Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 239 posts

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

#131

Post by renaudg »

lispm wrote: post #122
yorwba wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But it doesn't matter, because their CO2 emissions are still catastrophically worse than they could have been with nuclear (compare and contrast with neighbouring France).

It just demonstrates that even a strong and "remarkable" drive towards renewables alone such as what Germany did, just isn't enough to sustain a developed economy, unless you're lucky like Sweden and have a geography that allows a lot of hydro.

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

#132

Post by roenxi »

jiub wrote: post #100
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…

Removing the radioactive material from Fukushima is going to take forty years. Parts of the area around Chernobyl will be unsafe for the next 20,000. It doesn't matter how frequently something succeeds if failure is too costly to bear.

That isn't too costly to bear. There are already huge swathes of earth that are uninhabitable wastelands.

The change in evacuating a region is painful, but the length of time it stays evacuated isn't important. In the long term it is like the existence of the Sahara - just a fact.

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

#133

Post by trickstra »

antris wrote: post #86
fhars wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> And this is why nuclear power is fundamentally unsafe: the operators have conclusively proven that they just cannot be trusted. Repeatedly. So let's just keep reliably killing people with coal around the year like we do now...? 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 electricit…

Germany is heavily investing in solar and wind. Why do you bring up coal?

Also - even if the nuclear power plant is 100% safe, it still produces nuclear waste that nobody wants to keep anywhere near their city and will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years, that's longer than humanity has been around - it's just the same trap as burning fossil fuels. Why would we want to make the same mistake again?

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

#134

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

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…

>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 knowledge & understanding.

>I work in aerospace operations

It's odd you say this, since the entire aerospace industry exists because people at the time were willing to put up with the risks until we got where we are today.

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

#136

Post by renaudg »

Every time this topic comes up, I find it useful to share this fascinating real time map of electricity production and its carbon intensity around the world :

https://www.electricitymap.org/

I think it helps frame the debate and put things in perspective. Needless to say that Germany's mediocre figures here are not worthy of the country's reputation for pragmatism and engineering excellence.

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

#137

Post by cbmuser »

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…

I rather have 10 Fukushima nuclear accidents than one big dam break:

> https://www.ozy.com/flashback/230000-died-in-a-dam-collapse-...

Fukushima is mostly restored already:

> https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/04/05/national/evacue...

> https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/07/20/national/beach-...

> https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-english/en02-01...

You can even read current restaurant reviews on Google Maps very close to Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

96% of the compound of the NPP can be entered with simple dust masks and regular uniforms:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C83bsgU0Ysw&feature=youtu.be...

As for Chernobyl, in most cases the health effects of the incident are often grossly overestimated:

> https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

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

#138

Post by renaudg »

cycomanic wrote: post #119
magduf wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Citation much needed, because that sounds like unsubstantiated wind/solar kool aid that's not worth much more than "nuclear propaganda".

My impression is that battery storage tech and infrastructure is nowhere near able to provide 100% of US power when it's night and the wind doesn't blow (which is surprisingly often)

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

#139

Post by hajile »

trickstra wrote: post #133
antris wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And this is why nuclear power is fundamentally unsafe: the operators have conclusively proven that they just cannot be trusted. Repeatedly. So let's just keep reliably killing people with coal around the year like we do now...? 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 electricit…

Germany is heavily investing in solar and wind. Why do you bring up coal? Also - even if the nuclear power plant is 100% safe, it still produces nuclear waste that nobody wants to keep anywhere near their city and will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years, that's longer than humanity has been around - it's just the same trap as burning fossil fuels. Why would we want to make the same mistake again?

We can discover efficient ways to re-refine those materials and provide even more energy for the future (actually, such techniques exist for a lot of waste, but mining is still cheaper, so we don't do it). By the time this process is done, the waste simply won't exist anymore.

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

#140

Post by wazoox »

Germany invested 300 billions euros in windmills and solar, and achieved 0% emission reduction, thanks to its abandonment of nuclear power. Worse, they now realise that windmills last only about 20 years, while nuclear plants last at the very least 40 to 60 years. With similar amounts invested in nuclear they would be coal free by now.
Post reply on HN