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

Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

dw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 392 posts

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#61

Post by Phil_Latio »

hef19898 wrote: post #13
tomschlick wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who in their right mind Activist politicians who value their cause more than the well being of their citizens.

Oh yeah, that's why even the Greens (owning their whole existence as a political party to the anti-nuclear movement of the 80s and 90s) is in favor of keeping those plants online a little bit longer. Remember, the current, and hastly implemented nuclear exit, was a CDU led kneejerk reaction, and rollback of the exit from the exit of nuclear, after Fukushima.

> that's why even the Greens is in favor of keeping those plants online a little bit longer.

Since when? A few days, since the green party convention... Before that, the top figures unmistakenly said nuclear is dead, despite enegery crisis.

> Remember, the current, and hastly implemented nuclear exit, was a CDU led kneejerk reaction

So? And the greens would have exited even faster if they had the chance.

Stop twisting things.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#62

Post by Phil_Latio »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #29
tomschlick wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who in their right mind Activist politicians who value their cause more than the well being of their citizens.

I don't think this is fair. Although I think some among the anti-nuclear movement may have had subversive intent, most of the people who ended up aligning with that movement did have good intentions. They were reasoning that in the long term, nuclear power would bring great misery to humanity. Long term thinking is good, right? If you believe in the eventual probability of those doomsday scenarios, and you value the…

> And shaming these people isn't the solution. The solution is to bring them around

They sit in the government.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#63

Post by ErikCorry »

OrangeMonkey wrote: post #4

Good. Germany was facing a cold winter, without energy for heating, and the potential for rolling blackouts. With this change, it does not eliminate the threat but makes it less likely. Who in their right mind would decom any type of energy that could help stave off pain for their citizenship - especially one that has no carbon footprint.

Agreed. And I await apologies from everyone who said this wasn't technically possible.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#64

Post by nyokodo »

kleiba wrote: post #23
_dain_ wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Germany heats with gas [...] Germany isn't heating with electricity And whose fault is that? Why can't their much-vaunted Energiewende manage to keep people warm? After half a trillion dollars of public investment in green energy?

There is no widespread infrastructure for heating with electricity, the dominant sources for heating homes are gas and oil. The reason for that is that until the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it was unforeseeable that there would be a shortage of gas or oil. And let's not forget that the current "shortage" is a result of political decisions, and not because gas and oil have ceased to exist. Germany is in the process o…

> until the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it was unforeseeable that there would be a shortage of gas or oil

Except it was foreseeable and foreseen [1] just very politically and economically inconvenient.

1. https://www.gmfus.org/news/why-germans-ignored-putins-true-n...

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#65

Post by Isolus »

_dain_ wrote: post #45
kleiba wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no widespread infrastructure for heating with electricity, the dominant sources for heating homes are gas and oil. The reason for that is that until the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it was unforeseeable that there would be a shortage of gas or oil. And let's not forget that the current "shortage" is a result of political decisions, and not because gas and oil have ceased to exist. Germany is in the process o…

>There is no widespread infrastructure for heating with electricity, the dominant sources for heating homes are gas and oil Yes and why is that ? Electric heating is not some space-age technology. It has been around for a century. There are countries where it's ubiquitous. Saying "Germany doesn't have the infra for electric heating" is not an explanation . It's just restating the problem in different words. It isn't…

> Yes and why is that?

Gas price was 4 ct/kWh two years ago, electricity at 35 ct/kWh. People always take what is currently the cheapest.

> It's all because wind and solar are intermittent, there's nowhere near enough storage capacity on the grid and there won't be for decades, and their politicians have their heads in the sand about the whole business.

They didn't put their heads in the sand. The former government sabotaged the whole renewable industry again and again (e. g. they didn't allow building new renewable power plants for years, storage facilities need to pay for the grid when they store energy and when they release it so they can't be competetitive to gas).

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#66

Post by sokoloff »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #29
tomschlick wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who in their right mind Activist politicians who value their cause more than the well being of their citizens.

I don't think this is fair. Although I think some among the anti-nuclear movement may have had subversive intent, most of the people who ended up aligning with that movement did have good intentions. They were reasoning that in the long term, nuclear power would bring great misery to humanity. Long term thinking is good, right? If you believe in the eventual probability of those doomsday scenarios, and you value the…

There are no doubt some people who are arguing against nuclear with exactly those pure intentions underlying their advocacy. Given the experience of the US Navy in nuclear power generation, I don't think their doomsday scenarios are inevitable.

I think a lot of people are negatively disposed to nuclear based on beliefs that are not justified by the relative risk and reward of nuclear power generation at this stage in humanity's technological evolution. I don't think we have a combination of (better, cleaner, more reliable) base load generation power source that's available right now (which is the question to consider when contemplating "we have a working nuclear reactor; should we shut it down?")

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#67

Post by Rygian »

legulere wrote: post #42
maliker wrote: post #18

In case anyone was curious, Germany used to get 25% of its generation from nuclear (now more like 10%), and they had as many as 17 nuclear reactors as of 2010. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

And all of it was replaced by renewables: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energiemix_Deutschla...

Why is Germany using more natural gas now than in 2010? Did they replace coal by gas?

Would it have been possible to replace coal with nuclear instead, and keep gas at 2015 levels?

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#69

Post by JumpCrisscross »

legulere wrote: post #42
maliker wrote: post #18

In case anyone was curious, Germany used to get 25% of its generation from nuclear (now more like 10%), and they had as many as 17 nuclear reactors as of 2010. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

And all of it was replaced by renewables: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energiemix_Deutschla...

> all of it was replaced by renewables

An equal quantity of renewable generation was brought online. That isn’t the same as replacing it with renewables. Had the nukes stayed, Germany would be more secure and a better global citizen in terms of emissions.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#70

Post by V__ »

OrangeMonkey wrote: post #4

Good. Germany was facing a cold winter, without energy for heating, and the potential for rolling blackouts. With this change, it does not eliminate the threat but makes it less likely. Who in their right mind would decom any type of energy that could help stave off pain for their citizenship - especially one that has no carbon footprint.

Whether one is pro nuclear or not, I think it makes sense to look at the specific situation at hand. Was it a mistake to shut down all nuclear reactors while not pushing for more renewables and replacing all gas and coal plants first? I think so. Should the last three remaining nuclear plants be kept online? I don't think so.

Germany's main source of heating is gas and yes, gas is used to generate electricity, so nuclear can reduce gas consumption. However, only about 10% of gas (see edit) is used for electricity and Germany has enough electricity. In a worst-case scenario, those nuclear power plants can help stabilize the grid, but they are not needed in general.

The downside is, that they were already in the process of being shut down. They now need to undergo new safety checks, the fuel rods are nearly spend and this will cost 100 millions. Money which can be spent better.

This winter also isn't predicted to be particularly cold, so the full gas storages in combination with the soon opening LNG-terminals will suffice.

EDIT: I made a mistake, 10% of electricity is gas.

Post reply on HN