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

131–140 of 392 posts

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#131

Post by Cwizard »

legulere wrote: post #74
clemensley wrote: post #7

Finally. Opposition to nuclear is beyond unreasonable. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

That statistic is only about deaths. You still have to deal with nuclear accidents leading to evacuation of huge areas happening once around every 30 years (unknown unknowns and what not). Germany has a high population density. Such a catastrophe happening in Germany would lead to millions getting evacuated. Another issue is the safe disposal of nuclear waste. It might seem like a low risk, but over the huge timespan…

I'd much rather be evacuated (and live) than die from air pollution.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#132

Post by plextoria »

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…

It’s true that Germany might have enough electricity, but we are sharing with EU. And it so happens that in the biggest neighbor, France, half of the nuclear reactors are stopped for maintenance and the French might need to import considerable amounts of electricity this winter.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#133

Post by thescriptkiddie »

felixfbecker wrote: post #118
naasking wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burning coal releases more airborne radioactive waste in a short time than a nuclear plant does over its whole lifetime. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

A nuclear plant that doesn't explode, that is. Pretty sure Tschernobyl released more radiation than a coal plant over its lifetime. Probably more than all coal plants in Germany in their lifetime combined.

I was going to reply that that has only happened literally twice ever, but decided to fact check that first. Apparently small steam and hydrogen explosions happened a whole lot at nuclear reactors in the 1950s and 60s.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#134

Post by daniel-cussen »

tomschlick wrote: post #5
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.

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

No post body was provided.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#135

Post by anton96 »

fsh wrote: post #113
Lev1a wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> after Fukushima And can we talk about how stupid and actively malicious it is to use the Fukushima accident as a reason for shutting down nuclear plants in Germany? Fukushima: nuclear plant in a seismically very active region in very close proximity to the ocean where tsunamis are not really a rarity vs. German nuclear plants: not very seismically active (if at all), no tsunamis i've ever heard of, not counting flo…

The Fukushima reactors and a lot of the german ones were built by the same company. They overlooked the flood risk on the japanese coast (which has huge tsunamis every few decades). What did they overlook elsewhere? After Chernobyl, politicians promised that western reactors could not possibly explode. Fukushima proved them wrong.

No, Fukushima proved them right.

Fukushima ended in no way like Tchernobyl did.

The Soviet power plan released radioactivity in the air, make an entire area inhabitable and killed a few dozen a people.

Fukushima did nothing of this, everything stayed inside the structure, no radioactivity went out.

As Fukushima had no recovery generators available (no fuel in them), it is a great proof that a totally out of control modern power plant is not deadly.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#136

Post by wizofaus »

luckylion wrote: post #71
MichaelCollins wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree. The problem with that position is that pretty much everyone ever believed that their actions would make things better, even if they were very wrong and just made everything worse. Nevertheless, I don't think the anti-nuclear movement is evil. They're guided by extreme fear, not malice. I don't know how you can bring them around though, unless your offering some form of therapy. But even with that, would they…

"Extreme" seems an overstatement, and I don't think it's necessarily the main motivator for a lot of people that are anti-nuclear. Many don't like it because they believe large-scale power sources supplied and run by (or inevitably being a source of profit for) mega-corporations are a bad idea in general. Others because there are genuine environmental consequences to and risks with uranium mining and storage of radioactive waste that we don't have complete solutions for, even if by almost any measure those consequences are less serious than they are for fossil fuel extraction and consequent GHG emissions. And others because they're skeptical it can scale up quickly and economically enough to reach necessary emissions targets (I have one foot in that camp, at least for my own country). Ultimately I think increased nuclear power will be accepted as a "necessary evil" or "least worst" solution in most developed countries, though it's hard to see it happening here in Australia, despite the fact we supply much of the world's uranium (*) and arguably have a fair number of appropriate options for waste storage.

* actually we have almost 30% of known viable resources, but only contribute 8% or 9% of the world total supply currently, producing less than a 5th of Kazakhstan, by far the most prolific supplier.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#137

Post by JohnBooty »

Cwizard wrote: post #123
dependsontheq wrote: post #87

While I agree that it would have been sensible to phase out coal and then nuclear, the german position is more complex. The fallout from Tschernobyl was measurable in Germany… measurable as in my science teacher measured it in his garden. Up to today boar and mushrooms have an elevated level of radiation in the forests around my home. So this is the emotional background, the risks are not far away. Fukushima gave the…

> „If Japan can’t control the technology nobody can“. I don't understand this argument, isn't Japan known for its earthquakes? Which are essentially non-existent in Germany? In my opinion Fukushima should be an argument _for_ nuclear power. The death toll was really low, roughly 2000, and many of those death were caused by the evacuation rather than radiation. The death toll of the tsunami/earthquake was 15000 accord…

    I don't understand this argument, isn't Japan known for its earthquakes?
Chernobyl has often been characterized as the result of a corrupt and incompetent late-stage USSR, whereas post-WWII Japan is seen as a generally well-run country.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that, just trying to describe public opinion.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#138

Post by asdff »

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…

No one who was for blocking nuclear power was doing any long term thinking, I can assure you. That was cold war paranoia thinking that suddenly everyone would be engaging in nuclear warfare. They would have realized we are not ready to transition away from nuclear power because there is no alternative for our power requirements beyond nuclear energy or dirty energy. Long term thinking would realize that the march we are on currently with climate change will also end up looking a lot like a world after nuclear warfare disrupts society.

No, it was short term thinking that has brought on these opinions. Thats who funds these anti nuclear opinions anyway, people who are invested such to benefit in the near term over preventing adoption of nuclear energy, not actual scientists engaging in long term thinking.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#139

Post by suction »

dependsontheq wrote: post #87

While I agree that it would have been sensible to phase out coal and then nuclear, the german position is more complex. The fallout from Tschernobyl was measurable in Germany… measurable as in my science teacher measured it in his garden. Up to today boar and mushrooms have an elevated level of radiation in the forests around my home. So this is the emotional background, the risks are not far away. Fukushima gave the…

No post body was provided.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#140

Post by epivosism »

Cwizard wrote: post #123
dependsontheq wrote: post #87

While I agree that it would have been sensible to phase out coal and then nuclear, the german position is more complex. The fallout from Tschernobyl was measurable in Germany… measurable as in my science teacher measured it in his garden. Up to today boar and mushrooms have an elevated level of radiation in the forests around my home. So this is the emotional background, the risks are not far away. Fukushima gave the…

> „If Japan can’t control the technology nobody can“. I don't understand this argument, isn't Japan known for its earthquakes? Which are essentially non-existent in Germany? In my opinion Fukushima should be an argument _for_ nuclear power. The death toll was really low, roughly 2000, and many of those death were caused by the evacuation rather than radiation. The death toll of the tsunami/earthquake was 15000 accord…

There was 1 disputed radiation/nuclear related death from Fukushima.

And mention of 2200 related to the (post-tsunami) evacuation.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_ac...

Post reply on HN