to industrial levels of production. Nothing done at industrial scales doesn't produce a lot of waste and environmental damage. It is likely that nuclear is still safer and more environmentally friendly than the renewables.

Nuclear is safer than a hydroelectric dam, for example.

These risks are so firmly within the tolerable zone it isn't funny. And the negative exampels are all talking about 50 year old technology which is obsolete. Even Japan is re-opening their nuclear plants, presumably bowing to the reality that their Fukushima response was overly paranoid.

And it is a tired argument I always make, but "handle our nuclear waste for the next 10k-100k year" - be serious. We have waste that lasts forever and we have plans to store it for 30 years. There is nothing there that matters and the people getting worked up about it are mistaking opportunity for cost. We have the potential to manage waste from an industrial nuclear process. That makes it unique, most other processes we dump dangerous waste, forget & hope. We produce much scarier waste than nuclear byproducts and the volumes involved are tiny.

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

#118

Post by selimthegrim » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

dv_dt wrote: post #16

m4rtink wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, it at least so far it worked well, they avoided releasing a lot of emissions and are now in a much better position to decide what to do next.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-po... "France will save 39 billion euros ($44.5 billion) if it refrains from building 15 new nuclear plants by 2060, and bets instead on renewable energy sources to replace its all its aging atomic facilities, a government agency said." If France with it's experience with last gen, and one of the most built next gen designs is thinking this, then it doesn't re…

Someone from EDF's US division came to our department (this was late 2016) to give a colloquium and try to recruit undergrads to work in their renewables research division. He and I got into a massive fight about what would happen if they had any revenue bonds out on peaker plants (or nuclear) and something like this happened.

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

#119

Post by cycomanic » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #39

Barrin92 wrote: post #37

I absolutely hate this narrative of the demise of nuclear energy largely being politically motivated because nuclear energy is not just falling in Germany, it's diminishing virtually across the entire world (with very few exceptions). It's true that Germany has a historical anti-nuclear and green sentiment but other countries are no different. Nuclear energy may be clean, but it is also exceedingly expensive and unab…

Expensive compared to what? Are you comparing the full costs of coal plants to nuclear, or are you just externalizing the costs as most comparisons do? The costs of coal need to include all the effects of coal emissions into the atmosphere, which may very well be incalculable. Solar and wind of course are great, but has anyone figured out how to make those supply 100% of a nation's power needs, 24/7? I don't believe…

Actually there have been numerous studies how wind and solar could provide 100% power for a country like the US. The thing is you need significant upgrades to your power grid, this will become easier and easier with improving battery and storage tech. The myth of base load is essentially nuclear propaganda that keeps getting debunked. Power plants that can't easily be adjusted are pretty much the worst for operators.

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

#120

Post by close04 » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 8:16 PM UTC

lispm wrote: post #97

close04 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Failed costly experiments. The battle for finding cancer cures had so many dead ends but it's the worthiness of the cause that keeps you going. The promise of single power plants able to produce an almost endless supply of cheap, clean(ish?) energy still tickles the imagination more than vast swaths of land covered by PV panels or wind turbines. > Nuclear is simply not cost effective in a democratic society. Democr…

> The promise of single power plants Such a promise does not produce any power and does not scale. > Just because we failed to make the tech cost effective until now doesn't mean it cannot be and never will be. We are making solar and wind cost effective. It's already happening. In scale.

You haven't addressed the core of my comment that we usually don't stop just because we failed a few times. Are you arguing we should stop all research that hasn't produced results after a certain time or budget? The argumentation you're basing your opinion on is circular: we couldn't do it > so we shouldn't do it > so we couldn't do it. It also relies on the assumption that investing in nuclear research prevents us from investing in solar and wind power, which it shouldn't. There's no reason to stop research into better alternatives just because we have something that "works".

> It's already happening. In scale.

Again, you are evading the fact that (the as of yet unfulfilled promise of) better nuclear power would actually deliver more than that. In the mean time our energy needs are increasing faster than the efficiency of PV cells and generators is. There's nothing wrong with researching even better alternatives.

Just over a decade ago so many were insisting EVs were dead in the water. We had tried and failed and ICE tech was delivering and constantly improving. You're not arguing that nuclear is bad, you're arguing that we should not even attempt to make it better or good. Why build cars when we can already do it with horses and horses scale...

You could be correct but not based on the arguments you brought so far.