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

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

#141

Post by microtherion » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 9:12 PM UTC

masterofpuppets wrote: post #81

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.

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/...

While in the US, a nuclear reactor would be:

* Approved by Donald Trump

* Regulated (until last month) by Rick Perry

* Constructed by companies like Halliburton and Bechtel

* Operated by utilities like PG&E, collaborating with traders like Enron.

I don't know about you, but to me, the whole setup does not scream competence, good judgment, incorruptibility, and adherence to the highest ethical standards.

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

#142

Post by wazoox » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 9:12 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…

Fun fact: if the Fukushima exclusion zone was entirely covered with solar panels, it wouldn't even match the nuclear plant annual energy production (note to downvoters: that's actual fact, a 10 km2 plant in India has only 650MW of power, and hits this power only 1 to 2 hours per day).

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

#143

Post by verst » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 9:15 PM UTC

Dagonfly wrote: post #63

I'm pro-nuclear, but I find these articles about Germany's anti-nuclear stance extremely frustrating. Blaming the current situation on Fukushima is historically inaccurate. Imo, there are 2 major reasons for the current stance: 1. Chernobyl: After the disaster in 1986 the anti-nuclear movement gained massive traction. The radioactive cloud spread all the way to West Germany and warnings had to be issued (mushrooms, v…

I grew up in the town with the only uranium enrichment facility in Germany (operated by URENCO). That is where they feed gaseous UF6 (Uranium hexafluoride) into gas centrifuges to split it into a gas higher in U-238 and a gas higher in U-235 concentration. The process is repeated for the enriched U-235 containing gas. I got to tour this facility and visit the centrifuges with my high school class at age 16. (I joke that since then I glow in the dark)

Not far away (20km) is the temporary nuclear waste storage Ahaus (pretty similar to Gorleben).

About 60km away is Lingen where the company Advanced Nuclear Fuels converts the UF6 enriched in U-235 to Uraniumdioxide UO2 for direct use as nuclear fuel. The nuclear power plant in Lingen uses this type of fuel among other power plants.

At this point URENCO is still operating in Gronau, however it appears that Advanced Nuclear Fuels now primarily exports nuclear fuel to other countries.

None of the raw uranium ore used in this process comes from Germany. There is plenty of controversy around the sourcing of uranium by URENCO and others.

Sources: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urananreicherungsanlage_Gronau https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportbeh%C3%A4lterlager_Ah... https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brennelementfertigungsanlage_L...

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

#144

Post by brutt » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 9:15 PM UTC

Dumblydorr wrote: post #123

fbender wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This millennia is not ended yet, so it is too early to count total number of victims of nuclear accidents.

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

#145

Post by brutt » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 9:20 PM UTC

hajile wrote: post #139

trickstra wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe it wiser to spend some profits of nuclear industry on problem of nuclear waste first. We already has tons of waste. Chornobyl and other sites are still waiting for a solution.

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

#146

Post by renaudg » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 9:20 PM UTC

PeterStuer wrote: post #49

magduf wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If by "handling well" you mean examples like buying the Belgian energy sector and then buying the Belgian politicians with generous revolving doors to keep open extremely dated and deteriorating reactors in Wallonia (Thiange) and Flanders (Doel) and playing deaf to the objections of neighboring states scared shitless of having these things operating in a dilapidated state so close to their borders, then yes, I guess…

Part of the German public and political class can be "scared shitless" until they're blue in the face, they have no leg to stand on.

If I were Belgian, I sure would remain deaf to a lecture about energy and the environment, by one of the worst European contributors to CO2 emissions and emitter of deadly fine coal particles causing dozens of thousands of deaths now

Germany, this is so out of character for you. You have the resources and smarts to be leading this effort instead of clinging to one terribly misguided populist decision 20 years ago. Until you do though, I would keep a low profile on these matters.

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

#147

Post by MidgetGourde » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 9:22 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…

I think nuclear power is a quick win, for the amount of CO2 discharged and the 'amount' of materials gained. The lasting legacy will always be the cost of maintenance, both in knowledge (in 100 years from now will people be able to operate the reactors and remember where all of the crud was left) and environmental impact. Certainly in the north sea area of europe, there is a drive for wind power, which I fully back. Nuclear power plants don't run themselves, which is why it's a highly skilled area, kill the skill, welcome to long periods of radiated land masses which are not obvious (unless you have a geiger counter)

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

#148

Post by brutt » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

number6 wrote: post #90

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…

Or kill them in a single event that causes the surroundings uninhabitable. If only we had alternatives to generate power

We have alternatives: solar, wind, water, bio, nuclear fusion, maybe LENR.

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

#149

Post by save_ferris » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

cbmuser wrote: post #137

fbender wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 G…

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

You say that, but Fukushima didn't even come close to reaching it's catastrophic potential. Japan was facing the possibility of having to immediately evacuate 50 million people[0], or roughly 15% of the US population. An evacuation on that scale would almost certainly top any other emergency evacuation in human history.

Japan got pretty lucky with the weather conditions during that episode, and if you flip that coin 9 more times, you'd find out pretty quick that they got pretty darn lucky the first time.

0: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/03/12/national/kan-ci...

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

#150

Post by hajile » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

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…

I hate when people talk about solar or wind "saving the planet".

Solar in particular (and wind to a lesser extent) requires digging up then melting down literal mountains worth of ore to get the rare-earth elements to create them. Creating the space-age materials used for solar and wind installations is hyper-toxic for the environment and creates its own waste-storage problem.

You talk about deaths, but companies seem to be very tight-lipped about wind fatalities. Bucket truck electricians have a serious injury and fatality rate per-capita an order of magnitude higher than normal electricians. Tower workers have rates an order of magnitude higher than that.

Wind towers aren't like normal towers. They are smooth, aerodynamic surfaces. They are much taller than an average cell tower which adds complications. They have hundred-foot blades with all the lack of strength usually associated with airplanes travelling at up to 180mph. Unlike normal towers, you are definitely working on live systems (dead systems are even more dangerous as they are be at the whim of the winds). There's a huge, high-voltage motor in there exerting tons of torque (plus other motors for things like wing rotation). These extra hazards are standard. They don't account for the bonus hazards like fires, mid-air disintegrations, or even a bird (or something more exotic) getting struck and flying your direction. Even ground crews are at much higher risks.

I know several people who have worked at coal or nuclear plants. They wouldn't get anywhere near a wind plant because it's just too dangerous.