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

Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

spiegel.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 304 posts

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#251

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ed_balls wrote: post #205
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 20-30 years China and Europe will be energy and resource independent. If land transportation will be more cost effective than ships, USA hegemony is gone This geopolitical model predates modern energy dynamics; in any case, Siberian minerals will flow to Chinese and European factories for a long time to come. This model also doesn’t require American dominance. (Again, it dates from the age of British and Austro/Rus…

> As for land transport becoming more efficient than ocean, that’s a pipe dream I don't remember exact numbers from 2019, but it was something like: Air: 1 metric tonne: $100, 24h Rail: $40; 10 days Ship: $8; 30 days Let's say it's 2049 and we have 4 powers: new Europe, USA, China and India. China starts the full scale blockade of Taiwan to wait for the USA for the kinetic escalation. Only USA ships are blocked, so J…

> USA ships are blocked, so Japan, Korea, Europe do nothing. The situation last for years. The freight cost goes up massively due to risk, the fuel is 2x-3x more expensive - cheap oil is gone and the last big reserve is in Arctic. Magnetic rail China-Europe is finished and you stack up 3 containers which are delivered in 48h. Land transportation became better than ships

How did a blockade around Taiwan turn into a global maritime halt? Magnetic rail and ships have similar energy inputs; if energy is going up for one it’s going up for the other. (Turning electricity into dense, portable stores isn’t trivial, but it’s comparable to long-distance electrical transport.) That rail link would also remain easier to strike than the world’s merchant fleet.

I don’t think American dominance is here to stay. But it’s highly unlikely a Europe-China nexus works, versus a rebalance America-Europe-Japan relationship. (There are no situations in which a belligerent China peacefully wins over Japan.)

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#252

Post by aaaaaaaaaaab »

_ph_ wrote: post #249
aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What makes you think, Germany doesn't have enough electricity? @RemindMe_OfThis in January 2023

Gladly. But as I said, possible shortages are gas for heating, industrial production, not electricity.

15% of German electricity production is from natural gas. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris...

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#253

Post by bryanlarsen »

slfnflctd wrote: post #238
bryanlarsen wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that doesn't exist yet. Batteries exist, and estimates of how many would be needed are around 50TWh. We have over 500GWh of annual battery production, and the doubling period for that capacity is under 18 months.

The majority of that battery production is going into EVs. We will need much more to do both EVs and grid scale storage. This is where different types of batteries that are too impractical for vehicle use might come into play, but we still don't have a clear idea which of those battery technologies will be appropriate and/or agreed upon for grid use, let alone who is going to pay for the mind boggling amount of them…

Sure, they'll go into cars first, that's where it's needed first. Grids can get to about 90% green without many batteries, its the last ten percent that need a ton of batteries. Given how far they are from 90%, that's most of a decade before they are needed in massive quantities.

As for cost, if the next decade drops costs 90% like the previous 4 decades have, then 50 TWh will cost $500 billion. Given that the electricity market is $3T annually, that's peanuts.

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#254

Post by ernado »

frasermarlow wrote: post #120

It's quite informative to see where new power plants are currently under construction, or otherwise being planned. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu... India and China are ramping up.

Russia is building 22 reactors (mostly VVER), China 16, Korea 5, India 4, France 3, US 2.

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#255

Post by geoduck14 »

xorcist wrote: post #236
zemvpferreira wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can dream every solution you'd care to dream, but right now gas-backed solar is how it's done in europe.

Nuclear is also "gas-backed" in way. A stable energy grid is not something one can hand wave together.

Nuclear is reliable to a fault. It is rock solid. But it doesn't "go up" very fast - that is where you need gas support. Which is quite different from solar and wind, where you can't predict the ups and downs

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#256

Post by Rexxar »

aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: post #149
BonoboIO wrote: post #138

Meanwhile in France. Because the temperatures are so high and the continuing drought, the nuclear power plants have to decrease their power output. The cooling water comes from the rivers and the plants have limits how hot the water is allowed to get downstream. Everything would slowly cook in the rivers … Even with temporal exceptions of this environmental rules France became a NET IMPORTER of power. France is like…

Just use cooling towers... Edit: I'm getting rate-limited, so my answer to the genius observation below, that cooling towers also need water, is the following: Cooling towers evaporate water. Thus the concerns of OP do not apply about overheating the river downstream: >The cooling water comes from the rivers and the plants have limits how hot the water is allowed to get downstream

You really think they don't already use cooling towers ?

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#257

Post by panick21_ »

cycomanic wrote: post #239
panick21_ wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The portion of nuclear has remained constant since the late 90s. That just reflects the failure of French state to continue to invest. The socialist and green party based on general anti-nuclear sentiment stopped much of the investment.

Are you joking? In the last 24 years there was only 4 years with a socialist president. The greens had seats only 3 times of the last 6 six national assemblies since 1986 and that was 7,3 and 4 so they are not a very influential party in France. And saying that the the socialists in France are antinuclear is also quite off. While Hollande was quite critical (also due to massive cost overruns and shady security practi…

> A 1998 "Inquiry commission on Superphenix and fast neutrons reactor sector" [3] reported that "decision to close Superphénix was included in Jospin's program ... in the agreement between Socialist Party and Green Party". Also the same report says "despite many difficulties, the technical results are meaningful". In the explanation of vote at the end of the report, commission members says "give up on Superphenix has been a big error" and "Superphenix has to die because is a symbol".

But I guess its fair that it was both sides of the political spectrum.

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#258

Post by panick21_ »

cycomanic wrote: post #241
panick21_ wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France unforunatly stopped investing in nuclear in the 1990s, from 1970-2000 their total nuclear power production went up, but then if flatlined. That is why they have problmes now. They had next generation plants ready to be rolled out, but because of the politics at the time never produced them in large numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix

Blaming it on politics is quite inventive. The EPR at Falammanville is 4 times over budget and 9 years overdue and still not online. The EPRs were Frances next generation reactors. The cost of electricity with that reactor is projected to be twice higher than older reactors. Let's not even talk about the fact that at the moment >50% of French reactors are down, because they encountered issues in maintance (interestin…

That France is still building PWRs is one of the main problems.

If you fail in one project or product, the answer is not 'therefore lets not build more nuclear and instead build gas or import coal power'.

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#259

Post by aaaaaaaaaaab »

Rexxar wrote: post #256
aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use cooling towers... Edit: I'm getting rate-limited, so my answer to the genius observation below, that cooling towers also need water, is the following: Cooling towers evaporate water. Thus the concerns of OP do not apply about overheating the river downstream: >The cooling water comes from the rivers and the plants have limits how hot the water is allowed to get downstream

You really think they don't already use cooling towers ?

If you did any research on the subject, you would have known that they use cooling towers for some of their cooling needs, while others are using the natural waters as coolant.

For instance, one of the plants that got a temporary exemption on hot water discharge, the Bugey nuclear power plant:

“Some of the cooling comes from direct use of the Rhône water (units 2 and 3) while some is done by the use of cooling towers (units 4 and 5).” [1]

Had they used cooling towers for units 2 and 3, they wouldn’t be in trouble with discharging hot water into the Rhône.

I suggest next time you do some research before questioning others with offhand comments.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugey_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#260

Post by osigurdson »

GordonS wrote: post #152
formerly_proven wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irrational fear-factor associated with anything nuclear is highlighted by how much attention Fukushima, the nuclear disaster, which gravely injured like a dozen people, gets relative to the earthquake and tsunami causing it, which killed 20k people and leveled a huge stretch of coast.

If you asked 100 random people on the street, I'll bet most would say the Fukushima nuclear disaster killed hundreds or thousands of people. As a single data point, I just asked my wife (who, for background, is well educated and pays close attention to the news), and her guess was "hundreds". The modern mass media has a lot to answer for.

Did the media (in 2011) state that 100s or thousands died?
Post reply on HN