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

Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

thehindu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 279 posts

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#161

Post by nexuist »

wildmanxx wrote: post #96
johnisgood wrote: post #3

Yeah, this has been known for a long time now that Germany is planning to shut down their nuclear plants. I have no clue why. There is a country in Eastern Europe and >60% of their electricity is from their nuclear power plants, and they are extending it. Imagine this country exporting electricity to Germany. Anyways, I believe it was a pretty shitty idea to say no to nuclear.

Quoted post unavailable.

Survivors of Fukushima? You mean all of them? Nobody died at Fukushima...or Three Mile Island. President Carter visited it while it was still melting down.

Yes, people died at Chernobyl, and we all know why (incompetence and lies). Are you suggesting the German nuclear industry is comparable to the Soviets?

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#162

Post by junon »

la_fayette wrote: post #144
junon wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is exactly why geologists do surveying before they build a nuclear power plant...

This is ridiculous! The house owners were convinced that there couldn't take place a flooding in that area! Most of them had no insuranced for flooding either. No specialist of any kind has predicted such a scenario...

Those houses aren't nuclear reactors. The safety measures were exponentially less stringent.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#163

Post by Tenoke »

wildmanxx wrote: post #53
dv_dt wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avoiding nuclear will save you money in the long run though

Sad that this is downvoted. The hidden cost of nuclear is one of the biggest issue the tech-affine crowds tend to ignore and not want to hear about. You may not pay it on your utility bill, but society and later generations will pay it.

Except Germany has largely been replacing it with coal (and gas) which has costs paid in lives today rather than in unlikely future hypotheticals.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#164

Post by Ekaros »

wildmanxx wrote: post #45
csunbird wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, and we will end up paying 50% more for our energy usage, just because of political swings.

Which is a good thing. Just converting energy sources is not going to save us. We need to tackle the energy sinks too, i.e., getting smarter about how we use the available energy, i.e., mostly being more energy efficient. ("We" as in "humankind".) Raising prices is the right incentive here. In the long run, +50% is not actually that bad. There is room for a lot more.

Maybe we should take step further. Make energy cost non-linear. Make it cost exponentially more with increased use. So if you do not use lot you pay base rate per unit. If you use lot you pay price multiple to the base rate per unit.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#165

Post by dane-pgp »

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #117
jhgb wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mortality from existing fossil fuels is significantly worse That may very well be true but it's completely irrelevant for future choices. Not building more nuclear plants doesn't mean you'll be building more fossil fuel plants instead. EDIT: For all the downvoters, see the fourth chart (Gross power production in Germany 1990-2021, by source (non-stacked)) on https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energ…

> Not building more nuclear plants doesn't mean you'll be building more fossil fuel plants instead. Uhh… Yes it does. The data shows that. An increased reliance on renewables means a large increase in reliance on LNG.

> The data shows that.

Many people are saying this.

> An increased reliance on renewables means a large increase in reliance on LNG.

What matters is whether increased reliance on renewables slows down the decarbonisation effort. If you have data which shows that, I'd be interested to see it.

In return, let me offer a study from last year which found: "in countries with a high GDP per capita, nuclear electricity production does associate with a small drop in CO2 emissions. But in comparative terms, this drop is smaller than that associated with investments in renewable energy. And in countries with a low GDP per capita, nuclear electricity production clearly associates with CO2 emissions that tend to be higher."

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/53376

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#166

Post by Nbox9 »

cryptodan wrote: post #87

Nuclear Power is the only feasible renewable energy that keeps energy flowing. I'd rather deal with the waste then be mining forever or burning oil.

> I'd rather deal with the waste then be mining forever or burning oil.

How does Nuclear Power stop mining? I see how it would reduce the need for coal, but it won’t change our appetite for metals, rocks, or gemstones.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#167

Post by daenz »

cjpearson wrote: post #139
daenz wrote: post #27

I have skimmed these kinds of articles, and maybe I am missing another important reason for this happening, but I am not seeing it. Is it essentially: people are scared of nuclear?

Nuclear is pretty unpopular in Germany, especially since Fukushima. In 2012 73% of Germans were in favor of the phase-out compared to 16% opposed. I don't think it's fair to characterize that as people being scared though. Some certainly may be, but others have different reasons. I think it's unfortunate given the climate, energy and geopolitical situation, but the Government is doing what the people clearly want it…

Are the other reasons that you are referring to likely related to nuclear not being "green" enough?

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#168

Post by euler2100 »

wildmanxx wrote: post #53
dv_dt wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avoiding nuclear will save you money in the long run though

Sad that this is downvoted. The hidden cost of nuclear is one of the biggest issue the tech-affine crowds tend to ignore and not want to hear about. You may not pay it on your utility bill, but society and later generations will pay it.

Care to explain how exactly? I'm genuinely curious.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#169

Post by jwr »

SimonSword91 wrote: post #7

I live in Germany and I wonder, what the consequences will be of shutting down both coal and nuclear in very short time. My guess is, we will pay for nuclear energy from France and coal energy from Poland when wind slows down. The new government tries to accelerate the construction of renewable energy but I think their plans will fail because of worker shortage and supply chain problems.

I think a big part of the problem is that Germany has strong business ties with Russia (if you think I'm exaggerating, you might not realize that former chancellor Gerhard Schröder became the chairman of the board of Nord Stream AG and of Rosneft right after being chancellor — ties do not get any stronger than that).

It is in Russia's best interest to have EU countries dependent on their fossil fuels (natural gas and coal). This goal is being achieved admirably, with Poland burning coal like crazy (buying lots of Russian coal) and Germany burning Russian gas like crazy (through Nord Stream pipelines).

Shutting down the nuclear plants plays straight into that strategy.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#170

Post by angelzen »

wildmanxx wrote: post #96
johnisgood wrote: post #3

Yeah, this has been known for a long time now that Germany is planning to shut down their nuclear plants. I have no clue why. There is a country in Eastern Europe and >60% of their electricity is from their nuclear power plants, and they are extending it. Imagine this country exporting electricity to Germany. Anyways, I believe it was a pretty shitty idea to say no to nuclear.

Quoted post unavailable.

Not a big fan of nuclear because of security and waste disposal issues, but quoting 3 accidents over a span of 60 years as a reason for a blanket ban on a whole class of energy production technologies is hyper safetyism.
Post reply on HN