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

71–80 of 480 posts

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

#71

Post by LordDragonfang »

fabian2k wrote: post #47
merb wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Heat pumps have gotten very good in the past couple of decades, especially in the east Asian markets, and even older homes have fairly drop-in options available, assuming the market demand is there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43XKfuptnik

Yes, it's a solution that requires a significant investment in (individual) infrastructure, but so does almost every other solution to anthropogenic climate change. If the solutions were totally easy, we'd have done them by now. Moving to heat pumps is on the easier end of the spectrum, though.

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

#72

Post by orhmeh09 »

hedora wrote: post #56
ivan_gammel wrote: post #33

What I read in this article is that German government did a thorough analysis, but the author dismisses the conclusions of it because the tolerated risk level there is too low and because it’s done by a minister from the Greens party. If this was written by an expert, that could make some sense, but it is not. Nuclear plant is not a startup, where you can just skip the QA part to release faster or put a not working c…

You're repeating some of the excuses the article addresses. - The author says they studied nuclear in grad school, and are probably therefore an expert. - They quantify the additional risk of meltdown due to delaying new safety regulations. It's negligible compared to operating plants according to the new regulations. - Their proposal would increase Germany's stockpile of nuclear waste by 3%, which is surely within e…

He has a couple of masters in non-nuclear engineering and an MBA with a focus on psychology. He is not a nuclear expert nor does he have the scholastic background to say he is. I’m not an expert in all but a few of the topics I studied in graduate school, and without a doctorate degree a great deal of people wouldn’t consider me an expert at those, either.

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

#73

Post by fabian2k »

diordiderot wrote: post #69
fabian2k wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> require quite a lot of conditions that simply are not met by many older buildings. Such as?

The temperature you achieve is lower than for older gas heating equipment, so your radiators are likely not dimensioned correctly if you switch. You really want floor heating for heat pumps, and very well insulated walls. The moment the heat pumps can't provide enough heating you have to heat with electricity, and that is incredibly expensive especially in Germany.

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

#74

Post by Krasnol »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #33

What I read in this article is that German government did a thorough analysis, but the author dismisses the conclusions of it because the tolerated risk level there is too low and because it’s done by a minister from the Greens party. If this was written by an expert, that could make some sense, but it is not. Nuclear plant is not a startup, where you can just skip the QA part to release faster or put a not working c…

> The survey, which the Civey research institute conducted

You can forget those Civey online surveys. They're useless and the local nuclar fan club has been training their followers on when and where to vote.

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

#75

Post by dathinab »

moooo99 wrote: post #18
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…

> A 2/3 majority is needed in both the Bundesrat (senate) and Bundestag (house). Not happening. Absolutely not ever going to happen. > The author makes it sound like those are cars which can be easily refitted, upgraded and certified. This would take enormous amounts of time and money for the three plants which are still online, and who knows how much for the ones which are offline. Even Lindner says that extending t…

> With what the FDP said in the past and what they are saying now this makes me really believe that there is something more to the whole debate than the fundamental opposition of the green party towards nuclear power.

My guess is that there is somewhere a non public classified report titled something like: "Reassessment of the safety of Nuclear Power plants using modern standards and in context of environmental catastrophes." With a conclusion of: "PANIC!!!".

Just as an example one of the nuclear power plants is build on a geographic fault line...

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

#76

Post by someguydave »

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…

It's true that grid solar (not wind) is cheaper per kWh produced. But: 1) there are real problems with solar lacking nighttime production 2) the nuclear plants in question in Germany are mostly already functional and for the most part just need to be turned back on. That is much different than new construction of a nuclear plant

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

#78

Post by lordnacho »

dataflow wrote: post #66
hedora wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're repeating some of the excuses the article addresses. - The author says they studied nuclear in grad school, and are probably therefore an expert. - They quantify the additional risk of meltdown due to delaying new safety regulations. It's negligible compared to operating plants according to the new regulations. - Their proposal would increase Germany's stockpile of nuclear waste by 3%, which is surely within e…

> The author says they studied nuclear in grad school, and are probably therefore an expert. That's not how it works. Just going to grad school (and it appears this is just for a Master's) doesn't imply you're suddenly an expert on an entire discipline . Even full professors don't generally claim to be experts in their entire fields; they become experts in their niches sub-fields/areas of research. You'd need to know…

I think this is moving the goalposts. According to you it's not enough to have the qualifications, you need specific ones in specific sub areas. What's to stop you dismissing him by dividing it up even more if it turns out he's actually studied the right area?

To me it sounds a bit like when anti vaxxers dismiss doctors who aren't epidemiologists, or when people dismiss Krugman because he's a trade economist and not some other subspecialty.

Just give the guy credit for his claim that he's studied this, chances are he's closer to the area than people who don't claim expertise and otherwise let him present his case, which is what really matters anyway.

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

#79

Post by someguydave »

hedora wrote: post #56
ivan_gammel wrote: post #33

What I read in this article is that German government did a thorough analysis, but the author dismisses the conclusions of it because the tolerated risk level there is too low and because it’s done by a minister from the Greens party. If this was written by an expert, that could make some sense, but it is not. Nuclear plant is not a startup, where you can just skip the QA part to release faster or put a not working c…

You're repeating some of the excuses the article addresses. - The author says they studied nuclear in grad school, and are probably therefore an expert. - They quantify the additional risk of meltdown due to delaying new safety regulations. It's negligible compared to operating plants according to the new regulations. - Their proposal would increase Germany's stockpile of nuclear waste by 3%, which is surely within e…

Everything in life is a tradeoff. To me, the risks of keeping the nuclear plants in Germany are much lower than the risks of continuing to fund Russia.

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

#80

Post by V__ »

dathinab wrote: post #75
moooo99 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A 2/3 majority is needed in both the Bundesrat (senate) and Bundestag (house). Not happening. Absolutely not ever going to happen. > The author makes it sound like those are cars which can be easily refitted, upgraded and certified. This would take enormous amounts of time and money for the three plants which are still online, and who knows how much for the ones which are offline. Even Lindner says that extending t…

> With what the FDP said in the past and what they are saying now this makes me really believe that there is something more to the whole debate than the fundamental opposition of the green party towards nuclear power. My guess is that there is somewhere a non public classified report titled something like: "Reassessment of the safety of Nuclear Power plants using modern standards and in context of environmental catas…

I could also imagine that they fear additional restitutions to the energy companies and want to keep that fiasco from happening again.
Post reply on HN