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

Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

austinvernon.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 672 posts

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#321

Post by jhgb »

Gravityloss wrote: post #303
jillesvangurp wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany can't wave a magic wand and switch off Russian imports overnight. But they did just commit a few hundred billion to accelerate their plans to get rid of coal and gas based generation. That's a direct consequence of the Ukrainian situation. Like the US, Germany was overly depending on cheap gas until recently. Now that it has to import the gas in liquid form from the US (and a few other places), it's going to…

Germany could have cancelled their nuclear shutdown process. But saving face is more important than Ukrainian lives.

As I pointed out above, this would not have changed anything with respect to the need to import gas from Russia. Nuclear generation is not a substitute for gas imports.

Even worse, they can't "cancel their nuclear shutdown process" even if they wanted. First of all, the shutdown deadline had been firmly set in law twenty years ago, so it would require a major legislative effort to make another law. Second, even if they somehow managed to instantly change the law, the shutdown was "baked into" the operation and maintenance schedule for the nuclear plants. They were simply not expecting to have to run them beyond early 2020-ish so a lot of money was almost certainly saved by delaying maintenance. Hence, if they suddenly changed their minds about shutting the plants down, they'd almost certainly have to invest massive amounts of money to fix them first.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#322

Post by fallingknife »

croes wrote: post #269
varajelle wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a funny argument against nuclear. Some nuclear reactor have to shut down for a few days to avoid heating the rivers is a big problem. But the solar panel being down more than half the time (night or clouds) and the wind turbine also being down depending on the wind in uncontrollable ways is Ok.

How many wind turbines have to be down to have the same effect as one nuclear power plant being down? Not to mention that some people think Putin could attack other countries after Ukraine. That's not the time you want nuclear power plants as possible target.

Ridiculous argument. A nuclear power plant is much less of a concern as a target than, you know, Berlin.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#323

Post by shakow »

stkdump wrote: post #191
neilwilson wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Uh...Germany's actually recarbonized by shutting down their nuclear" Germany outsourced their nuclear to France. Remember that Germany and France are no longer countries, but states in the Eurozone within the wider European Union. It's the same effect as, say, New Mexico exporting nuclear power to California and California then calling itself 'nuclear free'.

Germany is still a net exporter of electricity. France benefits from that, because in recent years they had to shut down their nuclear plants during heatwaves, when the rivers they use to cool them got too warm. I guess that will only get more frequent in the future.

> because in recent years they had to shut down their nuclear plants during heatwaves, when the rivers they use to cool them got too warm

This is an ecological concern, not a technical one. If the French are ok with frying fishes, they can let their nukes run.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#324

Post by dirkt »

Gravityloss wrote: post #303
jillesvangurp wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany can't wave a magic wand and switch off Russian imports overnight. But they did just commit a few hundred billion to accelerate their plans to get rid of coal and gas based generation. That's a direct consequence of the Ukrainian situation. Like the US, Germany was overly depending on cheap gas until recently. Now that it has to import the gas in liquid form from the US (and a few other places), it's going to…

Germany could have cancelled their nuclear shutdown process. But saving face is more important than Ukrainian lives.

Nuclear power plants can't be used for residential heating, residential cooking, chemistry, and industrial processes like making glass for solar panels.

At least not without changing the infrastructure for that completely. Which is not going to happen overnight. And even then it can't replace chemistry.

So, no, Germany couldn't have. No matter how many Internet armchair commenters repeat this.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#325

Post by pvaldes »

Gravityloss wrote: post #303
jillesvangurp wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany can't wave a magic wand and switch off Russian imports overnight. But they did just commit a few hundred billion to accelerate their plans to get rid of coal and gas based generation. That's a direct consequence of the Ukrainian situation. Like the US, Germany was overly depending on cheap gas until recently. Now that it has to import the gas in liquid form from the US (and a few other places), it's going to…

Germany could have cancelled their nuclear shutdown process. But saving face is more important than Ukrainian lives.

> saving face is more important [for Germany] than Ukrainian lives.

I understand that the propaganda works, but lets not fall in the error of blaming Germany for this war. Germany are victims in this situation, not aggressors.

This narrative just divert the focus from the only responsible.

Paying somebody for a product will not force him/her to invest the money in crimes. Russia could have spent this money in buying ice-cream for each Russian child or anything. If they choose war crimes and promoting rape and murder instead improving the Russian's lives, is not Europe's fault.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#326

Post by cinntaile »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #317
brazzy wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other way round, actually. France recently had massive problems because they had to switch off multiple nuclear plants for unexpected maintenance issues, and bought lots of power from Germany

1 event does not make a rule. French nuclear reactors were turned off for maintenance, yes, but over the past 30 years, it is clearly Germany depending on French power

That's kinda the point of an interconnected electricity grid, it allows you to import the cheapest energy available. I don't get the argument here. Sometimes it's renewable, sometimes it's gas, sometimes it's coal, sometimes it's hydro, sometimes it's nuclear...?

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#327

Post by dirkt »

dsnr wrote: post #296
cschwarm wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't convert about 40 million households [1] in a year or two. Also, in the German climate and with its many 'old' buildings, merely switching the heat source won't do. One also needs additional isolation, and new radiators. [1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/heating-40-millio...

> You can't convert about 40 million households [1] in a year or two. Who's talking about a year or two? Germany has been pushing for russian gas since the 90's, against all logic.

The logic was "if we depend on each other, Russia isn't going to pull crazy stuff". Which works with rational people (and after Gorbachev and the German reunion, the perception was that Russia is rational), but not with Putin.

And you may have noticed that Russia is not cutting off delivery of Russian gas to Germany. Which they would if the damage was unilateral.

Also, electrical heating is one of most wasteful and damaging ways to do heating, and Germany has been moving away from electrical heating for this reason for decades now.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#328

Post by Ekaros »

dirkt wrote: post #324
Gravityloss wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany could have cancelled their nuclear shutdown process. But saving face is more important than Ukrainian lives.

Nuclear power plants can't be used for residential heating, residential cooking, chemistry, and industrial processes like making glass for solar panels. At least not without changing the infrastructure for that completely. Which is not going to happen overnight. And even then it can't replace chemistry. So, no, Germany couldn't have. No matter how many Internet armchair commenters repeat this.

Nuclear power for residential and commercial real estate heating is pretty simple if it were accepted. Main issue is distance between production and consumption and then delta of heat. But later could be solved with heat pumps.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#329

Post by jhgb »

dsnr wrote: post #296
cschwarm wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't convert about 40 million households [1] in a year or two. Also, in the German climate and with its many 'old' buildings, merely switching the heat source won't do. One also needs additional isolation, and new radiators. [1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/heating-40-millio...

> You can't convert about 40 million households [1] in a year or two. Who's talking about a year or two? Germany has been pushing for russian gas since the 90's, against all logic.

The 2010 and 2012 energy efficiency directives guarantee (EU-wide, not just in Germany) that all buildings will eventually transition to low-energy buildings, but this is expected to take place by simply building new buildings to stricter code, not by upgrading all existing buildings in the EU in a few years. It's unlikely that there's industrial capacity for that.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#330

Post by webmaven »

Manuel_D wrote: post #113
nine_k wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a known way to handle "nuclear waste": burn it in fast-neutron reactors [1]. The waste is mostly still uranium. The rest can still be burned, turning it into much less active isotopes and producing energy. Yes, these machines produce plutonium suitable for nuclear weapons. But plutonium is a perfectly good nuclear fuel, too, and the US already has nuclear weapons, longer than any other country. [1]: https://…

Or, bury it underground in impermeable rock. Short of a meteor strike right on top of the repository, it will not make its way out to the surface.

The best impermeable rock (ie. granite) formations for this purpose are in the eastern US. Congress excluded them from consideration as sites when they mandated the selection of Yucca Mountain as the sole site in 1987.
Post reply on HN