Live data from Hacker News

Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

euractiv.com

141–150 of 399 posts

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#141
post #125

One generally underappreciated aspect to nuclear energy opposition is the intrinsic link to nuclear weapons. Some of it is scientifically illiterate nonsense (a lot of people seem to think power reactors can have a nuclear explosion). And some of it is just historical association. But some of it is a lot harder to dismiss. A world without nuclear reactors or enrichment facilities is a world without nuclear weapons. A…

Global warming is worse than proliferation --- it is certainly harder to undo.

Also, I would expect more positive feelings about existing fission to increase R&D into thorium, fusion, etc., which do not have proliferation concerns.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#142
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re being glib, but the issue is that you can’t guarantee the alignment of sun and wind to match demand. Sometimes the wind blows at night, yes, but sometimes it does not. On a pure renewable grid, no wind at night means rolling brownouts or blackouts. This is particularly problematic during the summer when people want to run AC in order to sleep, and will also be an issue when people move to electric heat…

> Right now the choice is between a nuclear power plant during these moments, or a natural gas one. Well, gas and coal. Germany is still ~26% coal in 2021[1]. Edit: Maybe 50% coal if you look at consumption, not just generation, per 'incrudible[2]. [1]: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... (Lignite is a kind of coal) [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28857398

I would expect that in most places this will shift to natural gas, given that natural gas is more economically viable than coal for new plants. But still, both are fossil fuels, so neither option is great.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41447603 Former Chancellor Gerhard Schroder oversaw the shutdown of Germany's nukes. Now he's on the board of Rosneft, a giant fossil fuel company controlled by the Russian Government.

> Former Chancellor Gerhard Schroder oversaw the shutdown of Germany's nukes. This is incorrect. Germany decided to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima desaster. This was well into Merkels's chancellorship, and there are still nuclear power plants.

Not really incorrect. Both are in a way correct. In 2002 the nuclear power phase-out was written into law. With Merkel in 2010 there was a decision to keep the power plants running for far longer. This extension was retreated because of the Fukushima desaster.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#144
post #125

One generally underappreciated aspect to nuclear energy opposition is the intrinsic link to nuclear weapons. Some of it is scientifically illiterate nonsense (a lot of people seem to think power reactors can have a nuclear explosion). And some of it is just historical association. But some of it is a lot harder to dismiss. A world without nuclear reactors or enrichment facilities is a world without nuclear weapons. A…

Then we will continue wringing our hands about the would be nuclear apocalypse while species continue to die, crops fail, seas rise, temperatures warm, and billions of humans starve to death in the mean time. There is justified fear and irrational fear, and this is irrational. It should probably be noted that the firebombing of Tokyo with conventional weapons was more deadly than the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#145

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…

The money cost of 10 all-new nuclear reactors is minor when compared to the economic cost of electricity prices doubling and tripling again, gas and oil prices doubling again until EOY 2022. Rolling blackouts are not unreasonable to expect.

Industries have moved east and west from Germany because energy is just too expensive (besides too expensive labour due to high state quota as well). In Brandenburg, Chemical plants are threating to shut down because gas prices are out of whack (50% of gas price is tax). This is an extremely high cost for a national economy to pay.

Major consumer energy seller E.on has stopped selling household gas delivery contracts. Transportation cost in gas, diesel and electric car terms is skyrocketing as well. This makes all goods that are getting shipped more expensive. Germans are the poorest people of Western Europe. After tax, salaries are quite low. €500 to a €1000 more in yearly energy cost is a significant burden on many households, dampening spending in any other area including long retirement saving/investing.

All of the above will deconstruct industries, ruin household finances of the already pressured middle and lower class, and set the expectations for years to come when it comes to regulatory politics --- which during the past 20 years were the equivalent of shitposting on 4chan, just dressed up in nice suits and sitting in ideologically blind party councils.

10 all new power plants are chump change compared to that.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#146
post #125

One generally underappreciated aspect to nuclear energy opposition is the intrinsic link to nuclear weapons. Some of it is scientifically illiterate nonsense (a lot of people seem to think power reactors can have a nuclear explosion). And some of it is just historical association. But some of it is a lot harder to dismiss. A world without nuclear reactors or enrichment facilities is a world without nuclear weapons. A…

The he cat is out the bag I’m afraid, the only way nuclear weapons disappear is if they become obsolete, like mustard gas.

It’s an interesting though actually, that coming up with new, presumably more deadly weapons, can lead to a less horrendous world.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

burning coal kills people and does a whole lot of damage just by running normally. it doesn't have to explode

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41447603 Former Chancellor Gerhard Schroder oversaw the shutdown of Germany's nukes. Now he's on the board of Rosneft, a giant fossil fuel company controlled by the Russian Government.

> Former Chancellor Gerhard Schroder oversaw the shutdown of Germany's nukes. This is incorrect. Germany decided to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima desaster. This was well into Merkels's chancellorship, and there are still nuclear power plants.

No, parent is correct. The Atomausstieg was initiated under Schroeder's chancellorship. See for example Wikipedia if you doubt it.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#149

It's worth noting that nuclear is really expensive when factoring in insurance and disposable, a lot more so than wind and solar. >The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nucle...

> Let us not submit to the vile doctrine of the nineteenth century that every enterprise must justify itself in pounds, shillings and pence of cash income … Why should we not add in every substantial city the dignity of an ancient university or a European capital … an ample theater, a concert hall, a dance hall, a gallery, cafes, and so forth. Assuredly we can afford this and so much more. Anything we can actually do, we can afford. … We are immeasurably richer than our predecessors. Is it not evident that some sophistry, some fallacy, governs our collective action if we are forced to be so much meaner than they in the embellishments of life? …

-- John Maynard Keynes

Post reply on HN