Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

121–130 of 239 posts

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

#121
post #85
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…

Designs can be improved, processes adapted, and people trained better, but that will not prevent accidents from happening

That premise requires more convincing evidence for me. Nuclear reactors have an incredible safety record, given that most current reactors have their design roots in the 60s, and have been operated for longer than initially anticipated, on MBA-style shoestring budgets. Given that scenario, yes, accidents are bound to happen. But where are the improved designs you mention? What processes have been adapted to improve reactor safety since the 60s? Which reactors have been safely decommissioned at the end of their planned lifetime instead of running beyond their age?

What we have now is the result of thirty years of political (and economic) languishing: no firm decision had been made either way. I applaud Angela Merkel for finally making a firm decision on that subject, but I also think the decision was the wrong one. I applaud India's decision to actually develop and build 90s-era reactor designs.

whatever means you put up to prevent catastrophic events, they will never be enough

As evidenced by the impending climate catastrophe, you are correct. But even ten Tsjernobyl meltdowns will be less impactful than what we are facing now.

we have yet to find a working way to handle our nuclear waste for the next 10k-100k years

No, we already have that solution: Gen-4 breeder reactors, another 90s-era reactor design. We just never had the political will to build them, thereby perpetuating our 10k-100k year problem.

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

#122
post #101
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just that Germany did not switch to coal.

Well, they didn't shut down all nuclear plants either. The last ones are planned to go offline in 2022. It would probably have been possible to extend nuclear use a bit and reduce coal consumption faster instead.

Well, Germany expanded the share of renewable for electricity production from 6% in 2000 to 46% in 2019. I think that's quite remarkable.

https://www.strom-report.de/strom

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

#123
post #85
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…

Coal has already killed far more beings than the highly rare nuclear power station disaster. If you care about wellbeing and human lives, swapping nuclear for coal is downright stupid.

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

#124
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The market tells you that it's not true.

If a horse is dead, you might as well climb down.

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

#125
to add some geopolitics - shutting down nuclear&coal and relying on renewables Germany would need more and more of natural gas plants - the cleanest option and most convenient one due to high speed of bringing up/down among the "dirty" ones - with more and more of the natural gas coming from Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream#Controversies_of_N...). While Germans seem to be ok with it (Stockholm syndrome?:), other countries, like US and various Germany neighbors, are naturally either don't like it or actively against it, and as result i think a lot of anti- German anti-nuclear PR and renewables scaremongering is coming from here.

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

#126
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Well, I'm a smoker so I am already set up to die to cancer.

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

#127
We never moved out of nuclear, we only outsourced the danger to neighbouring countrys. Some of the new energy providers beyond the border are so unsafe, the local government has to distribute iodine for the worst case. (Aachen) So all in all, irrational, yes. Non, nuclear, no.

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

#128
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to renewables. One of the unanticipated side effects of our current focus on solar/wind is that being decentralized technologies compared to a single complex for coal/gas/hydro/nuclear/whatever mandated a focus on unit reliability since you can't have someone babysit each unit when those units are smeared across a 10 square miles or mounted on an entire suburbs' rooflines. This focus is in direct contrast to…

> This focus is in direct contrast to nuclear's greatest weakness that no one talks about; it's maintenance and manpower costs. You say weakness - and I say that more people die from falls, from installing rooftop solar panels, than do in nuclear accidents. Power generation is inherentantly dangerous. Just because you distribute the danger around, instead of centralizing it, does not mean that you've reduced the dang…

Renewables aren't a rounding error, unless you consider multiple percentage points of growth in every power market in the 2010s as rounding errors. Yes LNG has accounted for 3 or 4X the coal closures, however renewables don't incur methane leakage. Overall, both renewables and LNG are greening the grid by killing coal.

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

#129
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The market tells you that it's not true. If a horse is dead, you might as well climb down.

I feel like you are being intentionally obtuse by avoiding all direct answers and just replying with platitudes. Some of them plain wrong since the "horse" argument was based on a well known quote by Henry Ford [0] also implying that just because you have a working solution doesn't mean you have to stop searching for a better one, and that "the market" is not an oracle.

The market was wrong so many times that using it as a source of ultimate truth sounds like a last ditch argument. The same market that still goes for oil and coal and would have barely touched EVs or clean energy if it wasn't for subsidies.

You either didn't understand the problem or are just like anyone who ever said "why invest in clean energy when we have perfectly good coal and oil today, and it scales". We did and now we reap the benefits of clean energy. There is no reason to not invest in getting even better, even if this requires research. But I think you just see the label "nuclear" and any reasonable argument based discussion flies out the window.

In the mean time Germany is closing nuclear plants to burn coal. Lungs rejoice.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/15297-if-i-had-asked-people...

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

#130
post #67
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was politically motivated to shut down the plants early and rely on coal. Using the existing nuclear that you have for an additional decade or longer is much better than switching to coal. A lot can happen in a decade.

It's just that Germany did not switch to coal.

That is simply not true. Right this moment, coal is the single largest source of electricity production in Germany (33.66% of the total) They're emitting nearly 400gCO2eq/kWh, compared to nuclear-first France's 70. That is an abysmal result. https://www.electricitymap.org/
Post reply on HN