Live data from Hacker News

Germany's Energy Catastrophe

quillette.com

21–30 of 171 posts

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#21
post #11

You can still not safely eat mushrooms from the south-eastern parts of Bavaria because they are still contaminated by the Chernobyl desaster. The anti-nuclear stance is not irrational, it has strong roots in reality.

Could this be case of an extreme regulation, much like "everything is known to cause cancer in the state of California"?

Czechia, Slovakia, Poland and Ukraine are much closer to Chernobyl than Bavaria is, and the populations there regularly pick and eat mushrooms without suffering a wave of extra cancers.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#22
post #15
post #2

Yikes! Totally ignoring the climate impact of nuclear power. Not understanding that nuclear doesn’t play well with renewables (it is hard to control the output in a short amount of time). Finally explaining that there were only 28 deaths after the Chernobyl accident, ignoring all the additional deaths by cancer and deformed unborn children. Sorry, this article is totally wrong in so many ways.

All deaths from nuclear anything ever are a rounding error compared to dirty power sources. Almost a hundred staff died in a hydro disaster in 2009, for some perspective.

And 200,000 died in a 1975 chinese hydro disaster

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#23
The funniest thing is - Germany was repeatedly warned by Eastern European states that this (literally this) will happen if they continue to build Nord Stream 1 and then Nord Stream 2 and try to "fix" Russia by trade. Russian government already poisoned Ukrainian presidential candidate in 2004. Killed opposition and journalists both in Russia and in EU. Invaded 2 countries (Chechnia and Georgia - I don't even count Lithuania cause it was technically USSR) and committed war crimes (especially in Chechnia). And Germany just ignored this cause cheap gas and "they will surely change if we just give them money".

Like how dumb can you be?

Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania and probably others warned Germany and the rest of EU about this for decades.

Polish president in 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia said "Today Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine, and then, perhaps, my country - Poland". It wasn't some genius foresight- this was mainstream opinion in Poland and many other EE states for over a decade already. We warned about Russia using the pipelines for blackmail and about their ambitions to recreate USSR against the will of the people in post-communist states.

By 2010 Russia already shut down gas for various EE states on several occasions to blackmail or punish them. Germany knew this and just ignored it. Probably cause it "couldn't happen to Germany and fuck EE".

In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time and annexed Crimea. Also supported dictator Assad in murdering his own citizens and used hybrid warfare on EU by helping him push refuges to EU which created a huge political crisis.

Germany knew this and still sucked that gas like there's no tommorow and continued to build Nord Stream 2.

Last year Russian agents blew up a big ammo warehouse in Czech Republic. Germany still continued with Nord Stream, cause you know, who cares about Czech Republic (their ally in NATO and EU).

Oh, BTW - Germany also sold weapons to Russia and helped them train soldiers all through that time. They were supposed to stop after 2014 but they didn't.

All the warnings and pleas to stop doing business with Russia and especially to stop sending them weapons and increasing energy dependency were dismissed by Germany (and other EU states to a lesser degree) as "russophobic" because these countries were "understandeably traumatized" and "didn't understand modern global politics". Basically Germany treated us like dumb kids while commiting slow extended suicide.

It's mind-boggling how a big European state like Germany with big ambitions and supposedly independent media could be so ignorant for 3 decades with nobody in the country taking the warnings seriously.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#24

I'm tired of these probably nuclear industry backed articles that are wrong and miss the point. 1. Nuclear energy is no solution. See here for an example how things turn out in real life (in German): https://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Deutsche-Solaranlagen-haengen... 2. Germany doesn't really lack electricity. You cannot replace gas in industrial processes that need heat just like that with electricity. If you could, you…

This.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#25
We don’t have an energy problem. We have a gas problem.

I’m open for (re-)discussing nuclear energy here in Germany, but we could run 100% on nuclear or coal and a full gas stop by Russia would still have catastrophic consequences. We need gas for industrial/chemical processes and heating our homes. In fact, if the Energiewende had progressed a bit further, then more houses would have installed a heat pump by now.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#26
post #2

Yikes! Totally ignoring the climate impact of nuclear power. Not understanding that nuclear doesn’t play well with renewables (it is hard to control the output in a short amount of time). Finally explaining that there were only 28 deaths after the Chernobyl accident, ignoring all the additional deaths by cancer and deformed unborn children. Sorry, this article is totally wrong in so many ways.

It needs a catastrophic fail ihre for nuclear to become deadly for the masses. Germany replaced the nuclear power plants with coal and gas based plants whose Modus operandi is deadly for the masses. Even if you want to shutdown nuclear, Germany did it in an extremely stupid.

Because a picture says more than a thousand words:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#/medi...

Also:

https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris...

Nuclear power is mainly being replaced by renewables, not coal or gas.

Natural gas only accounts for 15% of electricity production, the upcoming gap could probably easily be filled with alternatives.

But it's main use isn't electricity, but for heating in private homes and all sort of processes in the industry. About half of all homes are heated with gas, you can't simply flip a switch and replace the gas heating in 20 million homes with electric heating.

TL;DR: the pressing problem that needs solving is how to prioritize private homes versus the industry's use of natural gas, even if nuclear power plants would suddenly spring out of the ground for free, they wouldn't help much with this.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#27
post #10

This op-ed is getting things so utterly wrong, I don‘t even know where to start. The Energiewende (so cool he can make use of a german word, so much credibility) here in Germany is working just fine. It is a reasonable investment in our future. The reason natural gas is a problem right now is not that we have insufficient energy. The lack of gas is problematic because it is a preliminary product used in chemical proc…

> On sustainable energy sources: I, as many other germans, receive all of my electricity from purely renewable energy sources for more than ten years now. 24/7.

Grid-scale storage (apart from hydro, but that's basically maxed out or unsuitable for most geographies) is still an unsolved problem for renewables, even the largest lithium-battery ones are basically a rounding error. You'd need multiple weeks worth of battery capacity to really run on renewables. Not even sure if there's enough lithium to make this work theoretically with current tech.

> On nuclear: The cost of nuclear power is wildly underestimated

Same is true for every other power source as well. Energy storage for renewables is never included, so you need backups, the €100 billion German defence package announced a few months ago is a direct consequence of "cheap" Russian gas, the millions of people suffering/dying from air pollution related issues from using coal.

There's no perfect solution, but nuclear is definitely a strong contender for the best way forward.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#28
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, let's take a look at France: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/18/business/france-nuclear-p... > As the European Union moves to cut ties to Russian oil and gas in the wake of Moscow’s war on Ukraine, France has been betting on its nuclear plants to weather a looming energy crunch. Nuclear power provides about 70 percent of France’s electricity, a bigger share than any other country in the world. But the industry…

Like most of the western world, France permitted their nuclear capacity to rot while not making sufficient progress to secure other sources of relatively clean energy.

In fact president Macron initially intended to reduce nuclear energy to 50% of power generation. One of the many moronic policies he had to walk back (the other big one was further cuts to France’s defence budget).

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#29
post #2

Yikes! Totally ignoring the climate impact of nuclear power. Not understanding that nuclear doesn’t play well with renewables (it is hard to control the output in a short amount of time). Finally explaining that there were only 28 deaths after the Chernobyl accident, ignoring all the additional deaths by cancer and deformed unborn children. Sorry, this article is totally wrong in so many ways.

Genuinely curious, because I haven't heard these arguments before. > Totally ignoring the climate impact of nuclear power What climate impact? I though it was CO2 neutral (except for construction, which has similar costs to wind an solar). A quick google doesn't give me anything. > it is hard to control the output in a short amount of time I thought nuclear was basically a steam boiler, same as coal or gas plants? Wh…

It is in no way co2 neutral. Its strongest claim is that it emits less co2 than alternatives. This is based on a bunch of assumptions on how hard it is to get the raw material, that the radiated garbage is transported once (to storage that does not exist) etc. So it is bullshit, but it will always be claimed in these comment threads, right next to the lie of Chernobyl having killed basically no-one.

Nuclear steam boilers are slow to control as their base reaction takes time to cool up or down. Good for base load, not fast coverage of highs.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#30
But even still having all nuclear power plants wouldn't help us much in the current situation, would it? We need gas not for power generation (we do, but that's only ~ 1/6 of the whole consumption, and will be lower if we use gas only to stabilize the power grid - we still have coal power plants on stand-by that can reduce the load on the gas power plants), but for our industry and heating. It's mostly burned directly.

Sure, we could have replaced every boiler with a heat pump in the last 10 years, but we didn't. So we need gas for half of all buildings and that cannot be replaced by nuclear power. And we need a steady supply, as many gas boilers have old fuses that kick in if the gas pressure changes, bricking the boiler until a specalist resets it. So we can't even realistically ration it. :(

Post reply on HN