Germany looks to step up coal exit timetable • Hacker News Board

Re: Germany looks to step up coal exit timetable

#31

Post by lispm » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:31 AM UTC

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #28

cesarb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that decision was largely driven by uninformed and emotional reactions to a single event on the other side of the world. Chernobyl wasn't on the "other side of the world", it was so close that the country was affected by the radioactive pollution.

If I remember it correctly, almost nobody was talking about Chernobyl at the time because everyone knew that was just a mix of stupidity and the level of understanding at the time just being vastly different from today.

If I remember correctly the German public was very well aware of radioactive pollution and the fact that many old and unsafe reactors were operating in and around Germany.

For example in Greifswald an electrician caused a damage of roughly 500 Million DM on a reactor, by doing a demo creating a short circuit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greifswald_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Re: Germany looks to step up coal exit timetable

#32

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:34 AM UTC

chefkoch wrote: post #18

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this isn't a very popular opinion, but I've always thought that was a hugely stupid idea in the first place. Instead of shutting down nuclear power plants, we should have doubled down on them and spent more money on research to make them safer (as I understand it, there's still many unexplored concepts to make nuclear power much safer and reduce nuclear waste) and more efficient. The sad truth is, that decisio…

It's just too expensive, takes too long to build and no utilty company wants to own them.

If the owners of fosil fuel power plants were made to pay for all the damages they're directly and indirectly causing, I'm pretty sure they'd suddenly like nuclear power a whole lot more.

Re: Germany looks to step up coal exit timetable

#33

Post by majewsky » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:34 AM UTC

_n_b_ wrote: post #21

Tenoke wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I know this isn't a very popular opinion, but I've always thought that was a hugely stupid idea in the first place. Instead of shutting down nuclear power plants, we should have doubled down on them and spent more money on research to make them safer (as I understand it, there's still many unexplored concepts to make nuclear power much safer and reduce nuclear waste) and more efficient. It's a very common opinion am…

I make my living off of the splitting of atoms, so the opinions I hear are not reflective of the broader population. It's always interesting to hear what people in the wider-world think. A big part of the perception problem, I think, is that people don't really spend a lot of time to do significant research about how power is made. This is understandable--the power industry is kind of setup to keep the generation sid…

> They're amazing feats of engineering and operations [...] but they're not so easy to visit for most people.

Why is that knowledge important for a risk analysis?

Also, renewable power plants of all types (wind, solar, water, etc.) are also amazing feats of engineering. So I don't see this impacting the argument in any particular direction.

Re: Germany looks to step up coal exit timetable

#34

Post by cesarb » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:35 AM UTC

SethTro wrote: post #10

FisherGuy44 wrote: post #8

It seemed really expensive in the beginning, but now even more so, given they'll do it 5 years faster. I wonder if the investment pays off as it's implemented. Or does it pay off at all? It's really cheaper to move from coal to other ways of producing electricity? I'm asking about the current state of things because I'm sure in the future it'll be cheaper and cheaper

it's not expensive considering the alternative is we all die in a giant fireball. edit: Also currently on HN frontpage is "Climate threats now dominate long-term risks, survey of global leaders finds" so maybe adverting that is worth the cost.

> we all die in a giant fireball.

Hyperbole like that will only lead to the rest of your arguments getting ignored. Even Venus, with its runaway greenhouse effect, is not a "giant fireball" (we even have pictures of its surface).

Re: Germany looks to step up coal exit timetable

#35

Post by cuillevel3 » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:36 AM UTC

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #9

_n_b_ wrote: post #3

This seems nearly unachievable--and will punishingly expensive--if they don't reverse their nuclear phase-out.

I know this isn't a very popular opinion, but I've always thought that was a hugely stupid idea in the first place. Instead of shutting down nuclear power plants, we should have doubled down on them and spent more money on research to make them safer (as I understand it, there's still many unexplored concepts to make nuclear power much safer and reduce nuclear waste) and more efficient. The sad truth is, that decisio…

The amount of money spent on nuclear reactor research is insane. It's very expensive, it takes very long, it requires so much security. The whole private nuclear sector was heavily subsidized.

And nobody wants a reactor or storage facility in their backyard. Keep in mind Germany has a higher population density than France. And even France has problems to find locations for their new plants.

In the end after Fukushima, there just wasn't enough support left in the population.

Re: Germany looks to step up coal exit timetable

#36

Post by jka » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:37 AM UTC

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #9

_n_b_ wrote: post #3

This seems nearly unachievable--and will punishingly expensive--if they don't reverse their nuclear phase-out.

I know this isn't a very popular opinion, but I've always thought that was a hugely stupid idea in the first place. Instead of shutting down nuclear power plants, we should have doubled down on them and spent more money on research to make them safer (as I understand it, there's still many unexplored concepts to make nuclear power much safer and reduce nuclear waste) and more efficient. The sad truth is, that decisio…

I'm of the opinion that nuclear reactors are generally safe when good engineering and operational practices are adhered to, and do understand that they're a reliable, significant power source.

The main two issues which lead me away from nuclear at the moment are:

- Externalities: even though I've read about various ways to store/dispose of nuclear waste long-term, I've yet to hear of a solution that seems clearly safe -- especially compared to the alternative of not producing nuclear waste in the first place.

- Cost: From what I've seen, Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) seems a standard measure for overall cost of energy production by source, and as of relatively recently, it seems that wind and solar are generally[0] now cheaper than nuclear.

If it's cheaper and externality-free to pursue renewables, that seems like a pretty strong anti-nuclear argument.

I'd agree there's also a larger real-world audience to convince one way or the other -- but I'd also be wary that they'll accept equally spurious arguments about wind/solar not being workable.

I think brief 'talking points' end up being pushed by industry a lot to try to influence people in one way or another - and that those end up flowing through communities and social networks and defining people's 'default' reaction in debates based on cherry-picked arguments even if they haven't had time to read further about the issues.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Re: Germany looks to step up coal exit timetable

#37

Post by majewsky » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:39 AM UTC

meerita wrote: post #24

Didn't they opened a new coal plant? https://climatechangenews.com/2020/01/09/wont-let-germany-bu...

Not yet, but Datteln 4 (i.e. the fourth block in the Datteln power plant) is set to open soon. The operator has committed to taking blocks 1-3 offline and argues that the new block will be more efficient than the old ones.

Re: Germany looks to step up coal exit timetable

#38

Post by SideburnsOfDoom » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:40 AM UTC

cesarb wrote: post #25

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this isn't a very popular opinion, but I've always thought that was a hugely stupid idea in the first place. Instead of shutting down nuclear power plants, we should have doubled down on them and spent more money on research to make them safer (as I understand it, there's still many unexplored concepts to make nuclear power much safer and reduce nuclear waste) and more efficient. The sad truth is, that decisio…

> that decision was largely driven by uninformed and emotional reactions to a single event on the other side of the world. Chernobyl wasn't on the "other side of the world", it was so close that the country was affected by the radioactive pollution.

The "Single event" that people were reacting to would be Fukushima, recently beforehand.

IMHO it's not an "outlier" single event, not after Chernobyl. The track record matters.

But it is on the other side of the world. Unlike Chernobyl.

Re: Germany looks to step up coal exit timetable

#39

Post by cuillevel3 » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:43 AM UTC

gallexme wrote: post #12

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this isn't a very popular opinion, but I've always thought that was a hugely stupid idea in the first place. Instead of shutting down nuclear power plants, we should have doubled down on them and spent more money on research to make them safer (as I understand it, there's still many unexplored concepts to make nuclear power much safer and reduce nuclear waste) and more efficient. The sad truth is, that decisio…

Chernobyl or Fukushima, or the numerous minor incidents But yes um also all for nuclear until fusion reactors are better, especially salt /thorium reactors And more focus to turn usable waste to RTGs etc

Germany did have a thorium based reactor, it had multiple incidents and was never profitable.

It was only online for two years and was eventually torn down. Well, the cooling tower was, they still have to wait for the reactor to lose it's radioactivity.

Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300

Re: Germany looks to step up coal exit timetable

#40

Post by docdeek » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:44 AM UTC

cuillevel3 wrote: post #35

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this isn't a very popular opinion, but I've always thought that was a hugely stupid idea in the first place. Instead of shutting down nuclear power plants, we should have doubled down on them and spent more money on research to make them safer (as I understand it, there's still many unexplored concepts to make nuclear power much safer and reduce nuclear waste) and more efficient. The sad truth is, that decisio…

The amount of money spent on nuclear reactor research is insane. It's very expensive, it takes very long, it requires so much security. The whole private nuclear sector was heavily subsidized. And nobody wants a reactor or storage facility in their backyard. Keep in mind Germany has a higher population density than France. And even France has problems to find locations for their new plants. In the end after Fukushima…

I was under the impression that nuclear plants needed to be close to population centers anyway, or at least that it was ideal. The plant closest to my city is about 40km away, easily sighted from one of the city hills here in town.