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

Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

euractiv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 399 posts

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#211

Post by fulafel »

dragonwriter wrote: post #188
fulafel wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can if you have decent insulation (which at least cold climates do). In fact people historically have taken advantage of cheaper night time electricity prices to shift heating to night time. Better insulation will become a more attractive investment than in the past.

> In fact people historically have taken advantage of cheaper night time electricity prices to shift heating to night time. Night time is usually when heating is most needed. Shifting AC to night time in hot regions would be more impressive.

> Night time is usually when heating is most needed.

If we are still talking about cold climates where houses are well insulated, it's a more convenient timing but not really needed. If you cut heating for half the night or even more, indoor temp won't drop too much even if outdoor temp is notably lower than day time. It might drop a few degrees as you are sleeping warmly tucked in, but that's not dangerous, and you can still heat your bedroom if you want to avoid even that slight adjustment.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#212

Post by cperciva »

jhgb wrote: post #206
nradov wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind speeds near the ground peak in the early afternoon. Higher altitude winds peak at night, but you need quite a large turbine to catch those. Sometimes there's no wind for days at a time. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/27/11/jcli-d...

Quoting from your link: "It is found that daily extreme wind speeds at 10 m are most likely in the early afternoon, whereas those at 200 m are most likely in between midnight and sunrise " Ground is irrelevant; there's a reason why wind turbines are being put on top of tall towers.

200m tall towers?

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#213

Post by burnished »

Slade1 wrote: post #160
retrac wrote: 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…

Would a world where we took initiative to reduce civilian air travel in preference of trains and boats also lead to the military no longer producing fighter jets?

It would do a lot, yeah. Boeing services military and commercial contracts. If instead of commercial airlines taking off (lol) they just.. didn't, then even with an interested military you would have fewer engineers, smaller & poorer companies, just generally less advancement and less production.

Your question is good but it doesn't have the answer you seem to think it does! These things feed into each other, so while it might be unreasonable to say "no commercial airlines means no military air vehicles" (I hesitate to say fighter jet because I do think that would be a casualty), it would also be unreasonable to say that "no commercial airlines means no impact on military air technology".

You might think, hey, the military has got some strong advancements the rest of us don't even know about, whos to say that wouldn't be the case? Well, the people working on that tech went to college and got educations in a field that had employment opportunities, and likely would not have if those opportunities didn't exist. Just think about all the supporting industries that are very specific. The aluminum alloys, the manufacturing methods for these high tolerance parts, the electrical systems, the fuel systems etc. You just aren't going to get very far without a civilian populace implicitly backing the effort.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#214

Post by earthnail »

aagd wrote: post #140
izacus wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. Can you cut this "future generations are going to have to carry the cost" when the alternative is literally helping destroy the whole planet's ecosystems? Not to mention they spew up significantly more radioactivity in the air than nuclear powerplants. A 30x30m pool of radioactive fuel is nothing compared to what their powerplants are doing to the future of young genera…

In Germany renewables are at over 42% in 2021, despite a 'conservative' government that for decades has blocked the development of windfarms and solar for the benefit of the coal and nuclear lobby. That kind of lobby-work is the actual problem here. The way forward is renewable energy. The huge difference is that the source of renewable energy is free and basically limitless.

The problem is that only a fraction of power consumption is electric. The rest is burning fossil fuels.

In order to get away from these, we have to increase electricity production significantly. And we have to build a better electricity grid.

It is completely unclear how renewable energy should provide this in the short or medium term (i.e. until 2050). Without nuclear, we’ll just continue burning fossil fuels.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#215

Post by cinntaile »

criley2 wrote: post #108
Gwypaas wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar + 4 hours of storage clocking in at $40/MWh in ideal conditions. Substitute for windpower and some worse conditions and nuclear energy still look awful from a cost perspective. https://www.energy-storage.news/developer-8minute-says-more-...

Something about wind and solar isn't working to meet the increasing demands in Germany https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec... From 2020 to 2021, Coal is up 8%, Wind is down 7%, Solar is down 1%. Non-renewable in total is up 8% and renewable is down 8%. If they can find a battery solution that actually works, then that would be amazing, but existing solutions clearly aren't cutting it. While i…

You should look at longer time periods instead of just looking at one year. Year to year variability could be big due to a variety of reasons.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#217

Post by incrudible »

Gwypaas wrote: post #90
thewarrior wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost is irrelevant if you can’t store the energy generated. Nuclear is predictable and carbon free. Look at France.

Solar + 4 hours of storage clocking in at $40/MWh in ideal conditions. Substitute for windpower and some worse conditions and nuclear energy still look awful from a cost perspective. https://www.energy-storage.news/developer-8minute-says-more-...

There is no storage solution. The required amount of batteries would be enormous, well in excess of production capacity. The only feasible solution to even out throths is (natural) gas plants. Neither coal nor nuclear are quickly adjustable in output, when combined with wind/solar they lead to peaks of overproduction. This is the situation in Germany.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#218

Post by bernulli »

simorley wrote: post #44
ethbr0 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 am…

Maybe you missed the part in Cold War doctrine where Germany is the battlefield intended to be used up to stop the invasion before the Rhine.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#219

Post by LatteLazy »

themaninthedark wrote: post #151
LatteLazy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone thinks the next gen of reactors will finally solve the issues the last 3/4 didn't. This is one of those generational issues because young people (I'm 37) hear promises and old ones have heard them before...

What issues don't the new designs solve that you are worried about?

Nuclear has basically three issues: Cost, Waste and Safety.

Cost is already a lost cause for the new reactors. No one making them expects to break even without subsidies.

For waste and safety, we'll see. But given it will take 40 years to tell and the last generations except the first were all sold as completely waste free and impervious to any incident...

This is the big issue with nuclear: it will take 40 years and billions of dollars to find out (and maybe some additional meltdowns and tonnes and tonnes of waste) to find out.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#220

Post by Gwypaas »

cperciva wrote: post #212
jhgb wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoting from your link: "It is found that daily extreme wind speeds at 10 m are most likely in the early afternoon, whereas those at 200 m are most likely in between midnight and sunrise " Ground is irrelevant; there's a reason why wind turbines are being put on top of tall towers.

200m tall towers?

Almost, the hub is still a bit more than 50m below but the rotor points above. Modern off-shore ones are true monsters.

For example this one, rotor diameter 220m, highest point 248m.

https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind...

Post reply on HN