Why Germany won’t keep its nuclear plants open • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 11:38 PM UTC

fabian2k wrote: post #73

diordiderot wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#102

Post by MauranKilom » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 11:39 PM UTC

So the entire article, and also the discussion here skips over a very simple point: Nuclear power plants provide baseline loads because they can't be turned on and off at a whim, while gas power plants can scale up and down quickly to handle daily load peaks.

Looking at yearly consumption graphs completely ignores the reality of the grid. Where do you get electricity from for the peaks in the morning and the evening, when solar is still weak and wind may or may not be blowing? Not nuclear, for sure. Maybe coal, but even those plants have response times measured in hours (whereas gas is more in the tens of minutes). And there's only so much hydro you can build.

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

#103

Post by bozhark » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 11:40 PM UTC

MauranKilom wrote: post #102

So the entire article, and also the discussion here skips over a very simple point: Nuclear power plants provide baseline loads because they can't be turned on and off at a whim, while gas power plants can scale up and down quickly to handle daily load peaks. Looking at yearly consumption graphs completely ignores the reality of the grid. Where do you get electricity from for the peaks in the morning and the evening,…

That’s not at all correct. You’re stating nuclear cannot handle load distributions.

Why.

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

#104

Post by yellow_postit » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 11:41 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #81

steve_taylor wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just the German greens. Australia’s greens are staunchly anti-nuclear despite it being the only viable solution to the baseload problem, which renewables haven’t yet solved.

...other than pumped storage, demand shaping and more grid interconnects.

Let’s do both! All the things you listed are exciting advancements but lacking the track record of nuclear.

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

#105

Post by bozhark » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 11:41 PM UTC

steve_taylor wrote: post #63

choeger wrote: post #3

Being anti-nuclear is deeply engrained in the DNA of Germany's green party. Even more so than climate change. In fact, when the anti-nuclear movement started, climate change wasn't even a topic. In other words, the only thing that needs to happen is the German green party to admit a mistake in fighting nuclear power harder than fossile fuels...

It’s not just the German greens. Australia’s greens are staunchly anti-nuclear despite it being the only viable solution to the baseload problem, which renewables haven’t yet solved.

Who’s foreign funding the nationalist greens world-wide?

Bet it someone with oil money. SA or Ruskies

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

#106

Post by pyrale » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 11:41 PM UTC

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…

The picture you give shows that you need subsidies to make your claim true for nuclear and cc gas. Only coal is way above unsubsidized renewables.

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

#107

Post by barry-cotter » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 11:43 PM UTC

ivan_gammel wrote: post #89

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…

> 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. First of all, that estimate was not made by an expert, as other commenters pointed out. Second, the additional risk is created not because of new safety standards, but also from all other factors where deviation from standard procedures could accelerate…

> This risk is hard to quantify, it can materialize in unexpected ways (just like nobody expected Chernobyl or Fukushima) and it will cost such rich and densely populated country as Germany trillions.

You know everyone who died from Fukushima died from the evacuation not radiation, right? You know more people are killed in Germany every year from coal pollution than have died as a result of Chernobyl in total?

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

#108

Post by diordiderot » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 11:43 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #98

diordiderot wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think the biggest ask the article is making in an unreasonable way is to somehow find millions of contractors who can actually go home by home and refit the heating systems in a timescale that'd actually be relevant for the war in ukraine. If Germany wanted to switch everyone over to a different kind of lightbulb they'd need to ensure the production capacity to make the new bulb exists and set up logistics to actua…

This was a great answer and well thought out! Thanks for taking the time.

My only rebuttal is heat pumps can heat the air directly. No need for a radiator or plumbing.

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

#109

Post by dathinab » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 11:45 PM UTC

> Germany could replace gas boilers with heat pumps

Given that burning gas in modern electricity gas plants (like Germany has) to power modern decent quality heat pumps is more efficient (and flexible, and future proof) then burning Gas for heating that would be the best solution.

It's also completely unrealistic.

Given how common gas powered house central heating is, and given that some houses have worse constructs (like gas heater per apartment for warm water) I would guess that we would need 1 heat pump per 100 people or more. That would be 800_000 modern decent quality heat pumps. Which all need to be produced, build, shipped and installed.

We already have a shortage of craftsman in Germany, even if we ignore everything up to installation that would be a major problem.

And that's under the assumption that houses can be retrofitted to use heat pumps. But for many houses, especially apartment blogs this would be a problem as there is no good way available to montage/connect the outside-of-house parts of a heat pump on many typical German apartment blogs (living in apartment in apartment blogs is normal in Germany). (You still can do it, but even more cost and time involved).

There are other problems, too.

So I guess the optimal solutions is practically not possible.

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

#110

Post by hutzlibu » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 11:48 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #23

hutzlibu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The power plant avoided critical damage, but it was very much harmed in the attack. As far as analysis goes you can’t limit things to exactly what happened. If attacking nuclear power plants is on the table then a single miscommunication means someone is attempting to destroy it. Even just destroying some water pipes or some generators could lead to very serious issues.

"The power plant avoided critical damage, but it was very much harmed in the attack."

Source? As far as I know and what wikipedia confirms, is that the plant itself was not damaged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla...

"During approximately two hours of heavy fighting a fire broke out in a training facility outside of the main complex, which was extinguished by 6:20am,[21][22] though other sections surrounding the plant sustained damage.[19]

As of 04:20 UTC on March 4, the IAEA said that the fire, which was in a training building, had been extinguished. It did not impact reactor safety or any essential equipment"