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

311–320 of 399 posts

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#311

Post by 627467 »

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…

So, 100 thousand years is not long enough to find a use of disposing nuclear waste but it is enough to try to terraform earth to undo the changes enacted from NOT using nuclear?

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#312

Post by freemint »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #93
kazinator wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Cold War takes a lot of the blame: everything from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, to the subsequent ugly arms race, to bomb testing and its environmental effects. Plus events like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Generation X kids were born into an era which felt the threat of global nuclear war, and those people are decision makers today.

Frankly, non-nuclear is austerity in disguise. "Too cheap to meter" electricity is like full employment, objectively better but a huge target politically. It's not a coincidence that US gave up on both at the same time. https://delong.typepad.com/kalecki43.pdf does justice to the full employment situation, and the same arguments apply. In the econ case it's kind of incredible we filled our minds with nonsense to conv…

> "Too cheap to meter" electricity

How about electricity that doesn't flow through a meter because it goes from the roof into the socket?

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#313

Post by adfrhgeaq5hy »

proctrap wrote: post #97
kazinator wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Cold War takes a lot of the blame: everything from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, to the subsequent ugly arms race, to bomb testing and its environmental effects. Plus events like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Generation X kids were born into an era which felt the threat of global nuclear war, and those people are decision makers today.

Why invest into something that will only last 100 years in fuel, take 30k years to deconstruct and may blow into your face at every point in time. Sounds insane.

Nuclear reactors cannot explode. It is not physically possible. It isn't even close to physically possible. Reactor-grade uranium is about 5% U235 while you need >90% to make something that can explode.

May as well ask why we use wind turbines when they might take off and start dropping napalm.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#314

Post by Tsarbomb »

proctrap wrote: post #81
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.

How about - Germany trying to find a nuclear waste deposit since ages (that doesn't have to be evacuated due to ground water later on)* - Failed nuclear plants we're deconstructing since ages and are paying millions every year to do so - Nuclear fuel expected to be depleted in the next 100 years - State and taxpayers always having to pay for the disasters of nuclear plants, while the gains are going to the companies…

Here I am in Canada, in a city powered by the largest nuclear facility in the world by output, in a province where 60% of the power is Nuclear.

Please tell me more about how it is bad, or do you only cherry pick your arguments?

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#315

Post by xg15 »

johnchristopher wrote: post #283
xg15 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Good to know. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info!

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#316

Post by louissm_it »

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…

I’m sorry but no. The future costs of nuclear are comparatively irrelevant if you consider the immediate doom our climate and thousands and thousands of species are facing because of burning fossil. If a 100 nuclear disasters happen in the next 5 years it will still do less damage than coal.

There is simply no more time, the only option is to stop burning at any and all costs.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#317

Post by freemint »

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.

The number of people displaced by coal is lower. Nuclear does well on deaths, yes.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#318

Post by freemint »

himinlomax wrote: post #256
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?

Fukushima killed one (1). In the context of a massive natural disaster that killed 10000. Three Miles Island happened years before Chernobyl and killed no one, because it wasn't a dodgy, duct-taped together soviet piece of junk. In the last 30 years, the only nuclear power accident was Fukushima and again, caused just one victim. Fossil fuel depot fires have killed thousands more in that time.

because 0.2 million people were displaced.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#319

Post by ethbr0 »

TMWNN wrote: post #75
simorley wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. Completely wrong. A NATO-Russia war could have been (and still could) be fought entirely in central Europe. This might include tactical nuclear weapons, delivered by short- and medium-range missiles and aircraft. This is why…

> might include tactical nuclear weapons, delivered by short- and medium-range missiles and aircraft

Also, people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Light_Teams

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#320

Post by [deleted] »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #281
WhompingWindows wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN