Live data from Hacker News

Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

reuters.com

111–120 of 210 posts

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#111

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 only way to successfully switch to renewable energy is by making renewable energy cheaper than coal or nuclear."

I wouldn't be sure about that. Imho another way is to let the government offer incentives or just plain ban certain types of energy production. I live in Switzerland and our gov just did the same thing - Deciding not to let anyone build another nuclear plant in CH again. So we have Sweden, Germany, Switzerland and a lot of other countries reacting to Fukujima. But I think it will take quite some time until people realize nuclear power is potentially highly dangerous and that it might be a good idea to spend the extra money to produce renewable energy.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#112
post #107
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This need is there whether we stop in 2022 or 2032. It doesn’t make a difference. Also: High fixed costs, low variable costs. It’s as simple as that.

Low variable cost? What? The current experimental Asse II site already cost us BILLIONS of Euros. Plus it is fucked up and needs to been evacuated for a few additional billions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schacht_Asse_II

Those are fixed costs. The interesting question is what the marginal cost of adding another kg of nuclear waste is.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#113
post #105
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fukushima I was a site with SIX reactors. German nuclear sites are usually smaller. Off these 17 German reactors currently 13 are off the grid. Germany has had an overcapacity and was a net exporter of electricity. It is also no longer that electricity is bound to countries here in Germany. We have a Europe wide market and electricity is imported based on needs and price. If electricity is cheaper somewhere, we may i…

> Off these 17 German reactors currently 13 are off the grid. A significant number were pulled off the grid in the wake of Fukushima. So while it's true they had an overcapacity, it's not the case anymore. [1] How quickly can renewables close that gap? And does renewables provide for cheap electricity? If you're importing based on price, it's not coming from wind or solar. So where exactly is the environmental benefi…

You are aware that several of the nuclear power plants will be brought online again?

You are also aware that the phase out time is TEN years?

In the last ten years we have added ten percent renewable energy as a new source and jump started a new industry with several hundred thousand jobs.

I'm pretty sure that in ten years we can build new capacity to replace the remaining nuclear reactors.

Actually there are several reports from German Universities and research institutions which all agree that this is possible.

What you cite from Yahoo is old news. The Nuclear Industry was happily publishing this. But the case is that

a) some of the nuclear power plants will be brought back, so there is no power shortage. The phase out will be done in about ten years.

b) Germany always imports nuclear power, since there is a free energy market. Germany also exports all kinds of electricity (nuclear, coal, wind, ...).

c) the providers of Nuclear power fear their loss of market power. They are large monopolists which try to prevent competition. There are many smaller providers waiting with their investments, keen to replace them where and when possible.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#114

Sorry for this rant, but we germans are rather stupid by going down that road. we keep saying that the costs of renewable energies have gone down, but thats only due to massive subsidies. Thanks to fukushima the green party is like a political Steve Jobs on steroids right now: they can promote whatever dumb legislation and nobody questions it. nobody talks about the coal plants that we gonna need to supplement this.…

come on, another german trait is that everyone believes that everyone is to be fooled easily. People are not that stupid. Most just do not care.

Nuclear plants are a serious political issue here in Germany. Sound voices are not the ones to ride on those political waves.

Last poll on this issue: 22% of Germans are in huge fear of foreign nuclear plants, 29% are in great fear of it, 29% fear it, 20% don't care.

http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/tsunami-in-japan/umfrage-m...

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#115
post #104
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people died at Fukushima ? 1 How many people die every year because of coal plants working perfectly normally ? 30 000 in the US alone. See http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html Nuclear waste is a bigger problem indeed, but using Fukushima as an argument against nuclear is both dishonest and stupid.

First, the Fukushima case is not yet closed. Tepco told us today (faz.net), that the three damaged reactors are stiil out of control, at least until end of this year. We will see, what will happen. Second: don't you ignore the risk of how many people _could_ die, in the case of a big disaster? That would have global conequences for quite some days (ironic). Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear an…

Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal »

Except the point of what I was saying and of the link I gave is precisely that under "normal conditions", people die due to coal, whereas it is not the case with nuclear plant.

The reason is that all a nuclear plant releases in the air is water.

> « the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power. »

You must take into account the odds of a probable disaster, such as an earthquake in Japan, but not the consequences of any disaster. It's just unreasonable to assume an improbable disaster will happen. You end up renouncing any technology by thinking that way.

Obviously, Nuclear power plant must be built with security as the main concern. Obviously, a nuclear reactor can be very dangerous. But refusing to use nuclear plants, which are much more efficient than classic ones and a good long-term investment, is idiotic.

We're far more likely to die in a car accident than because of radio-activity, or any other disaster that's on television. Yet, noone is suggesting that a country should be "car free".

Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

"everyone chooses to live a more basic quieter life against our natural instincts." Serious? That's a huge claim. yet, so many people do live this "quieter" life. I am striving to live that life. There is quite a growing community (at least in British Columbia) of people concerned with things like food security and climate change. Ever since I was young, I was disgusted by the City. Yes, this is not a popular view, b…

it's not a bold claim at all.

Look around at the planet. Humans are everywhere it is possible to be. Something drove us to do that. And given it is quite unlikely that there was a meeting 100,000 years a go in Africa where we as a species decided - "let's give overrunning the whole planet a go" I think that "instinct" for want of a better word is what drives that. Living in a sustainable way does not come naturally to humans - I'm betting you are well educated and have reasoned long and hard about it.

Yes there are people like you who chose to be sustainable. But unless you get everyone to do it then we are screwed. Because it's an all or nothing plan. And you may love making your own food but by the same token I am really glad someone else is doing it for me. I find it boring and a waste of my time - I want to just be able to get food when i need it without thinking about it. My interests lie elsewhere.

Likewise the global trend is too the city. Every bit of research points to massive urbanisation http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/aug/18/percenta...

We has a species do have the ability to overcome our animal urges but if you don't solve the power problems you are doing to need everyone to do it and the failure mode of that is massive suffering. There are various sustainable living and back to nature and even so called luddite movements and have been for quite a while but I still don't see them being a significant force.

There is nothing wrong with what you are doing at all but do you think you can convince everyone you know outside of your community to join in?

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#117
post #77
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See Fukushima for the cost of running nuclear power plants. The cost of the running power plant is deferred also to a future which then needs to deal with the waste from burned fuel. Germany has no solution how to deal with the fuel. The cost for that adds up every day.

I don’t think the cost for dealing with waste adds up. It stays (pretty much) constant: High fixed costs and very low variable costs. Dismantling a nuclear power plant doesn’t get more expensive just because they are running longer. When it comes to waste, finding a site and building the infrastructure is expensive, the cost of dealing with additional waste from letting the plants run longer has to be negligible. Whe…

If the output of waste from a nuclear reactor is still that 'hot', they're doing it wrong. That waste then needs reprocessed for draining more energy out of it, furthering the transmutation to good 'ol lead. It'd be akin to burning gasoline with a 100% conversion output of CO. Guess what: that's incomplete combustion and you just lost a lot of energy. But that's what these reactors do all the time.

If you can't get lead out of it, at least get something that only has a half-life of a few billion years. Then its about as dangerous as lead.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#118
post #82
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.taz.de/1/zukunft/umwelt/artikel/1/solarstrom-wird...

Taz seems to be a rather leftist newspaper, wouldn't take it at face value.

You betcha ;-) Even for european standards this is leftist. They do have good articles though as it is usual for ideologists only on topics where the ideology doesn't already provides the answers.

Also, the mentioned bank is a state bank. Usually not the moste creditable ones. Especially not on issues that include subsidies.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#120
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany does not want a different form of nuclear power. Nuclear power is no option. The goal is to develop renewable energy to 100% over the next 40 years.

Don't take this the wrong way, but when the scientists or the government set an ambitious goal like this, that are 4 decades away. It usually means that currently we have no clue how to go about solving it and hopefully our successors will figure it out. As Bill Gates explains the current renewable technology is not viable. This is because of various reasons, such as low ratio of energy invested vs energy returned, i…

You are on a discussion level of ten years ago.

All the questions you mention have been discussed for a full decade here. Numerous research institutes have been working on that for a decade. Several plans have been proposed and discussed. As a first step Germany has jump started its renewable energy industry a decade ago. We moved from 6 to 16% during that decade and now have several hundred thousand employees in that industry, numerous small and medium companies, numerous research institutes, ... we are already exporting a lot of that technology. It is expected that in a few years this industry will be larger than our automotive industry.

Our government actually does something for the tax payer money:

Read it here:

http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/47124/3860/

Renewables' contribution to energy supply in Germany continued to rise in 2010

17 percent share of electricity supply 370,000 employees in the sector

The share of renewable energies in Germany's electricity supply rose further in 2010. At 17 percent, the share was about half a percentage point higher than the previous year. These are the preliminary results calculated by the Working Group on Renewable Energy Statistics (AGEE-Stat) for the Federal Environment Ministry. This growth was achieved in spite of the sector being hampered by adverse weather conditions. As there was very little wind in 2010, the wind power yield of 36.5 billion kilowatt hours (KWh) was the lowest since 2006. Even so, wind energy remained the key pillar of renewables, with around a 6 percent share of the total electricity supply. Clear increases were recorded for electricity generation from biogas and the photovoltaic sector. Solar power almost doubled its contribution, covering around 2 percent of total electricity demand.

Current scenarios show that in just ten years, renewables can cover 40 percent of Germany's electricity supply. An increase of 12 terawatt hours (TWh) per year is considered realistic. (1 terawatt hour = 1 billion kWh).

The renewables' share in total final energy consumption for heat rose from 9.1 percent in 2009 to just under 10 percent in 2010. The renewables' share in fuel consumption rose slightly to an estimated 5.8 percent (2009: 5.5 percent).

Overall, in 2010 renewables covered around 11 percent of Germany's total final energy consumption for electricity, heat and fuels. This is significantly higher than the previous year (2009: 10.4 percent) and is remarkable because energy consumption was considerably higher than in 2009, due to both the economic recovery and the cold weather.

Renewables also increased their contribution to climate protection. In 2010, around 120 million tonnes of greenhouse gases were avoided through the use of renewable energies (2009: 111 million tonnes). Around 58 million tonnes of these savings can be attributed to the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) alone.

The figures prove that renewable energies were able to keep pace with the economic recovery and continue their trend of a steadily growing share in our energy supply.

Alongside this, renewable energies also gained importance as an economic factor. Initial estimates for the BMU show that, at around 26 billion euros, investments in renewable energy installations were around one quarter higher than in 2009 (20.7 billion euros).

This development is reflected in the employment figures linked to the expansion of renewables. Last year, employment in renewables rose again and latest estimates show there are now around 370,000 jobs in the sector. This is an increase of around 8 percent compared to the previous year (around 339,500 jobs), and well over twice the number of jobs in 2004 (160,500).

Post reply on HN