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

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#151

Post by Typhon » Mon, May 30, 2011, 8:52 PM UTC

moe wrote: post #148

Typhon wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's exactly why it's dangerous to anyone near the plant, as opposed to a Chernobyl-style or Fukushima-style disaster, where radioactive material is disseminated.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#152

Post by moe » Mon, May 30, 2011, 9:09 PM UTC

Typhon wrote: post #151

moe wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's exactly why it's dangerous to anyone near the plant , as opposed to a Chernobyl-style or Fukushima-style disaster, where radioactive material is disseminated.

So, your reactor was just turned into a burning pile of radioactive rubble by having something like 150,000 lb of mass smashed into it.

And you say radioactive material will not disseminate?

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#153

Post by Typhon » Mon, May 30, 2011, 9:14 PM UTC

moe wrote: post #152

Typhon wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly why it's dangerous to anyone near the plant , as opposed to a Chernobyl-style or Fukushima-style disaster, where radioactive material is disseminated.

So, your reactor was just turned into a burning pile of radioactive rubble by having something like 150,000 lb of mass smashed into it. And you say radioactive material will not disseminate?

Not on a comparable scale.

Besides, reactors are a small target that's mostly underground. That should limit the damage.

In any case, may I remind you we're discussing a very hypothetical scenario ?

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#154

Post by eliasmacpherson » Mon, May 30, 2011, 10:35 PM UTC

Typhon wrote: post #153

moe wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, your reactor was just turned into a burning pile of radioactive rubble by having something like 150,000 lb of mass smashed into it. And you say radioactive material will not disseminate?

Not on a comparable scale. Besides, reactors are a small target that's mostly underground. That should limit the damage. In any case, may I remind you we're discussing a very hypothetical scenario ?

Weeks after Fukushima alleged terrorists were found making their way towards Sellafield in the UK. The obvious viability of this hypothetical attack became apparent after March 11th.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#155

Post by eliasmacpherson » Mon, May 30, 2011, 10:37 PM UTC

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

Would that the walls of the containment area on the reactors in Fukushima were that thick.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#156

Post by eliasmacpherson » Mon, May 30, 2011, 10:40 PM UTC

ugh wrote: post #147

ljf wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is also a variable cost in allowing the old designs to continue to run that you are not accounting for.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#157

Post by Typhon » Mon, May 30, 2011, 10:47 PM UTC

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #154

Typhon wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not on a comparable scale. Besides, reactors are a small target that's mostly underground. That should limit the damage. In any case, may I remind you we're discussing a very hypothetical scenario ?

Weeks after Fukushima alleged terrorists were found making their way towards Sellafield in the UK. The obvious viability of this hypothetical attack became apparent after March 11th.

Yes, and ?

Nothing happened.

The fact is that terrorists want to target nuclear plants.

What's unlikely is that any of them should succeed. Terrorism isn't that easy.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#158

Post by rmc » Mon, May 30, 2011, 10:49 PM UTC

john61 wrote: post #47

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 u…

Some countries (e.g. Ireland, UK) are a bit more north than Austria. Would they get enough sunlight to go solar?

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#159

Post by rmc » Mon, May 30, 2011, 10:54 PM UTC

john61 wrote: post #70

mixmax wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are huge electr. pumped storage hydro power stations in use in Austria und Switzerland for decades... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpspeicherkraftwerk#.C3.96ste... Also smart grids (trinding price due to current demand and consumption and intelligent consumer hardware automatically controlled by this price) are emerging. Also the weather forecast and therefore solar and wind energy producing forecast for the…

Also smart grids (trinding price due to current demand and consumption and intelligent consumer hardware automatically controlled by this price) are emerging.

Sounds terrible. Can you imagine half the lights in your house automatically turning off due to price increases? If it's enforced on people then it's basically rolling brownouts. If it's optional people will leave the lights on, pay more and grumble, but you'll still to generate the electricity (unless you do rolling brownouts).

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#160

Post by eliasmacpherson » Mon, May 30, 2011, 10:54 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…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_n... Table for figure 54 World power use by region, 1990–2008, TWh Europe: 2857 US: 4533 pdf warning - albeit free of charge. By your logic - europe is for luddites because it approaches half the consumption of the US per captita.