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

271–280 of 304 posts

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#271

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#272

Post by bildung »

mpweiher wrote: post #157
bildung wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany never had energy independence in nuclear. Yes, Germany has/had plants, but nothing like enrichment etc. The reason is geopolitics: Germany started two world wars, and noone wanted to have a postwar Germany capable of building nukes. That link between nuclear proliferation and nuclear energy production is sadly often missing from the discussion here. No country builds nuclear reactors only for the energy. It's…

> but nothing like enrichment etc Sure about that? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urananreicherungsanlage_Gronau

Yes, Gronau is the notable exception. Though note the involvement of WW2 winners France and UK (the owner is still a UK company) and the capacity that was wildy below demand for Western German plants.

It also isn't like Germany didn't want nuclear proliferation. Public demand to be allowed to produce nukes already started with Konrad Adenauer in the 1950's, and parts of the conservatives still bring up the topic from time to time (e.g. Rupert Scholz in 2007).

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#273

Post by Ekaros »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #93

As a German I don't care. I just want two things: 1. The energy company pays market rate insurance for their nuclear plants. Not "we take the profit, taxpayers pay for the disaster" 2. The energy company sets up a trust to pay for the safe storage of nuclear waste and cleaning up the plant should they go bust (again "we take ...")

I hope that point 1. applies to hydro. They should be required to post a bond that covers fully everything downstream from them with possible catastrophic worst scale failure. And keep increasing it when more is constructed.

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#274

Post by bildung »

panick21_ wrote: post #228
bildung wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany never had energy independence in nuclear. Yes, Germany has/had plants, but nothing like enrichment etc. The reason is geopolitics: Germany started two world wars, and noone wanted to have a postwar Germany capable of building nukes. That link between nuclear proliferation and nuclear energy production is sadly often missing from the discussion here. No country builds nuclear reactors only for the energy. It's…

This is completely wrong. Literally almost the opposite is true. There are lots and lots of countries who use nuclear civilian energy and don't have nuclear weapons. While at the same time there are lots of countries who have nuclear weapons but no civilian nuclear power. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that countries who have civilian nuclear power are less likely to have nuclear weapons. https://en.wikipe…

Please compare the list of countries with plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country with the list of countries with nukes: https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/worldwide. Note that most of the exceptions in Eastern Europe and Asia were formerly part of the Soviet Union or Warshaw Pact. Japan is indeed a notable exception as the country also has enrichment capabilities etc. Though note that they, too, seem to phase out the usage, though. Switzerland is planning it's phase out too, AFAIK.

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#275

Post by Ekaros »

panick21_ wrote: post #233
LatteLazy wrote: post #128

I don't mind nuclear, as long as people are prepared to pay the price at the meter and dispose of the waste. But people aren't prepared to do either...

Actually people are very prepared for that. In the US for example, the US collected a waste fee for 50 years and had many, many billions on an account. Easily enough money to develop the technology for burning up the fuel. Literally many times the money then required. But rather then using rational technology solution politicians grid-locked themselves over an incredibly stupid Yucca Mountain project that makes no se…

And deep hole in the ground isn't horrific policy either. Wasteful yes, but not horrific. It is just that evil politicians don't want to make reasonable trade-offs...

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#276

Post by number6 »

xorcist wrote: post #234
hgomersall wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price of co2 in the ETS is an order of magnitude too low to deal with it's removal, so no, this is not in place with the ETS.

I believe the idea is to adjust the price over time. The hard part is getting such a system in place, not ramping it up.

There is a finite number of certificates - like bitcoin. Price adjusts as certificates are uses up. New certificates can be created by capturing carbon... similar to bitcoin mining.

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#277

Post by urthor »

philipkglass wrote: post #227
panick21_ wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In France the price of electricity is incredibly low so of course power was very subsidized. However the investment in nuclear in France still payed of big time. Consider a alternative solution where you use coal power, the only realistic alternative at the time. Coal is absolutely horrible for air quality and incredibly destructive to the environment. Any rational person would say it a huge advantage for a country t…

France's newest operating reactor, Civaux 2, entered commercial operation in 2002: https://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/CIVAUX-2 France started building its first unit of the next-generation EPR at Flamanville in 2007: https://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/FLAMANVIL... There was a ~5 year gap where France stopped work on adding reactors. France would probably be building more EPRs now if th…

Exactly right.

The core problem with nuclear isn't so much the safety record (although this has been a problem).

The issue is building Flamanville and co have been so extraordinarily expensive.

Any new nuclear plant will lose an incredible amount of money as solar energy becomes more and more cost efficient.

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#278

Post by cinntaile »

cypress66 wrote: post #244
cinntaile wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most households burn gas at home for heating. Sure if there is no gas, you can use an electrical heater but that won't be cheap.

Heat pumps aren't necessarily more expensive than gas, and they are cleaner than gas heaters if the electricity is clean (such as nuclear)

It doesn't help this winter, they can't install enough in time to really make a difference.

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#279

Post by cinntaile »

seydor wrote: post #80
cinntaile wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most households burn gas at home for heating. Sure if there is no gas, you can use an electrical heater but that won't be cheap.

problem is germany uses russian gas for electricity

Most is used for heating and industrial processes. Only 15% of Germany's electricity production uses gas, although the use is likely not evenly distributed (gas peakers).

Re: Germany sees shift in sentiment toward atomic energy

#280

Post by Rexxar »

aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: post #259
Rexxar wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For information your initial comment is "Just use cooling towers..." (with 3 dots to show disdain) as if there isn't any cooling tower whereas everybody can see cooling towers nearly every nuclear power station (so much that when you ask people to draw a nuclear station, 95% of them draw a cooling tower).

So your "If you did any research on the subject" is quite over the top.

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

Apply this suggestion to your first comment or at least don't be more exigent with the quality of other comment that you are with your own comments.

Post reply on HN