Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 210 posts

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#141

Post by lispm »

Typhon wrote: post #129
moe wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants. I'd wager the change of mind will happen rather quickly after the first terrorist crashes a plane into an US nuclear facility.

I'm pretty sure a big earthquake followed by a tsunami is more damaging than a plane crash.

The recent review of reactor safety here in Germany found that not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it.

http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/kein-deutsches-a...

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#142

Post by moe »

vukk wrote: post #124
moe wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants. I'd wager the change of mind will happen rather quickly after the first terrorist crashes a plane into an US nuclear facility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY

Impressive video. However, I wonder if that test would look as good with a real passenger jet.

According to wikipedia the empty weight of a Phantom F4 is 30,328 lb.

The empty weight of a Boeing 737 is up to 80,000 lb (almost 3x as much). The empty weight of an A380 is 610,000 lb (20 times as much).

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#143

Post by lispm »

woodpanel wrote: post #123
lispm wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, yeah? Funky. The German regulation authorities then seem to have given permission to a project that nobody plans, nobody has heard of, does not exist? Please inform them of your findings. Hamburg Abendblatt, November 2010: >NETZAGENTUR GENEHMIGT STROMLEITUNG >Deutschland und Norwegen vernetzen sich >Das 600 Kilometer lange Unterseekabel soll Netztschwankungen der beiden Länder ausgeichen. Nur die EU-Kommisssion k…

wow. there seems to be a lot of development in this project since the last time I checked. you've got me! Seems like they used some dirty tricks themselves even though it wasn't needed ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorGer#Gesetzliche_Rahmenbeding... ). After all, what else are we to do if we cut off the nuclear plants? We have to import energy.

We import energy all the time. Wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, some hydro are actually produced locally.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#144

Post by Typhon »

lispm wrote: post #141
Typhon wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure a big earthquake followed by a tsunami is more damaging than a plane crash.

The recent review of reactor safety here in Germany found that not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/kein-deutsches-a...

I don't read German.

>« not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. »

Now, what does that even mean ? If surviving means "keep on working", obviously not.

If it means destruction of the protection layers of concrete around the reactor, it's more dangerous, but just because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#145

Post by ugh »

nolok wrote: post #102
ugh wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at it from a different perspective: The engineers failed to convince society and have only themselves to blame.

With that reasoning, doctors only have themselves to blame for all the people who refuses vaccines because "it gives autism" ...

That's how it works in a democracy. If you want other people to do what you would like to do you have to convince them.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#146

Post by pella »

pjscott wrote: post #133
pella wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nuclear is the safest form .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_accidents_by_coun... "The nuclear industry says that new technology and oversight have made nuclear plants much safer, but 57 accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Two thirds of these mishaps occurred in the US. The French Atomic Energy Agency (CEA) has concluded that technical innovation cannot eliminate the risk of hum…

Nobody claimed that nuclear power was absolutely safe; only that it's a lot safer than the alternatives we have right now. You're arguing against a straw man.

very strange that ..

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster don't changed the statistics.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#147

Post by ugh »

ljf wrote: post #128
ugh wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's not just the nuclear fuel that needs storing you know: http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/w/waste-radioac... Each plant produces a huge amount of waste each year it runs, all of various impact levels, but all of which has a cost to store or process. So yes, there may only be a small amount of extra direct fuel waste, but there is a lot more than that to consider.

Sure, but that gets us no closer to knowing the marginal cost of one additional kilo of nuclear waste (of any description). My suspicion is that the marginal cost is quite low.

All I'm saying is this: You likely can't take the average cost of safely storing one kilo of waste given current levels of waste and calculate the additional cost that results from letting the reactors run a few more years. This is econ 101. I like to use newspapers to explain the concept: The cost of making 10,000 newspapers in nearly the same as the cost of making 20,000 newspapers. This is because nearly all the money that has to be spent is fixed (wages for journalists and staff, buildings and machines, …). The variable costs are very low in comparison (letting the presses run a little longer, additional paper, ink, …).

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#148

Post by moe »

Typhon wrote: post #144
lispm wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recent review of reactor safety here in Germany found that not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/kein-deutsches-a...

I don't read German. >« not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. » Now, what does that even mean ? If surviving means "keep on working", obviously not. If it means destruction of the protection layers of concrete around the reactor, it's more dangerous, but just because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away.

just because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away.

How is the radiation supposed to be contained when your reactor just turned into a burning pile of rubble?

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#149

Post by junklight »

Staydecent wrote: post #140
junklight wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I think you are right. But, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's better to look at "destroying our planet" (or whatever) as a byproduct? Like you said, we didn't decide this in Africa, it's just a result of our drive to advance our way of life. But, now preserving our environment and adopting more sustainable practices is the next frontier in advancing our way of life. Also, isn't the basic animal instinct to survive? Scientis…

So I do agree that the tipping point will be when the danger is in our collective faces. I also agree there is a good chance it might be pretty bad indeed with as you say large numbers dying.

I don't believe that sustainable ways of life will prevail before any fall. Look at the fishing in the North sea - despite the stocks being pretty much destroyed the fishermen who have taken the fish continue to argue their case to take the very last few because they don't want to change their way of life. This is sadly all too common.

There are people who can see all this working on tech - I think the best bet (ie the one were more of us survive) is if there are some decent breakthroughs. Knowing what I do about projects in progress and the work being done I think there is a good chance this will work out. The reason is that this isn't just a stopping us dying scenario this is making lots of money for lots of people scenario.

If we have to sort ourselves out after a fall - well you may be right. But only for a while. It is almost certain that sooner or later some person or other will look at the next valley or over a sea and think: "hmm what would happen if I went over there. I guess I'll need X Y Z" where X Y Z is some bit of basic tech that doesn't exist yet. and the human race will be off again.

We're tenacious buggers us humans. I don't think it's time to give up and sit quietly by the fire just yet....

(oh and also the very diversity - look at what you are into and what say, I am into - an entrepreneur, a technologist and an optimist - and our different views. That very difference means that we have a "portfolio" strategy as a species. Our eggs are in millions of baskets. There may be a catastrophe and you with your abilities to cope on your own resources will just carry on trucking. Something else my happen and some other group may thrive. It will be a damn hard job killing the lot of us - even for something as resourceful as the human race itself)

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#150

Post by lispm »

tomp wrote: post #125
olaf wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can hardly imagine a bigger catastrophe than Fukushima... Now, the following facts are from my memory, so they might not be absolutely accurate, but I believe the points stand. - It was hit by an earthquake with a magnitude 1 point higher than it was built for, and it was perfectly OK. - Only the following tsunami damaged it, and only because it interrupted the power supply of the cooling pumps. Let us not forget t…

'only'?

6 reactors were affected. Four of them are wrecked. There are full pools of spent and active fuel exposed to sunshine.

Tepco had twenty years to build higher walls against a Tsunami. There were already enough complaints about the weak security before it got hit.

That there are earth quake in the sea causing Tsunamis is nothing new for Japan.

They failed.

You might be surprised to hear that there are also Tsunamis in North Europe.

Post reply on HN