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

Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open

unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 480 posts

Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open

#41

Post by Johnny555 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #13
Retric wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia recently attacked a nuclear power plant not that far from Germany, which happened to survive without serious issue. So, this isn’t meaningless speculation even if you personally don’t view it as a major issue. In the end designing a nuclear power plant to survive shelling might not mitigate that much risk, but it is something being seriously considered in many circles.

The scenario above was, russia attacks a nuclear plant on purpose, with the intention to destroy or damage it. What happened in the Ukraine lately was no such thing, it was conquering a nuclear plant and the plant itself was not damaged in the process. Still irresponsible and criminal, (like the whole war) - but not the same as targeting a nuclear plant, with the intention to destroy.

What happened in Ukraine doesn't really provide much insight into what would happen in a war with Germany.

If Russia bombed Ukrainian nuclear plants and sent a cloud of radioactive fallout over Europe, that could be seen as a direct attack against NATO and get them involved in the war. So Russia has a big incentive to not attack nuclear plants.

But if Russia is already willing to attack a NATO country, then it's not clear that they would shy away from bombing nuclear plants, which would act as a distraction as Germany devoted resources to stop the radioactive emissions.

Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open

#43

Post by fabian2k »

tomohawk wrote: post #2

> ...Russians could sabotage nuclear reactors. They use such a remote possibility as an argument against all nuclear, seemingly forgetting that: Germany is surrounded by other countries with nuclear power. Russian sabotage would be an act of war. If Germany is at the point where Russia is attacking its nuclear power plants, I sure hope it’s not in a position where it depends on Russian gas. This is a deeply unserious…

This is a purely legal argument in the original German report. I don't understand the legal aspect here, what the report says is that due to constitutional law an extension of the runtime of the nuclear reactors would require a risk/benefit analysis. And a higher chance of attacks or sabotage would increase the risk here.

The only thing the report says here is that this requires risk/benefit analysis would need to take these factors into account.

Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open

#44

Post by merb »

fabian2k wrote: post #36

Shutting down the current reactors has been planned for a while, and that is simply not a decision that is trivial to reverse. You can disagree with that initial decision, but this does have significant effects and if you are in the process of shutting down everything it does get much more complicated to suddenly reverse course. The article seems rather dismissive towards many real problems like availability of nucle…

the article also doesnt mention france's gas consumption, which was mostly about electricity, while german uses the gas 50:50 (heat and electricity). basically nuclear won't replaces gas and gas won't replace nuclear.

if we want to discuss about electricity generation, coal is the thing that germany could reduce with nuclear, but not gas. it's always the same thing about these articles, blame germany for a mistake (shutting down nuclear too early) but than just blame it on the bad gas, which is basically needed for nuclear operations anyway...

and no german citizens won't replace their gas heating because of the war, that will simply not happen (of course some people do reduce gas heating but a lot of people just can't).

Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open

#46

Post by michaelgrafl »

mantenpanther wrote: post #37

I went to school in Austria in the 80s/90s. The anti-nuclear stance was a big part of education (I assume similar to Germany). We had to read stories like Die Wolke (The Cloud) and were terrified and somehow traumatized in a young age. We discussed this stuff for hours. Also a final deposit site was planned in the mountains in my area, so after Chernobyl there was a big activism against it - thousands of people conne…

I went to school in Austria in the 80s/90s, too.

I remember reading "The Children of Schewenborn" in school and being really disturbed by it. Pretty sure I wasn't alone in that.

Good times!

Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open

#47

Post by fabian2k »

merb wrote: post #44
fabian2k wrote: post #36

Shutting down the current reactors has been planned for a while, and that is simply not a decision that is trivial to reverse. You can disagree with that initial decision, but this does have significant effects and if you are in the process of shutting down everything it does get much more complicated to suddenly reverse course. The article seems rather dismissive towards many real problems like availability of nucle…

the article also doesnt mention france's gas consumption, which was mostly about electricity, while german uses the gas 50:50 (heat and electricity). basically nuclear won't replaces gas and gas won't replace nuclear. if we want to discuss about electricity generation, coal is the thing that germany could reduce with nuclear, but not gas. it's always the same thing about these articles, blame germany for a mistake (s…

The sentence about simply replacing gas with heat pumps is almost delusional. You can't just switch out the main heating system for an entire country. Heat pumps require quite a lot of conditions that simply are not met by many older buildings. And even if that weren't an issue, there is still the sheer scale of the problem.

Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open

#48

Post by GamerUncle »

Gwypaas wrote: post #28

As long as you rely on the fallacy that nuclear is cheap to operate any initial costs can be handwaved away. Today renewables are cheaper than the marginal cost of nuclear, steam turbines and all machinery around them is simply that complex. They are a relic of an bygone era which tech enthusiasts for some reason continue clinging to as the magical solution to all our energy needs. Even in the face of reality. A doll…

In the face of reality nuclear is the only realistic way to address the majority of the issues that most renewables cannot realistically face:

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-par... All this talk about "a bygone era" seems to stem from a place of hatred but what is perceived as "old" if anything most techbros and minimalist wannabes seem to hate nuclear.

But if you stop watching the Simpsons and look at the data, you will soon realize that renewables are not able to provide enough reliable energy and this has been proved time after time.

nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z

Re: Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open

#50

Post by V__ »

SllX wrote: post #26
V__ wrote: post #11

> According to the text, they might even need a constitutional amendment. I am no expert in German law, but this strikes me as an unlikely requirement that would nevertheless be doable. A 2/3 majority is needed in both the Bundesrat (senate) and Bundestag (house). Not happening. > This is what they say: The existing nuclear reactors should have passed a lengthy security inspection in 2019, which they didn’t pass sinc…

We don’t know how long this—let’s not water it down with words like “conflict”—war will last. We also don’t want members of NATO to be dependent on a hostile foreign power for heating fuel. If it takes longer than a year, fine, it’s something that should have been started years ago but there’s no other time available to us than the present and future, so let’s try the present. Solar+Wind+Batteries are a necessary but…

> We need to expand renewables, rigorously cut consumption at all levels, diversify, and rapidly ramp up hydrogen. [1]

Russian coal imports are projected to go down to 25% (from 50%) in the next month or so, and by autumn should be more or less zero. Independence from gas should be achieved by 2024. LNG terminals will be build and floating LNG terminals have been secured.

[1] https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2022/03/...

That's about the same timeframe which could be reasonably expected for the recertification/upgrading/etc. of the nuclear plants. The goal is to get independent of Russia.

Post reply on HN