Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online • Hacker News Board

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#41

Post by petre » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 7:13 PM UTC

CyanBird wrote: post #15

Biggest issue with older nuclear plants is the material degradation as a consequence of radiation, after a some decades of constant irradiation steel can become as brittle as glass, which is not only not reversible, but it also means that the actual rebar and concrete surrounding the core becomes damaged and the only way to replace that is to rebuild the whole core I am rather against setting up new reactors, given t…

I think you are making a cofusion between thermal fission reactors and fast reactors where neutron radiation is indeed a problem. Rebar and concrete in fission plants ages due to thermal stress plus the usual culprits (humidity, oxygen), not necessarily neutron radiation.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#42

Post by outworlder » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 7:13 PM UTC

anshumankmr wrote: post #27

imtringued wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outdated information is quite relevant for nuclear power plants. Fukushima was older than Chernobyl. Every time someone tells me how safe modern power plants are I think "great, now get rid of all the old ones".

Wouldn't that be better than the gigatonnes of CO2 we keep emitting into the atmosphere?

Plus radiation. People seem to forget that coal plants actually spew radioactive material in the atmosphere.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#43

Post by Gwypaas » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 7:13 PM UTC

zsmi wrote: post #16

handrous wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were close enough (and downwind-enough) to experience direct effects from Chernobyl, no? Destroying contaminated produce, taking iodine pills as a precaution, that sort of thing, and, I'd guess, worries, for a time, about much worse consequences before the emergency was contained.

https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/accident-management/emergen... "To date, there is no evidence that the reactor accident has caused adverse health effects due to radiation in Germany."

As a result of the Chernobyl reactor accident, certain species of mushrooms and wild game are still highly contaminated with caesium-137 in some areas of Germany.

https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mush...

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#44

Post by simorley » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 7:13 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #5

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a US expat living in Germany, and boy is the anti-nuclear sentiment real here Is it the usual talking points on both sides? Or is there a Teutonic shade to the debate that doesn't surface in e.g. America?

Being the front line of the Cold War, while both the US and USSR developed battle plans for where nuclear weapons would be detonated in your country during a war, probably lends shades to the debate that aren't present in other countries. (Yes, nuclear power / nuclear weapons, but in the 70s that wasn't a clear distinction)

Considering MAD existed and most nukes would have been dropped on the US and USSR, not Germany, I don't think that's the issue. We and the russians had far more to worry about than the germans. Of course MAD pretty much ensured a 0% chance of nuclear war so really nothing to worry about. Nations truly worried about nuclear weapons develop them, not fight against them. Think about it.

Considering that Germany is an american vassal with significant russian influence, it's more likely political factions tied to US and Russia. US doesn't want Germany to develop nuclear energy because nuclear energy research is the same thing as a nuclear weapons research. A nuclear armed germany is pretty much an independent germany which is something no empire desires. Empire and freedom/independence/sovereignty don't mix. And russians don't want germany to develop nuclear energy because they want to sell more oil/gas to germany and gain more influence over germany/europe.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#45

Post by CyanBird » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 7:14 PM UTC

lamp987 wrote: post #23

CyanBird wrote: post #15

Biggest issue with older nuclear plants is the material degradation as a consequence of radiation, after a some decades of constant irradiation steel can become as brittle as glass, which is not only not reversible, but it also means that the actual rebar and concrete surrounding the core becomes damaged and the only way to replace that is to rebuild the whole core I am rather against setting up new reactors, given t…

Safety concerns are moot when the coal alternative will kill orders of magnitude more people.

But your own point is itself moot, given that we are not comparing nuclear to the dirtiest most lethal of fossil fuels, but nuclear to composite solutions of renewables+batteries/electricity storage or renewables+natural gas

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#46

Post by polishdude20 » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 7:15 PM UTC

junon wrote: post #3

I'm a US expat living in Germany, and boy is the anti-nuclear sentiment real here. There have even been fights - physical altercations - between Green Party members at rallies for having differing viewpoints about nuclear. Unfortunately, it seems those who are against are working with very outdated information and 'tropes' w.r.t. nuclear safety and whatnot. Quite unfortunate.

Wow this really puts the show "Dark" into a different context. It's like a propoganda piece about the dangers of nuclear power.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#47

Post by semi-extrinsic » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 7:15 PM UTC

zsmi wrote: post #16

handrous wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were close enough (and downwind-enough) to experience direct effects from Chernobyl, no? Destroying contaminated produce, taking iodine pills as a precaution, that sort of thing, and, I'd guess, worries, for a time, about much worse consequences before the emergency was contained.

https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/accident-management/emergen... "To date, there is no evidence that the reactor accident has caused adverse health effects due to radiation in Germany."

A lot of the fallout on land in Western Europe was in Scandinavia and Austria due to the prevailing winds and the places where clouds happened to precipitate into rain.

In some regions they are still today monitoring the cesium content of grass and moss, and bringing sheep and reindeer in for the weeks before slaughter to be fed hay from other regions to ensure the meat is within acceptable dose limits.

Edit - link to map: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Timothy-Mousseau/public...

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#48

Post by Gwypaas » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 7:16 PM UTC

fsflover wrote: post #33

tscherno wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear was also promoted as save decades before Chernobyl and Fukushima by the lobbies. So is there a guarantee that it is safe this time around?

It is statistically safer than almost anything even if you take Chernobyl and Fukushima into account.

Is that why it is impossible to insure a nuclear power plant on the private market?

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#49

Post by red_trumpet » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 7:17 PM UTC

fsflover wrote: post #33

tscherno wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear was also promoted as save decades before Chernobyl and Fukushima by the lobbies. So is there a guarantee that it is safe this time around?

It is statistically safer than almost anything even if you take Chernobyl and Fukushima into account.

What do you mean by "safer"? Less accidents compared to eg coal plants?

No exploding coal plant will render a whole region unlivable for >30 years. Both happened at Tschernobyl and Fukushima.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#50

Post by parineum » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 7:17 PM UTC

tscherno wrote: post #40

fsflover wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is statistically safer than almost anything even if you take Chernobyl and Fukushima into account.

Sure, I just wanted to point out the sentiment which I feel most have. Smoking was also scientifically safe in the 70s.

The point is that there was never a time where Nuclear became unsafe. It was never a lie.

The reverse of your analogy would be if cigarettes were actually good for you but we banned them because two people died of lung cancer.