Live data from Hacker News

Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

thehindu.com

221–230 of 279 posts

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#221
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany finalized the plans for a nuclear shutdown somewhere around 2021 in a binding law in 2002 (apparently this was based on "remaining energy to be generated", which doesn't naturally allow to put a precise date on it because of annual variations of demand, but all estimates I've seen in the past basically amount to "by very early 2020s"). This was 9 years before the Fukushima disaster. So please explain to me ho…

This actually dates back to 1998 when Schröder was chancellor and made the “Atomausstieg” a key topic for federal elections back then - agreed upon by the government and energy corps in 2000. Momentum really was gained after fukushima. Again, my personal opinion, this is a reactionary and short sighted approach answering emotional sentiments not scientific data and facts.

As far as I can tell, it became a law in 2002. I'm not sure how "momentum really was gained after Fukushima" when the phase-out procedures had to be followed ever since 2002. The whole thing has been in motion for almost twenty years.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#222

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.

> accelerate the construction of renewable energy

Accelerate what? Wind and solar are at capacity, and storage solutions do not exist at that scale.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#223
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany finalized the plans for a nuclear shutdown somewhere around 2021 in a binding law in 2002 (apparently this was based on "remaining energy to be generated", which doesn't naturally allow to put a precise date on it because of annual variations of demand, but all estimates I've seen in the past basically amount to "by very early 2020s"). This was 9 years before the Fukushima disaster. So please explain to me ho…

This actually dates back to 1998 when Schröder was chancellor and made the “Atomausstieg” a key topic for federal elections back then - agreed upon by the government and energy corps in 2000. Momentum really was gained after fukushima. Again, my personal opinion, this is a reactionary and short sighted approach answering emotional sentiments not scientific data and facts.

Since Schröder seems to be instrumental in the construction of Nord Stream pipelines, it seems there exist a pretty decent economical incentive to change the energy policy towards the use of more natural gas, using the Fukushima incident to hasten the progress. The less nuclear that exist in the grid the higher the peak price will be during periods of low wind conditions.

Are there other politicians that are invested into natural gas?

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#224
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continent sized landmasses can survive on wind and solar assuming HVDC interconnects. Some storage would be nice to have, preferably more than a weeks' worth.

Let's approximate the cost of that. The energy consumption of my country (the Netherlands) was 3157 PJ in 2017. This was 980 kwh per person per week. Solar batteries cost a bit more than $1000 per kwh. So at these prices this plan costs approximately $1 million per person. Solar batteries last 5-15 years. If we say that they last 20 years, then the energy storage costs are $130 per person per day per week's worth of…

The problem with your reasoning is that no cost-optimal plan of providing the society with energy would call for a week's worth of batteries. Furthermore, another problem is that judging from the number, you're presumably calculating with annual primary energy spent per capita, which will not be the same number after electrification (electrification is expected to massively slash primary energy expended -- for example in cars, where ~20 kWh of electricity replace ~6 liters of gasoline, primary energy shrinks roughly by a factor of three). Therefore translating current primary energy consumption into electricity that will need to be stored in an electrified future is nonsensical.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fukushima on other hand is insignificant. Not really having much effect on anything. WTF?! Are you not aware of the constant amount of waste water being poured into the Pacific? [0] Or the absurdly high amount of Cesium being found in migrating Tuna? The amount of cancers and heart related issues is still unfolding to this day, particularly in the children from the surrounding areas. And the people who were forced…

>And the people who were forced to evacuate and then forced out of the shelters with nothing to go back Perhaps evacuating unnecessarily large areas was the problem in the first place. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095758201...

> Perhaps evacuating unnecessarily large areas was the problem in the first place.

Academic handwaving after the event has very little bearing on the amount of Human suffering that took place, the displacement and the impoverishment and degrading experiences (Fukushima victims lived in a FEMA camp like situation and were deemed untouchable in Japanese Society like the Hibakusha before them and incurred massive property losses in addition to the Human costs) furthermore it's hard to explain the severity to people who have never experienced a Nuclear incident themselves. The level of scaring you're left with, the PTSD that comes with it is something very few living Humans can relate or truly empathize with and I speak from experience.

You're never the same, you come close with the reality that this technology was not fully thought-out in the 20th century when it was created and built with near headlong fervor with no thought to the repercussions of it going wrong--and in most cases it's at a time your in a life-death situation.

Most plants are built in the coastal area and often only have one way in and one way out because of the cost and practical aspects of building freeways along the coast. You are essentially trapped in when everyone tries to evacuate on their own and you're left with the realization that the energy that was generated was mainly exported at a profit for a private company who will later find ways to absolve themselves of criminal negligence and declare bankruptcy before restitution is ever made to the areas where it was built--look at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Edison, and going back to Bectel in the 70s with SONGS.

And regulators like the NRC will simply acquiesce and allow for the waste material to lay in an actively seismic area that if unsettled could be just as catastrophic to the Ocean and local area as if the plant were still operational. They assumed NV would continue to take it, and were left with no other solution when they refused.

To be clear: I'm more optimistic about 21st Century approaches to Nuclear than I was to 20th, which I would say was a DOA thing for me after having lived through SONGS, due to the effects of climate change (the ongoing Boulder fire being the most recent proving how absurd this has gotten) but that doesn't detract from the fact that Nuclear needs to be far more monitored and regulated in terms of waste management and city planning before a single brick is laid down.

With that said, I'm glad Diablo Canyon was shut down, if fusion is just around the corner than hopefully that will be what takes SONGS and DC place when its ready, but until then solar, wind and other forms of renewable are more suitable alternatives to fossil fuel plants.

Furthermore, it's biggest proponents should be forced to live to next one for the lifetime of the plant. I can't see how that be enforced but the way some of you speak with such hubris like it's the most easiest and practical thing to do speaks volumes of just how ignorant and detached you really are from reality of the drawbacks of nuclear plants and the immense complexity that comes with them.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#226
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threat isn't directly to invade Germany. It is to stop Germany from intervening when Russia invade it's neighbor countries. EG if you embargo us or provide Military Support to russian opponents, will shut down the power in Germany and you'll freeze to death. A short-term gas disruption will cause Russia to lose some money, but would be much more dangerous for Germany

Russian gas makes up only 1/3rd of Germany's total amount of imported gas and only because it's cheap. If the Russians really were to turn off the valve, the amount could be made up for with other sources. By far not instantly, but nobody would freeze to death, either. Germany's alleged dependence on Russian gas is mostly a fairytale of US propaganda.

I'm open to the idea that this is overstated, but would love to see the numbers. Is it 1/3rd now or 10 years from now? Does the alternative supply and import infrastructure have the capacity to provide 30% more on short notice? Alternatively, how long and how well can Germany operate with only 60% imports.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#227
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Avoiding nuclear will save you money in the long run though

Energy subsidies in the EU says the opposit: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/annex_to_the...

Countries that need a lot of reserve energy is paying a lot of subsidies to fossil fuels. Year in, year out. First you need to pay them in order to keep the plants on standby when renewables are plenty, and then you need to pay them again when demand exceeds the productions of renewables. The outcome is very large and steady stream of money going into the pockets of those who invest into fossil fuel.

Nuclear would need a lot in order to catch up to the same level of subsidies.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#228
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

paying way more for electricity is not a good thing, sorry.

Funny, I had this exact discussion with a colleague at work the other day. She claimed this is nonsense and won't change anybody's mind. Then she mentioned that she just had bought a new car. I asked what kind, it's a hybrid. I asked why? Well, because her old car was using so much fuel, and with recent price hikes, that became too expensive, so she just bought one that was significantly more fuel efficient. The _exa…

> You need to feel it in your wallet, then you act, plain and simple.

In that case, we should make the price of power relative to your wealth, shouldn't we? I'm guessing you're an academic and work in tech or consulting, so you make two, three times the national average if you live in Germany. Trippling the price of power will barely register on your level, so you have little incentive to conserve energy. However, if we said that e.g. a kwh costs 1/15000 of your personal wealth, you'd have a lot of incentive, because even if you start the year as a billionaire, you'd be broke if you used 15000kwh.

I have a feeling that none of the -typically well-off- proponents of "we must make the people pay more so that they stop consuming" will be a fan of that.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#229
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This actually dates back to 1998 when Schröder was chancellor and made the “Atomausstieg” a key topic for federal elections back then - agreed upon by the government and energy corps in 2000. Momentum really was gained after fukushima. Again, my personal opinion, this is a reactionary and short sighted approach answering emotional sentiments not scientific data and facts.

As far as I can tell, it became a law in 2002. I'm not sure how "momentum really was gained after Fukushima" when the phase-out procedures had to be followed ever since 2002. The whole thing has been in motion for almost twenty years.

My point is: it is a (really) dumb idea for a country that is facing serious infrastructural issues.

The days of great “german engineering” are mostly (i said “mostly”, ok?) a thing of the past - reality has it that this country lost focus and misses out on vital long-term investements and vision. And unfortunately most of this is driven on a political scale intertwined with classic german big corporations.

The “Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport” has been a joke from the beginning and is a showcase of how incompetent politicians can ruin a country.

Try making a call longer than 20 minutes while driving without it being dropped, charge your car…

Sorry for the rant, but it’s just sad where this is going.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#230
post #227
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avoiding nuclear will save you money in the long run though

Energy subsidies in the EU says the opposit: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/annex_to_the... Countries that need a lot of reserve energy is paying a lot of subsidies to fossil fuels. Year in, year out. First you need to pay them in order to keep the plants on standby when renewables are plenty, and then you need to pay them again when demand exceeds the productions of renewables. The outcome is very l…

Your document's graph shows that France, and a bunch of other countries with nuclear, are subsidizing fossil fuels more than Germany.

That seems to be proving the oppposite of your point.

It's also interesting that France has generic "electricity" subsidies that are bigger than their "nuclear" subsidies and yet 70% of their electricity is nuclear.

Post reply on HN