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

101–110 of 392 posts

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#101

Post by V__ »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #92
V__ wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. But the switch to heat pumps will take time and won't change the situation right now. The political procrastination of the last decades is biting Germany in the ass right now.

> the switch to heat pumps will take time and won't change the situation right now It could make a dent if seriously pursued, e.g. by focussing transitioning vulnerable households. The economic benefits of reduced electricity prices would also immediately accrue.

There are currently multiple plans in the work and some already started. The goal right now is to install at least 500k heat-pumps per year. But, there aren't enough skilled heating contractors, so they are working on solving this as well.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#102

Post by papito »

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.

It's more sinister than that. Russia was financially extremely incentivized to let this happen and indeed, it seems the so-called "environmental groups" in Germany and elsewhere are really fronts for the Russian government: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-00127...

Designed to cynically "care" about the environment, but in reality meant to destroy Europe's energy independence.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#103

Post by belorn »

V__ wrote: post #70
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 nuc…

Wind conditions are more important question this winter than temperature. Good conditions will mean low power prices, meaning that industries, schools, apartment buildings and homes can afford to pay their bills without government bailing people out.

A worse case scenario would had been windless cold winter with gas supplies empty, and a government that have to bailout both the industry, the government institutions, and private people. 3 nuclear power plants provides a bit of backup for that situation.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#104

Post by throw827474737 »

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.

> Germany was facing a cold winter

Yaaawn.. this doomsday propaganda is really getting old, and lets meet in 6 month again and lets see how much impact and necessity those 3 plants had at all on heating here..

Wait, your are likely not from Germany nor even Europe and state "Germany was facing a cold winter" like fact based on what please?

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#106

Post by dieze »

Faaak wrote: post #55
legulere wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Would've been better to decrease coal though. Coal provokes more deaths per kWh than nuclear

...by 3 orders of magnitude

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#107

Post by legulere »

Rygian wrote: post #67
legulere wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Gas has lower CO2 emissions and the advantage over coal that it can better supply peak loads. At that point in time Russia was also seen as a reliable cheap supplier of it, as the UdSSR has been since the 70s before.

It's unlikely that coal could have been replaced with new nuclear. It would have probably been an EPR from back then Framatome and Siemens. Construction of the EPR in Olkiluoto started in 2005 and just finished recently.

Keeping old nuclear reactors running and shutting down coal plants instead would have been possible though, but didn't have backing in the population.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#108

Post by chihuahua »

anonporridge wrote: post #51
preya2k wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your sentiment, but by no means does nuclear power "have no carbon footprint". It's still a very carbon-friendly technology, but it's definitely not carbon free. (See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_em... )

True, and yet solar photovoltaics has almost 4x the carbon footprint of nuclear fission per unit energy produced, and wind has approximately the same as nuclear. So, for the context of this conversation where Germany is prefering solar and wind to nuclear, and worse, turning to coal in place of natural gas, nuclear is effectively carbon free.

You're arguing with people who only see the downside of nuclear power, but refuse to see any downside to other sources of energy. Here we see this for the carbon footprint, but it's also the case many other impacts:

Strip-mining for coal, devastating huge areas? This is fine.

Radioactive emissions from burning coal? Don't care.

Deaths caused by coal pollution and coal mining, compared to deaths caused by nuclear power? 'tis but a scratch.

Permanent problems with groundwater caused by decades of coal mining? Lalala I can't hear you.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#109

Post by hdjjhhvvhga »

bennysonething wrote: post #8
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 think they don't value the cause more, they value the status the cause gives them

This might be the sad reality of many once-authenthic-grassroot-movements.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#110

Post by Archelaos »

mabbo wrote: post #76
legulere wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They could have instead replaced the fossil fuel electrical generation with those renewables, and kept the nuclear plants. That would have been a massive reduction in carbon emissions by Germany. Odd choice.

Yes. But they produces nuclear wast and a melt down could devastate wide regions. Glad that this will all be over soon. I was a victim of the Chernobyl fallout myself, and would not like to experience this again.
Post reply on HN