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

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#281

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #248

earthnail wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Renewables paired with batteries can improve grid resilience, actually. Distribution of generators means less loss in the wires travelling, batteries paired with renewables to provide overnight power and load-smoothing, these are good things. Renewables also are very predictable, so you can use a little natural gas to supplement at night while you build out batteries and more wind. Solar will take care of our day-tim…

I'm not sure there are (can be?) enough batteries in the world, to support the grid for any length of time.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#282

Post by jhgb » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #259

cesarb wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > > The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. > > No, they did not. > There have been several recent stories about the increase in coal usage this year. But was there any closure of nuclear power plants in Germany this year? If not, you cannot say that this increase was because they have switched from nuclear to coal; they must have switched from something else. > https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-…

So they switched from nuclear to wind to coal? Coal in the primary source of electricity. If they hadn’t reduced nuclear, coal could almost be gone? “ Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 11.63% of electricity supply in 2017[3] compared to 22.4% in 2010” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

No, if they hadn't reduced nuclear production, the relative changes between coal and renewables would have exactly been the same, only coal would have had the same uptick from a lower 2020 value. "The increase in coal usage" would have been exactly the same regardless of whether they shut down some nuclear power plants or not. That should be obvious to you. Since this inter-annual change would have happened regardless of nuclear generation levels (unless you for some reason assume that the number of nuclear power plants operating in Germany affects German inter-annual weather changes), you can't use the nuclear generation levels to make this argument.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#283

Post by johnchristopher » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #139

johnchristopher wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, what's the general population's stance on Belgian nuclear plants ?

I don't know much about it, but from what I know, not very positive. There are worries about the age and general state of the reactors, in particular Tihange [1]. Apparently there had been various worrying incidents in the past, which eventually led to an ECJ lawsuit of neighboring german cities against the plant's operators [2]. There is also a popular sentiment in eco/progressive circles that the german phase-out o…

Belgium is sun setting its nuclear plants. Here's the schedule https://economie.fgov.be/fr/themes/energie/sources-denergie/...:

  Doel 1 :    15 février 2025
  Doel 2 :    1er décembre 2025
  Doel 3 :    1er octobre 2022
  Doel 4 :    1er juillet 2025
  Tihange 1 :    1er octobre 2025
  Tihange 2 :    1er février 2023
  Tihange 3 :    1er septembre 2025

One of these got a 2 year extension, don't know if it's reflected in the list.

But I doubt Belgium could move a lot of nuclear energy out of the national grid considering the gas power plants needed to replace nuclear aren't built yet.

Belgium is also auctioning the building and operating of gas power plants: https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/167347/b... to replace nuclear plants. They aren't built yet but the first auction (for the building) takes place this week and the second one for operation some months later.

There might be a last chance for nuclear if somehow participants to the auctions can't prove it can be done but the government is dead set on retiring nuclear plants so it would only be a small respite for nuclear.

I am all for believing that renewables can keep on growing up but I read that our government is betting for some new tech in battery and power grid appliances to achieve 2050 objectives. Seems bold to me but I am not qualified to comment on that.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#284

Post by rib3ye » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

aagd wrote: post #104

The view I share with a majority of Germans: Costs of nuclear energy are very much a burden that future generations will have to carry. A hundered thousand years of safe storage is not part of the calculation of the energy price. It is also clear now that the the companies running the plants will not pay for the deconstruction of the plants after they reached their end of life. Tax payers have to pay for this, and a…

The "hundred thousand years" argument is one I hear a lot, but why do we all assume 1. our civilization will last more than 1,000 years. 2. there will be no new tech to address the issue in the future? The estimated time until catastrophic climate change are MUCH sooner than that.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#285

Post by titzer » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

drran wrote: post #272

titzer wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A typical large nuclear plant will produce 3 cubic meters of solid waste in a year. That's a little bigger than a refrigerator. A lot of solid waste can be reprocessed, though doing so requires regulatory and logistical challenges to be solved that apparently only France has figured out. Nuclear waste, comparatively, is not the problem. The risk of accidents, proliferation, and the generally higher cost of engineerin…

Do you include atomic station itself after EOL into your calculation?

I think we should, and yes, it's a lot to be sure. This is why I think small modular reactors offer some hope for a smaller footprint future.

We should do calculations that include all parts of the production pipeline for parts--factories, mines for raw materials, the trucks, the fuel, all of it, as well as the opportunity cost of not using that infrastructure for something else.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#286

Post by jhgb » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #244

jhgb wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. No, they did not. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/p...

There have been several recent stories about the increase in coal usage this year. https://amp.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec... Coal is the primary source of electricity this year

This is completely irrelevant. The inter-annual variability means nothing in the long run since the climate only cares about long-term averages. You're ignoring the long-term trend on purpose. This doesn't mean in any way that Germany is switching from nuclear to coal. They're switching from nuclear AND coal to renewables.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#287

Post by nsonha » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 9:36 PM UTC

Ericson2314 wrote: post #107

step21 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"did not cause any harm" - for a very loose defintion of harm. Sure it could have been much worse. But enough ground and water was contaminated, and much more will be in the future when they run out of storage.

And how much ground water is contaminated with fossil fuel extraction?

Radio contamination is at a different level

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#288

Post by nsonha » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 9:41 PM UTC

Gwypaas wrote: post #43

zsmi wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Imagine them end up exported

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#289

Post by jhgb » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

izacus wrote: post #279

jhgb wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. No, they did not. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/p...

This graph does not show the failure of renewables to provide sufficient power this year (it ends at 2020). The renewable power production is down for up to 40% and french nuclear power being in maintenance mode has caused the coal consumption to rise significantly.

It's completely irrelevant. The reason for the transition is climate protection and the climate cares about long term averages - the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the order of centuries. Pushing that average baseline lower is what matters, even in the presence of occasional spikes.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#290

Post by titzer » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

suetoniusp wrote: post #237

wazoox wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear energy kills about zero person per annum. Coal itself kills at least 50000 Europeans every year. Even taking into account the worst case scenarios such as Chernobyl, coal (and fossil fuels generally) is several orders of magnitudes more dangerous than nuclear. I just don't get this mindset. People prefer killing literaly millions of persons right now while there's a safer alternative. That's incredible, reall…

There is a safer alternative in the short term. The two are comparable in the long term for safety. Also "Coal itself kills at least 50000 Europeans every year." is far from a truth. Coal may have increased the chance of death by some amount for at least 50000 Europeans every year is more correct.

I believe that statistic. Air pollution is a killer. That causality chain is more indirect and longer than dying of acute radiation poisoning, but that radioactive coal fly ash is a stochastic killer; roll 400 million dice (the population of Europe) and just bias them a tiny bit (.01%), and a number like 40,000 easily pops out.