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

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

#161

Post by AJ007 » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 10:47 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #141

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/...

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.

Are you aware Enron went out of business in 2001?

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

#162

Post by ozim » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 10:49 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…

That is how people work - deaths in car crashes every week topple terrorist attacks by large margin. No one cares about car crashes.

Coal miners die around the year, so no one cares business as usual.

Coal power plant ashes are also radioactive and take a lot more space to store. But no one cares about it...

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

#163

Post by renaudg » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

PeterStuer wrote: post #155

renaudg wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

Have you ever considered that maybe it is because they have the smarts that they are getting out of both nuclear and coal? And you might want to read up on Thiange before you tell Belgians to ignore and carry on.

Whatever you say, the hard inconvenient facts remain and as I write this around midnight CET, coal is the #1 source of electricity in Germany, and their CO2 emissions per kWh are 5.71 times those of France.

You simply cannot solve this problem (the most urgent in our times) today by getting out of both nuclear and coal, because battery storage technology isn't ready, the sun doesn't shine at night, the wind isn't always blowing, and Germany doesn't have the geography for hydro like Sweden or geothermal sources like Iceland. It really is as simple as that, in the current state of technology.

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

#164

Post by renaudg » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 11:06 PM UTC

lispm wrote: post #153

renaudg wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

we would sit on a bunch of nuclear waste we would not know what to do with. France does not scale with nuclear to the rest of Europe. Basically France is bound to nuclear because it needs the technology for their nuclear weapons and nuclear powered submarines ... otherwise it would phase out this costly technology. Germany helps the world more, since renewable energy scales much easier and is cost effective, low-dang…

Let's put the myth of nuclear waste to rest by putting things in perspective :

The amount of energy required to run France's trains for one whole year is 9 TWh. In terms of waste you can take your pick between :

* assuming 100% nuclear energy : 200kg of nuclear waste

* assuming 100% coal : 700.000 tons of solid ash (usually stored in the open air), plus 1.000 tons of soot and fine particles, including tons / dozens of tons of arsenic, lead, thallium, mercury, even uranium and thorium.

(Source : http://www.sfen.org/rgn/dechets-radioactifs-verite-faits-exa...)

Option 2 is what German coal plants are pumping into the European air right now (34% of total electricity production as I write), for years, contributing to dozens of thousands of premature deaths.

That is the clear and present danger. And there is no credible plan to get out of this, because no matter which way you put it (and as much as I'd like the opposite to be true) you can't solve the renewables intermittence problem without a major breakthrough in battery storage.

All of your arguments will be valid when and if that happens. In the meantime, this stance is betting on a future that may or may exist, whilst causing immense and certain harm right now, in the middle of the climate emergency.

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

#165

Post by zeeZ » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 11:19 PM UTC

lispm wrote: post #159

renaudg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

That's simply wrong. Renewable energy for electricity is at 46% last year. Up from 6% in 2000. Coal has been declining a lot from 2000 (when the Energiewende startet) to today. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Energiem...

For current values, check by switching to the country tab: https://m-transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/actualGenerat...

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

#166

Post by renaudg » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 11:21 PM UTC

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?

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

Because coal is what Germany really relies on in practice, making it one the worst industrialised nations when it comes to CO2 emissions per kWh. Check for yourself, right this minute : http://electricitymap.org/

> it's just the same trap as burning fossil fuels. Why would we want to make the same mistake again?

Because it's not the same mistake at all. Nuclear waste is stored in highly stable geological layers, and the volumes are orders of magnitude lower.

As I wrote here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21996751), a year's worth of nuclear energy for running France's whole fleet of trains produces just 200kg of nuclear waste. Since the beginning of the nuclear programme, the cumulated volume is 3650m3, or an olympic swimming pool's worth of it.

Don't get me wrong, renewables are a worthy long term goal, but we might never get there in the first place if we don't tackle the climate change and emissions emergency first.

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

#167

Post by renaudg » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 11:26 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #154

renaudg wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

It's absolutely not. These calls for relying on renewables are pure fantasy; the storage technology doesn't exist yet, so you can't build a reliable power grid based on something that isn't in existence. It's just like the calls to rely on fusion power instead of building fission plants. Fusion doesn't exist (as a usable power generation method), so calling for it to be planned for now is ridiculous. It's the same wi…

Thank you, this should be the top comment.

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

#168

Post by lispm » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 11:27 PM UTC

renaudg wrote: post #164

lispm wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we would sit on a bunch of nuclear waste we would not know what to do with. France does not scale with nuclear to the rest of Europe. Basically France is bound to nuclear because it needs the technology for their nuclear weapons and nuclear powered submarines ... otherwise it would phase out this costly technology. Germany helps the world more, since renewable energy scales much easier and is cost effective, low-dang…

Let's put the myth of nuclear waste to rest by putting things in perspective : The amount of energy required to run France's trains for one whole year is 9 TWh. In terms of waste you can take your pick between : * assuming 100% nuclear energy : 200kg of nuclear waste * assuming 100% coal : 700.000 tons of solid ash (usually stored in the open air), plus 1.000 tons of soot and fine particles, including tons / dozens o…

That's all irrelevant. The world production of nuclear power is basically flat for the last 30 years. Renewable energy is expanding rapidly. That's currently the only viable option. The best is to phase out all costly nuclear reactors and invest the money into renewable energy expansion.

Storage of electricity can be done in multiple ways and we will see larger new installations in ten years from now. Models for running countries like the US with electricity from 100% renewable are looking feasible.

Since there has been almost no expansion of nuclear in the past 30 years on a global scale and everything looks like we will see a long and slow decline for nuclear, it's easy to see that it's the wrong technology and its further contribution to reduce carbon emissions will be likely zero or less.

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

#169

Post by merb » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 11:31 PM UTC

looping__lui wrote: post #104

Dagonfly wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Abschaltterm…

Thanks for the links - I appreciate you digging into things further. I may just be a bit “disillusioned” by any political decisions as they are just amended changed and reversed so in my own subjective feeling everything always kind a is possible if political parties want it at the time. A poll is a poll and not a vote. I personally don’t trust any of these to reflect public opinion. A question can be asked and inter…

well merkel basically ruined our energy marekt. not because the shutdown of nuclear. (btw. I hate nuclear)

but because the market did bid for a merkel win, where he extended the nuclear energy marekt (or she wanted to). so our energy industry betted that they save money if they do not be active by going renewables. their bid was good because now we subsidize our renewables heavily.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Source...

the eeg started way diffently than the 2014 eeg version and it got worse overtime, with all the newer versions.

also the csu (bayern party) actually dismisses on-shore wind power completly 10-H-law, besides no sane reason. merkal and the cdu/csu are not PRO renewables they just want to keep their power, which they would quickly loose by making turns. also merkel mostly did "rushing" things in the past because things that should've been done 10 years prior, weren't done. see our car industy. (which will be rushed by going all in electric, because we lost 10 years on the run)

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

#170

Post by smuemd » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 11:32 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 exactly right.

> In “Der Atomstaat” (“The Nuclear State”) Jungk quotes the Austrian scientist Helga Novotny, who back in the day worked at the IIASA (International Institute für Applied Systems Analysis) in Vienna/Laxenburg. She said that “the opposition against nuclear energy roots in the resistance against those who profit from the increasing economical and scientific focus. The opposition is directed against large-scale industry that makes common cause with big states and big science. It is the resistance of those who feel powerless and small in the face of the developments” (Der Atomstaat, 1977, zit. n. Ausgabe 1979 p. 77ff). This finding is still relevant today and still undermines democracy.

https://jungk-bibliothek.org/robert_jungk_english_2/