Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never mind that they live right next door to the most active user of nuclear power in Europe France. So likelihood of a nuclear accident not affecting them is close to zero.
So just go with it and multiply the risk further? It's like saying, my partner smokes cigarettes, so me also doing so, will not raise my cancer risk.
Germany mulls extending nuclear plants' life-span
91–100 of 170 posts
Re: Germany mulls extending nuclear plants' life-span
#92I know this article isn't great, but is there anyone on HN who lives in Germany who could explain why there's such a scepticism of Nuclear power there? I'm from the UK and we have largely transitioned away from Nuclear for one clear reason - there was no political appetite to spend a tonne of money on an expensive form of energy that wasn't likely to pay off in the current parliamentary term. The german response to N…
German here, but I'll be a bit lazy and refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany . I quickly skimmed over it and I think it touches the history well. From my personal perspective, I can definitely relate being nuclear skeptic due to Chernobyl (I was 7 years old at the time) and basically constant demonstrations/problems with the end storage facility subject - for as long as I remember. Also, at…
Re: Germany mulls extending nuclear plants' life-span
#93I know this article isn't great, but is there anyone on HN who lives in Germany who could explain why there's such a scepticism of Nuclear power there? I'm from the UK and we have largely transitioned away from Nuclear for one clear reason - there was no political appetite to spend a tonne of money on an expensive form of energy that wasn't likely to pay off in the current parliamentary term. The german response to N…
Off the top of my head : German multinationals (in the energy sector such as Siemens, Wintershall) have removed it from their strategies because Nuclear technologies inefficient and bear a lot of risks. New reactor types don't work as promised. Government does not want Nuclear Energy because it needs enormous amounts of subsidies, and still there are regular cost overruns just as enormous. And Consortias still demand…
Nuclear power has been economically inefficient for a long time.
This is true for many, many economies. Even in places like Japan and South Korea, nuclear energy is more expensive than seaborn LNG.
The reason that nuclear energy has been supported is the "unspoken" externality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
Having a "peaceful" nuclear plant, means you can throw together a bomb pretty quickly if needed.
Hence countries like Japan/Korea, with active space and rocketry programs as well as a thriving domestic nuclear power industry, have been considered "quasi-nuclear powers" by many. Their "time to slap together an atom bomb," given a large national supply of nuclear physicists is not that long.
Germany, is very supporting of pacifism.
Hence, since the German approach to foreign policy is fundamentally "we don't want nuclear weapons because we really don't want to engage in warfare, because warfare is immoral." They don't want nuclear power.
Re: Germany mulls extending nuclear plants' life-span
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
So just go with it and multiply the risk further? It's like saying, my partner smokes cigarettes, so me also doing so, will not raise my cancer risk.
Nuclear plants have net saved some million of lives by displacing air pollution, even when considering the risks of radiation accidents. Germany could shut down coal and leave nuclear on and save 1000 people per year. Not to mention climate change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.057
Re: Germany mulls extending nuclear plants' life-span
#95I know this article isn't great, but is there anyone on HN who lives in Germany who could explain why there's such a scepticism of Nuclear power there? I'm from the UK and we have largely transitioned away from Nuclear for one clear reason - there was no political appetite to spend a tonne of money on an expensive form of energy that wasn't likely to pay off in the current parliamentary term. The german response to N…
After the Fukushima catastrophe, it was clear that the unknown unknows are worse than anticipated. Sad thing is, Germany should have pumped a whole lotta more money into renewables and their research.
The Energiewende makes them one of a tiny handful of countries worldwide that is actively interested in alleviating greenhouse gases.
Re: Germany mulls extending nuclear plants' life-span
#96I know this article isn't great, but is there anyone on HN who lives in Germany who could explain why there's such a scepticism of Nuclear power there? I'm from the UK and we have largely transitioned away from Nuclear for one clear reason - there was no political appetite to spend a tonne of money on an expensive form of energy that wasn't likely to pay off in the current parliamentary term. The german response to N…
I’m not against nuclear power but can anyone explain why a similar sized investment in solar+wind+geothermal+battery storage would not work?
From what I can find, the capital cost of a new nuclear plant is somewhere on the order of $6M-9M/MW.
On the other hand, a 3MWh grid battery from Tesla runs about $1M. So ignoring cloudy days and just considering providing power overnight (in the winter), you'd need about 14 hours of capacity, so about $14M to provide 3MW, or roughly $5M/MW.
So, in terms of initial capital cost, just the battery portion to handle the overnight gap in solar production would be roughly equivalent to the cost of nuclear, but of course that doesn't account for the cost of the solar panels, nor for the fact that there will be other periods when generation is low. (Although these can be partially dealt with by over-building the renewable generation and using wind as well as solar.) However, the other issue is that the lifespan of grid-connected lithium ion batteries appears to be about 5-15 years, whereas nuclear plants should generally last several decades at least.
So, batteries + renewables are more expensive in terms of capital than nuclear plants, which are themselves quite expensive, but I must admit I'm surprised that the difference isn't even greater. I expect part of the problem is production capacity. You can build a 1100MW nuclear plant, but I expect it would be nearly impossible to buy a 14GWh of grid batteries because the capacity to build them in that scale just doesn't exist, yet at least. Also, as others have mentioned, you'd need a lot of space.
There are other methods of storage that are used, pumped hydro being the most common in large scale, but requiring specific geography. There are other options like gravitational storage with shafts and weights or carts on tracks or what have you, but they're all expensive and/or difficult to scale.
Re: Germany mulls extending nuclear plants' life-span
#97I know this article isn't great, but is there anyone on HN who lives in Germany who could explain why there's such a scepticism of Nuclear power there? I'm from the UK and we have largely transitioned away from Nuclear for one clear reason - there was no political appetite to spend a tonne of money on an expensive form of energy that wasn't likely to pay off in the current parliamentary term. The german response to N…
Off the top of my head : German multinationals (in the energy sector such as Siemens, Wintershall) have removed it from their strategies because Nuclear technologies inefficient and bear a lot of risks. New reactor types don't work as promised. Government does not want Nuclear Energy because it needs enormous amounts of subsidies, and still there are regular cost overruns just as enormous. And Consortias still demand…
Do you mean NuScale or Hitachi BWRX-300?
Re: Germany mulls extending nuclear plants' life-span
#98I know this article isn't great, but is there anyone on HN who lives in Germany who could explain why there's such a scepticism of Nuclear power there? I'm from the UK and we have largely transitioned away from Nuclear for one clear reason - there was no political appetite to spend a tonne of money on an expensive form of energy that wasn't likely to pay off in the current parliamentary term. The german response to N…
Off the top of my head : German multinationals (in the energy sector such as Siemens, Wintershall) have removed it from their strategies because Nuclear technologies inefficient and bear a lot of risks. New reactor types don't work as promised. Government does not want Nuclear Energy because it needs enormous amounts of subsidies, and still there are regular cost overruns just as enormous. And Consortias still demand…
Is the perception that Germany will be better off with the problems that dropping nuclear creates, or are those not acknowledged?
Re: Germany mulls extending nuclear plants' life-span
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off the top of my head : German multinationals (in the energy sector such as Siemens, Wintershall) have removed it from their strategies because Nuclear technologies inefficient and bear a lot of risks. New reactor types don't work as promised. Government does not want Nuclear Energy because it needs enormous amounts of subsidies, and still there are regular cost overruns just as enormous. And Consortias still demand…
This is essentially it. Nuclear power has been economically inefficient for a long time. This is true for many, many economies. Even in places like Japan and South Korea, nuclear energy is more expensive than seaborn LNG. The reason that nuclear energy has been supported is the "unspoken" externality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency Having a "peaceful" nuclear plant, means you can throw together a bomb…
Re: Germany mulls extending nuclear plants' life-span
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a knee jerk reaction to Fukushima. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
It's not. These plans have been in motion since way before that, as your link probably confirms. Merkel was going to delay the closing, but when Fukushima came along she couldn't do that anymore.
> Within days of the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, large anti-nuclear protests occurred in Germany. Protests continued and, on 29 May 2011, Merkel's government announced that it would close all of its nuclear power plants by 2022.[7][8] Political writer David Frum characterized Merkel's decision as a political move to improve her approval ratings which had sagged after the post 2008 financial crisis bailout of southern Europe by Germany.
Regardless if things were in motion before, the decision to phase out was for a political gain. The rest of the story one can write themselves.
It put the country on the course we have today. It will be very interesting to see how the greens trot around that.