Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants • Hacker News Board

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#231

Post by luckylion » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

deeviant wrote: post #183

epivosism wrote: post #31

Despite a lot of investigation it looks like Fukushima did not cause an increase in cancer deaths (and there were no direct deaths from it either). It's sad and strange that we treat it as if it had caused hundreds or thousands of deaths, and our response to it is to increase fossil fuel use, which definitely will lead to more death and pollution. Read for yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disa…

That fact that people look at Fukushima and say, "see this is why nuclear power is safe!" absolutely blows my mind. The outcome we had for Fukushima was not the only one possible. It could have been better, much better, and it could have been worse, much worse. That fact that one of the most advanced and earthquake prepared nations in the world even got close to having a Fukushima event, let alone actually had one, s…

The point isn't that Fukushima is great and hooray, the point is that it still killed fewer people than coal power plants do every year in pretty much every country.

And solar won't be replacing the nuclear plants that are being shut down. Coal and gas will.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#232

Post by tjansen » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 10:08 PM UTC

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.

The plan is to replace them with natural gas (https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/wirtschaft-155.html). At least until 2040, when they want to stop using natural gas (https://www.wiwo.de/politik/deutschland/regierungsbildung-ko...). After 2040, all fossil fuels and nuclear power are supposed to replaced by renewables. But no one knows how to do this yet, without any way to store significant amounts of energy.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#233

Post by jules » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 10:10 PM UTC

jhgb wrote: post #224

jules wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exampl…

A factor of three (which is very optimistic) doesn't change the conclusion: a week's worth of storage is not feasible with current battery technology, let alone a few weeks.

How much storage would actually be required is not clear to me. It depends on a lot of factors. A week doesn't sound totally crazy to me; we certainly want a good safety margin so that society doesn't collapse in a bad winter. If we take super optimistic numbers and have one day of storage and take your factor of 3 reduction in energy use, then the cost of storage alone would still be about twice what we currently pay for the energy. Expensive but certainly a cost that would be possible to pay.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#234

Post by tjansen » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 10:21 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #212

bufferoverflow wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany's primary energy source is now coal, now way they can shut it down. https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec... This is so stupid, what are they thinking?

By "primary" you mean they used 27% over a 6 month period, compared with 21% the 6 months a year earlier. Switching back into first after a good spell for wind had it briefly in the lead. Why does that mean they can't switch it off? The UK had 30% Coal in 2014 when they announced they would phase it out and did so slightly ahead of schedule.

27% is a misleading number because it is the average for the whole period. On some days, wind and solar can provide 100% of all electricity. But on windstill nights, it is closer to 0%. Without having a way to store a whole nation's energy needs for several days or even weeks, you still need fossil fuels (or nuclear).

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#235

Post by forgotmypw17 » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

pphysch wrote: post #61

SavantIdiot wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not politics. It is a practical reality that it is dangerous. As dangerous as coal plants. But for some reason HN likes to turn a blind eye to un-disposable toxic waste and the potential for citywide devastation (Chernobyl).

Devastation is a strong word. The restricted area around Chernobyl is incredibly wild and lush right now. It's just humans that don't want to live there for credible health concerns. Excessive resource extraction causes devastation.

The area for hundreds of kilometers radius around Chernobyl, including Kiev, is still contaminated, with effects on people's health still being felt.

It is common to downplay the effects of the accident, but it is huge.

(I'm originally from that area.)

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#236

Post by midasuni » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 10:26 PM UTC

cheschire wrote: post #42

Ekaros wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why waste money on military? Couldn't it be used much better ways like to decarbon various areas in infrastructure?

A bully (Russia) comes up to a child (Ukraine) and kicks them in the shin really hard (Crimea). Then grabs them by the shirt and rears back like they're about to punch the kid. You're right, why waste money teaching the kid Aikido when we could instead spend that money on school tutors to try to get them into schools that don't have bullies.

What good would a military do? The US has a more powerful military than russia, China and Europe put together, yet lost in iraq and afghanistan.

A better solution would be to stop giving russia money for its gas. That means not shutting down nuclear plants, and instead building many many more power plants to make Europe energy independent

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#237

Post by tjansen » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 10:31 PM UTC

whiteboardr wrote: post #98

praptak wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shutting down nuclear to buy coal sounds pretty countereffective. What was the justification for this decision?

Solely political for federal elections following the Fukushima incident. It’s sad, and almost infuriating, how an event that would never threaten safe nuclear plant operation in Germany set the stone rolling for “Energiewende”. Personally i think Germany is making a huge mistake and will regret this course down the road.

1. Fear (nuclear waste, radioactivity, incidents, association with nuclear weapons)

2. The Green party has been born out of the anti-nuclear movement. Without them, Germany would probably use nuclear energy for most of its electricity needs, like France does. If the Green party would embrace nuclear, they would have to admit that the anti-nuclear movement was a huge mistake and it is actually, for a good part, to blame for climate change. Just imagine what the world would look like today if the development of nuclear power plants hadn't been stopped in the 80s and countries used nuclear instead of coal and natural gas.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#238

Post by jhgb » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

jules wrote: post #233

jhgb wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exampl…

A factor of three (which is very optimistic) doesn't change the conclusion: a week's worth of storage is not feasible with current battery technology, let alone a few weeks. How much storage would actually be required is not clear to me. It depends on a lot of factors. A week doesn't sound totally crazy to me; we certainly want a good safety margin so that society doesn't collapse in a bad winter. If we take super op…

> A factor of three (which is very optimistic)

For cars, the factor of three is not "optimistic", it's simple comparison of the respective primary energies consumed by typical vehicles in their respective categories. 20 kWh to drive 100 km = 72 MJ of primary energy. 6 liters of gasoline to drive the same distance = ~220 MJ of primary energy -- roughly triple of the former number.

> A week doesn't sound totally crazy to me; we certainly want a good safety margin so that society doesn't collapse in a bad winter.

Yes, but that doesn't imply you need the capacity to run the country 100% on batteries for a week. That's just not something anyone would ever do. For example, a gas turbine with a low duty cycle would definitely be cheaper than a battery after a certain period of time. So why would you use a battery for that?

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#239

Post by whiteboardr » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

tjansen wrote: post #237

whiteboardr wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solely political for federal elections following the Fukushima incident. It’s sad, and almost infuriating, how an event that would never threaten safe nuclear plant operation in Germany set the stone rolling for “Energiewende”. Personally i think Germany is making a huge mistake and will regret this course down the road.

1. Fear (nuclear waste, radioactivity, incidents, association with nuclear weapons) 2. The Green party has been born out of the anti-nuclear movement. Without them, Germany would probably use nuclear energy for most of its electricity needs, like France does. If the Green party would embrace nuclear, they would have to admit that the anti-nuclear movement was a huge mistake and it is actually, for a good part, to bla…

This.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#240

Post by nradov » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 10:49 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #191

jules wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How does it compare to the cost of a nuclear power plant? Storing a weeks worth of consumption on a 'per person' basis can be done for a fraction of $1m. But energy scarcity will lead to an increase in prices, which in turn will lead to a reduction in consumption. One big problem with energy is that it is still way too cheap. Another problem is that there are a lot of subsidies involved for large consumers as well as…

Energy is too expensive, not too cheap. The real problem is that the market is distorted by subsidizing some forms of energy production and failing to price in the negative externalities of others.