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

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#241

Post by Marc3l » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 10:54 PM UTC

jhgb wrote: post #221

whiteboardr wrote: post #219

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.

The runtime was expanded in a rule from 2010 and set to a earlier date after Fukushima.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#242

Post by nradov » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 10:59 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #204

dijit wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Citation please” “Everything I have read contradicts what you just stated.” Not sure how I could be clearer. Maybe I made a mistake by admitting my ignorance, but i would rather admit my ignorance than assume I know everything because I read 5 articles and watched a few YouTube videos.

For starters HVDC lines are being installed in many places and many are already operational, and the 'windmills kill too many birds' thing was a push by the fossil fuel industry and has been debunked. I don't know which five articles you have read but I suggest you read a couple more and more recent ones. As for 'citation please': that does presume that you have done your own homework, I really don't see why I should…

Windmills do kill birds. That isn't seriously disputed. Some large wind farms have had a significant impact on threatened bird species. We might consider that an acceptable cost but the issue hasn't been debunked.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160929143808.h...

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#243

Post by nradov » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 11:03 PM UTC

jschveibinz wrote: post #152

wildmanxx wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I tend to agree with your approach. Charging more for electricity and other energy will likely reduce demand and consumption. I recently purchased a hybrid vehicle, and I find myself much more conscientious about how much energy I am using. I wonder: if every house only had a certain allotment of energy each day to use at the “regular” price, would energy consumption go down?

Would a house with 8 residents get the same allotment as a house with 1?

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#244

Post by jhgb » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 11:03 PM UTC

Marc3l wrote: post #241

jhgb wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The runtime was expanded in a rule from 2010 and set to a earlier date after Fukushima.

I know. The point is that in the long run, the phaseout happened almost exactly as planned twenty years ago. This is no new development, of even a post-Fukushima-development.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#245

Post by nradov » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 11:13 PM UTC

heurisko wrote: post #207

angelzen wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I err on the side of hyper safetyism when it comes to nuclear, as when it goes wrong, it can make areas permanently uninhabitable. Not to say that I advocate for a blanket ban. But I am concerned that a Chernobyl could happen in China, if the same human failure occurs again, in a command economy, with people afraid to speak up regarding safety issues vs targets.

Much of the Earth's surface has always been permanently uninhabitable for reasons unrelated to nuclear accidents. Closing off a few more small areas per century is an acceptable risk.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#246

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 11:17 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #242

jacquesm wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For starters HVDC lines are being installed in many places and many are already operational, and the 'windmills kill too many birds' thing was a push by the fossil fuel industry and has been debunked. I don't know which five articles you have read but I suggest you read a couple more and more recent ones. As for 'citation please': that does presume that you have done your own homework, I really don't see why I should…

Windmills do kill birds. That isn't seriously disputed. Some large wind farms have had a significant impact on threatened bird species. We might consider that an acceptable cost but the issue hasn't been debunked. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160929143808.h...

Yes, they do kill birds. But you know what? Buildings kill a very large multiple of that and housecats a very large multiple of the buildings. So no, they're not meatgrinders. Yes, some threatened bird species were impacted disproportionally, but any change would impact them because there are so few of them left, which is usually because of other causes: Windmills tend to be situated rather closer to the habitats of large birds of prey than housecats and buildings because we left them very little habitat to begin with, and neither large birds of prey nor windmills work well in an urban setting. But taking good care of this when siting windparks can alleviate a lot of that particular concern.

So yes, the 'windmills are bird killers' theory has been debunked to the extent that it was previously pushed as a false reason to not install windpower. (See for instance: https://windmillskill.com/blog/windfarms-kill-10-20-times-mo...)

There was a whole campaign around this, including endlessly recycled gruesome material of the same 25 birds that at one time flew into a particular mill. Obviously that stuff has legs because hey, gore and something I don't want in my backyard.

I always wonder what drives people to push these issues for more than they are worth.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#247

Post by Jensson » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 11:29 PM UTC

heurisko wrote: post #207

angelzen wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I err on the side of hyper safetyism when it comes to nuclear, as when it goes wrong, it can make areas permanently uninhabitable. Not to say that I advocate for a blanket ban. But I am concerned that a Chernobyl could happen in China, if the same human failure occurs again, in a command economy, with people afraid to speak up regarding safety issues vs targets.

People still live in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and always has as many didn't move when the disaster happened. And it gets safer every year, many work in it, nature thrives in it etc.

The parts that will be uninhabitable for the distant future is really tiny, most of it is already safer than many other parts people live in where natural disasters happens regularly. Living near a coal plant is much worse for your health than living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.

Edit: If you don't believe me you can read about current radiation levels in Pripyat here:

http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation...

Below 1 micro Sievert per hour is normal and harmless to live in, most of Pripyat is already there but some areas like the reactor and the graveyard used during clean-up are much higher. But still the town was just a few square kilometres, anything outside of that is basically safe. Just that Ukraine doesn't need this area for anything, they have no reason to open it up.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#248

Post by midasuni » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 11:34 PM UTC

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #215

k__ wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine sells wind turbines and said it's a nightmare to sell these things in Germany. All the land owners hate them. It's like the anti-vax crowd.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I’m not challenging the idea that people don’t want turbines built on or near their property. That might well be the case. I specifically want a source to substantiate the claim you made with your first eight words.

The world uses less energy than arrives from solar, so clearly it could be, if you had enough generation and storage.

It’s not a great line, what is needed is how much generation and how much storage is needed.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#249

Post by yakshaving_jgt » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 11:38 PM UTC

midasuni wrote: post #248

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I’m not challenging the idea that people don’t want turbines built on or near their property. That might well be the case. I specifically want a source to substantiate the claim you made with your first eight words.

The world uses less energy than arrives from solar, so clearly it could be, if you had enough generation and storage. It’s not a great line, what is needed is how much generation and how much storage is needed.

> if you had enough generation and storage.

If.

Re: Germany shuts down half of its remaining nuclear plants

#250

Post by deeviant » Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 11:47 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #231

deeviant wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I already stated that I don't support the shutting down of existing nuclear plants. But it hardly matters, the plants shutting down a very small part of the global grid, what matters is the future of the grid. Solar and wind with storage should be the future of the grid.