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

151–160 of 392 posts

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#151

Post by asdff »

legulere wrote: post #91
mabbo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would agree, especially from the standpoint of today, but I guess you have to see things historically. Issues with nuclear like fallout from Chernobyl still leading to contamination today in German or bad handling of nuclear waste at the Asse II mine have been a topic in German society for a very long time. The climate crisis picked up as a topic only really in the late 90s. That explains the first nuclear exit pla…

But isn't it scary that political decisions about energy are made on reactionary terms rather than engineering terms? An engineer would not have said "we have to stop nuclear power," because of accidents, they would have studied those accidents and developed methods to mitigate them. This is why airlines are safe, because of past accidents that were deeply tragic and catastrophic but often went on to stymie some shortcoming of aircraft that wasn't apparent in modelling and testing that had been done at that point. If we reacted to aircraft disasters how the German government reacted to nuclear energy disasters that didn't even happen within their own borders, we'd be back to using clipper ships to cross the Atlantic in three weeks. This is regressive thinking that hurts our species overall, not progressive thinking that leads to technological improvements and benefits for our species.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#152

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#153

Post by 6thaccount »

JohnBooty wrote: post #137
Cwizard wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> „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.

No post body was provided.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#154

Post by asdff »

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

Probably a lot more radioactive pollution as well

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#155

Post by legulere »

naasking wrote: post #111
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…

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-...

Let's say a metric ton of coal has around 1 kBq and around 10000 PBq were released at Chernobyl.

That would mean around 10 quadrillion tons of coal would need to get burned to emit the same amount of radiation. China is currently burning 4 trillion tons of coal per year, which is a 2500th part of it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20005612/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Release_and...

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#156

Post by naasking »

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.

And new reactor designs are meltdown proof, so what's the problem exactly?

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#157

Post by nimbius »

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

While I agree the German position is more complex, the conclusion is reducto ad absurdum given the Fukushima reactor meltdown is an extraordinarily complex issue without a single definitive root cause which could be attributed to simple human control.

Any human control is predicated and annotated by known assumptions and performance envelopes. Failure modes can be predicted, past performance can be analyzed and conclusions can be drawn using scientific knowledge and evidence for the basis of ones systems of control, be they industrial or environmental. Failure events or conditions, although regretful, are very important as they permit us to learn, to adapt, to grow and to change in response to events and conditions as they change or evolve over time.

Because Japan is a brave, science minded nation, it hasnt eschewed the atom even in the face of this egregious misfortune. The initial German response to the accident could best be compared to that of a child: reactionary, undisciplined, haphazard and deleterious. Im glad to learn more sensible minds have prevailed and reconsidered nuclear power as a sustainable partner, albeit somewhat irked to see its only real commitment in this case is the overwhelming demand for energy independence amidst global conflict.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#158

Post by johannes1234321 »

avgcorrection wrote: post #148
JohnBooty wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re not countering the implicit argument that Germany won’t have a problem with earthquakes ruining their nuclear powerplants. Germany is also a “well-run country” if you want to run with the old anti-Soviet argument.

It's not fully an objective argument, butnan emotional. "Even Japan can't run them safely!" Where Japan is known for its precision and strict following of rules (perception!)

Yes, rationally the maths is a lot different, but countering emotions with facts is hard. (And then consider facts like long term deposition of nuclear waste etc.)

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#159

Post by felixfbecker »

throw827474737 wrote: post #104
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?

Winters in Germany are cold, period.

Source: I'm German and live in California now. Not a surprise to me that homes here don't have any heating at all, unthinkable in Germany.

Old people would literally die.

I have memories of when our heating would break down in some winters, living in an old building with bad insulation (which is very common). You could wear a thick jacket inside and a thick blanket but your hands are freezing so much you can't even type on a keyboard.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#160

Post by JohnBooty »

dane-pgp wrote: post #128
sokoloff wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Given the experience of the US Navy in nuclear power generation, I don't think their doomsday scenarios are inevitable. I often see this given as a reason for why nuclear power generation can be safe, but I think it overlooks the fact that military reactors operate in a very different context from civilian ones. For a start, do we know how expensive (per unit energy) US Navy reactors are? It doesn't matter how safe…

    do we know how expensive (per unit energy) 
    US Navy reactors are? It doesn't matter how safe 
    they are if they are twice as expensive as 
    renewables (plus storage / power-to-gas).
Renewables (and fusion, although that's arguably a renewable) are obviously the end goal but until they can fill 100% of our energy needs the real cost comparison needs to be "the cost of nuclear" versus "the cost of fossil fuel plus the cost of the damage done by fossil fuels."
Post reply on HN