Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022 • Hacker News Board

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#41

Post by junklight » Mon, May 30, 2011, 1:31 PM UTC

Andi wrote: post #9

henrikschroder wrote: post #6

Sweden held a referendum in 1980 about nuclear power, and the only choice was about how fast our nuclear power plants should be shut down. It took twenty years until a reactor was closed, and five more years until one whole plant was closed. During this time, Sweden's energy consumption has of course gone up, and although there's been some increase in wind and water power, the net result is that each time we close a…

I cannot agree. You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.

it's got bugger all to do with any gods or deities.

I can't help noticing that the natural tendency of the human species is to expand and adapt - that is what we are. I also notice that the various movements that advocate more basic living patterns have never really caught on.

So you are going to have two options:

1) Refuse to do anything about power, let it get more and more expensive until enough people die that you have a solvable problem

2) work on making it cheaper

I am sure the greens would say also:

3) everyone chooses to live a more basic quieter life against our natural instincts. Oh and all those nice rich and powerful people will also be joining in and not just taking advantage

and I will say

good luck with that (oh and if you try to achieve 3 without peoples buy in but rather through legislation you effectively are back to option 1)

it's 1 or 2 - and 1 is going to be f@#king awful so let's get working on cheap power

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#42

Post by timdorr » Mon, May 30, 2011, 1:33 PM UTC

mixmax wrote: post #24

latch wrote: post #15

Germany is a leader in solar power. They installed more panels last year than the rest of the world combined. They generate more electricity from solar than Fukushima did. If they can further establish themselves as leaders and experts in new-energy, it'll make them even more disproportionally well positioned to most of Europe. However, it's a shame they see no future in nuclear. Seems like they are betting against s…

The problem with wind and solar energy is that you can't plan for when you need power, and you can't feasibly store large amounts of electricity. This means that wind and solar can't be the primary powersource, at least until the storage problem is solved which doesn't seem to be on the horizon. On windy sunny days you'll have too much electricity and on windless nights you won't have enough. There's a EU project und…

Actually, MIT solved the storage problem 2 years ago. It's just got to make it's way to market: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#43

Post by lispm » Mon, May 30, 2011, 1:34 PM UTC

erikb wrote: post #33

henrikschroder wrote: post #6

Sweden held a referendum in 1980 about nuclear power, and the only choice was about how fast our nuclear power plants should be shut down. It took twenty years until a reactor was closed, and five more years until one whole plant was closed. During this time, Sweden's energy consumption has of course gone up, and although there's been some increase in wind and water power, the net result is that each time we close a…

The funny thing is that some of the German nuclear power plants are owned by the Swedish Company Vattenfall.

Two actually. They are currently off the grid due to technical problems.

They won't go online again. The Bundesregierung has just annouced that both Brunsbüttel and Krümmel will not go online again.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#44

Post by lispm » Mon, May 30, 2011, 1:36 PM UTC

dexen wrote: post #16

Closing nuclear powerplants early makes for a self-fulfilling prophecy as well, unfortunately. The only solid argument against nuclear goes along the lines, ``nuclear power is too expensive because of the costs of disposal of wastes''. Thing is, in normal operation the cost is amortized year by year. Normal life of a nuclear plant is a few decades; say 30 years. Could be longer, but the technological progress is so f…

There are many solid arguments against nuclear power.

The waste from the infrastructure might be large in volume, but most of it is not that dangerous - compared to the fuel and the chemicals that are used in (re)processing the fuel.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#45

Post by dexen » Mon, May 30, 2011, 1:36 PM UTC

blumentopf wrote: post #37

Debunking myths: "This won't have consequences, it didn't have any in Sweden either." => After the nuclear phase-out was enacted in 2000, two power plants were shut down as planned (Stade 2003, Obrigheim 2005). => After the Fukushima incident, eight additional plants were shut down and will never return to the grid again. "This just leads to increasing energy imports." => Germany exported 9 billion kWh in 1Q2010, can…

> "This just leads to increasing energy imports." => Germany exported 9 billion kWh in 1Q2010, can hands-down afford shutting down nuclear power plants. Source: http://www.klimaretter.info/energie/hintergrund/6271-deutsch....

That's theory; compare it to practice:

Germany already imports electricity from France[1] -- during peak hours. The capacity your source cites is the optimistic variant. The industry simply can't run on the somewhat fickle solar and wind energy, so energy has to be imported. Of course there are ways around that -- energy storage of various kind, or vastly excess capacity, but those raise costs substantially. And that's the core of the problem: the green power companies shift the costs elsewhere, out of public sight. The sleight of hand works, because the numbers -- the optimistic capacity -- are right.

----

[1] sorry, no link here. They explained it during lecture in Greifswald's powerplant.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#46

Post by nextparadigms » Mon, May 30, 2011, 1:37 PM UTC

bluedanieru wrote: post #7

Meanwhile Japan itself, which has weathered the effects of several nuclear disasters (Fukushima being the mildest), is doing no such thing. And apparently Germany will continue to import power derived from nuclear plants.

Yes, they are actually.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/29/inhabitats-week-in-green-...

Speaking of solar power, Japan unveiled plans to construct 10 new solar power plants in the wake of the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis, while Switzerland announced that it will completely phase out the use of nuclear power.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#47

Post by john61 » Mon, May 30, 2011, 1:37 PM UTC

henrikschroder wrote: post #6

Sweden held a referendum in 1980 about nuclear power, and the only choice was about how fast our nuclear power plants should be shut down. It took twenty years until a reactor was closed, and five more years until one whole plant was closed. During this time, Sweden's energy consumption has of course gone up, and although there's been some increase in wind and water power, the net result is that each time we close a…

Because of the ongoing massive costs savings it is expected that within 2015 or so it will be cheaper for house owner's to produce their own energy with photovoltaic than buying it. (Without governmental support) This will be a massive game changer: Decentralized, DIY, prosumer energy connected in a smart grid. The private rooth area and climate in for example Austria is enough to produce 1/3 of the electric energy used in Austria.

The Germans are actually ahead in this area because of current governmental price guarantees for selling self produced electricity back to the grid. This is stimulating accelerated cost savings development in the German solar industry.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#48

Post by lispm » Mon, May 30, 2011, 1:40 PM UTC

mixmax wrote: post #24

latch wrote: post #15

Germany is a leader in solar power. They installed more panels last year than the rest of the world combined. They generate more electricity from solar than Fukushima did. If they can further establish themselves as leaders and experts in new-energy, it'll make them even more disproportionally well positioned to most of Europe. However, it's a shame they see no future in nuclear. Seems like they are betting against s…

The problem with wind and solar energy is that you can't plan for when you need power, and you can't feasibly store large amounts of electricity. This means that wind and solar can't be the primary powersource, at least until the storage problem is solved which doesn't seem to be on the horizon. On windy sunny days you'll have too much electricity and on windless nights you won't have enough. There's a EU project und…

Germany is currently planning to build two HVDC (High-Voltage Direct Current) lines to Norway. They will provide us here in North Germany with Hydro backup.

There is a lot of research going on in new storage systems.

In solar thermal power plants, there is already storage.

It is not that Germany switches over night to renewable. The shutdown process of the nuclear power plants will take ten years. The plan for the 100% deployment of renewable energy has a target of 2050.

Without a goal, nothing will happen. Germany sets a goal and the framework to reach it.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#49

Post by raganwald » Mon, May 30, 2011, 1:40 PM UTC

berntb wrote: post #13

Andi wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot agree. You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.

We are (probably) willing to set aside places for Luddites to live. For now, you can go to North Korea or some other nice place without much energy use... (Be careful when choosing, poor countries have lots of environmental destruction which they can't afford to clean -- it might be bad for your health.) :-) Edit: It is not a false dichotomy; I compared to the only known low-energy societies. My point is that there i…

This is a false dichotomy. You need not choose between cheap energy and no energy, you can also have expensive energy, and I do not see how expensive energy implies North Korea.

(UPDATE: Although you can also have expensive energy that is unpleasant!)

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#50

Post by MediaBehavior » Mon, May 30, 2011, 1:40 PM UTC

bluedanieru wrote: post #8

henrikschroder wrote: post #6

Sweden held a referendum in 1980 about nuclear power, and the only choice was about how fast our nuclear power plants should be shut down. It took twenty years until a reactor was closed, and five more years until one whole plant was closed. During this time, Sweden's energy consumption has of course gone up, and although there's been some increase in wind and water power, the net result is that each time we close a…

What I suspect will happen is more power will be imported from nations that flagrantly pollute the environment. The Chinese might be on to something with putting the engineers in charge. Sometimes the public really doesn't know what the fuck they're doing, and should be completely ignored.

> and should be completely ignored.

How about: "and should be educated" (from ground up).