Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants • Hacker News Board

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#211

Post by karamanolev » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:29 PM UTC

metadat wrote: post #193

karamanolev wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I'm a fan of nucear, but ... they don't have to counter that argument. It doesn't have to be earthquakes - it can be 1 of 100 problems. Japan knew they have to deal with earthquakes and didn't. What should make people more comfortable that Germany will be able to safeguard against their known risks?

What are the remaining 95 potential uncontrollable problems beyond earthquake, fire, flood, war, human incompetence? Given appropriate attention and care, these can be accounted for through planning processes and protocols.

Just take a brief look at the list of nuclear accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...

There's various kinds of human errors (and humans will continue to make errors), equipment malfunctions, problems during equipment maintenance and so on.

Can you call "human incompetence" something to be planned for? Yes, sure, you have to plan for it. Can you plan it well enough so that it simply doesn't happen? Doesn't seem to have happened so far. Does it concern me too much? No. But do other people have to have the same risk tolerance? Also no. It's been proven that people are averse to rare-but-acute risks and can more easily accept frequent small risks (i.e. radiation and contamination from coal plants).

All that is to say that if people are concerned, it's on us to understand the reasons, not just shout into that void that "nuclear is SAFE!!!"

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#212

Post by naasking » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:32 PM UTC

V__ wrote: post #176

naasking wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, only about 10% of gas is used for electricity and Germany has enough electricity. Energy prices in Germany suggest otherwise. Also, Germany is facing a gas pinch given the geopolitics right now, so freeing up 10% is nothing to sneeze at.

I made a mistake, 10% of electricity is gas. Due to the fact that nuclear is base load and gas plants are mostly used for grid compensation, it would result (according to estimates) in a 1-2% increase in gas usage.

Sorry, are you saying that keeping the nuclear reactors online will increase gas use by 1-2%?

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#213

Post by V__ » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:32 PM UTC

timmg wrote: post #202

V__ wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also maintenance, but still in comparison, it probably isn't a lot. The last figure I have is about 17 billion for all those federal programs and investments (but those include cheaper public transport tickets as well as other things). However, I don't thing those costs are comparable. Those nuclear plants won't have a dramatic impact on the price of gas or energy, so the cost of the federal programs will be there no…

> Those nuclear plants won't have a dramatic impact on the price of gas or energy, so the cost of the federal programs will be there nonetheless. Even if it doesn’t change the price of gas, wouldn’t it mean buying/burning less gas than you would otherwise? That, in itself, would be a huge savings. Maybe I’m just missing some data, but this seems like a no-brainer to me on several levels. It’s hard for me to understan…

They estimate about 1-2% in gas savings, due to the fact that nuclear is base load and gas plants are used mostly for grid compensation. If the gas storages were empty, and the LNG-terminals weren't about to go online, I would like to see the nuclear plants be kept online. Right now, I'd rather they would invest that money in the future.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#214

Post by V__ » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:34 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #212

V__ wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made a mistake, 10% of electricity is gas. Due to the fact that nuclear is base load and gas plants are mostly used for grid compensation, it would result (according to estimates) in a 1-2% increase in gas usage.

Sorry, are you saying that keeping the nuclear reactors online will increase gas use by 1-2%?

Oh, that wasn't clear, sorry. Taking them offline would result in an estimated increase of gas by 1-2%.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#215

Post by dorgo » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:34 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #151

legulere wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 shor…

> they would have studied those accidents and developed methods to mitigate them.

So, eartchquakes and tsunamis were a new developement in japan. The engineers had never a chance to study them and develope methods to mitigate risks for nuclear plants?

If plane crashes would endanger whole countries or continents we would ban air traffic all together.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#216

Post by cedilla » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:37 PM UTC

nickpp wrote: post #203

karamanolev wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That aside, what about price? Completely cleaning up and taking apart the plant could take a generation or more, and comes with a hefty price tag. In 2016 the government increased its cost estimate to about $75.7 billion, part of the overall Fukushima disaster price tag of $202.5 billion. I'm a fan of nuclear, but those are eye-watering numbers.

Anybody knows why they are completely cleaning up that plant instead of just cordoning it off and marking it as "deadly land, nobody allowed in". You know, an exclusion zone like Chernobyl. Is land that expensive in Japan? Or is it some sort of ambition to prove they can repair that fuckup? O maybe there is a lot of money to be made in a cleanup operation?

We're talking about highly toxic soil here. Soil doesn't stay where it is, it moves with water and wind. You have to fix it, somehow. Just putting a bit of warning tape around it doesn't cut it.

This isn't a theoretical point, either, wild mushrooms are still unsafe to eat in some parts of central Europe, almost four decades after Tchernobyl.

The whole Fukushima disaster is another lesson in the prevention paradox. We see low death and disease numbers, and somehow many people think that's because the disaster wasn't that bad after all, completely ignoring the literal tens of billions of dollars that the Japanese government and TEPCO expended to keep them that low.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#217

Post by luckylion » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:37 PM UTC

JohnBooty wrote: post #178

luckylion wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but I don't believe you run into a lot of actually evil villains in politics that only do what they do because they want to see suffering and want their action to scale instead of ripping the wings from a butterfly one by one. Stalin or Mao didn't just enjoy seeing peasants starve, they believed that sacrificing a million here and there is the price to pay for the communist utopia they thought they were buildin…

I agree that very few, if any, leaders are intentionally evil. Even the most (in)famous ones such as your examples. However, I'm not sure the distinction is too useful. Ultimately we're judged by actions, not intentions.

Certainly, I was just pointing out that that's the very problem with the position that someone or some group shouldn't be morally judged for things they do/cause while having good intentions. It's a tough problem, and I guess we're mostly basing our judgement on results. Push through a stupid policy and it's expensive but nobody freezes and you'll be forgotten. Do the same and be unlucky and a million citizens freeze because of it and you won't be forgiven.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#218

Post by merb » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:37 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75

V__ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> only about 10% of gas is used for electricity and Germany has enough electricity German household electricity is double the price of America’s and considerably higher than France or Italy [1]. Were this not the case, more houses could be heated with electricity instead of gas and the coming recession made less painful. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-price...

Comparing france with germany is stupid. Btw these prices are old for Europe, you can basically x2 them (except france) the reason hey it is stupid, is because 0,19 is the number that the people Pay, But Not the actual number (they have fixed pricing kinda) In fact france would be more expansive now, than germany.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#219

Post by freeqaz » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:37 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #151

legulere wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 shor…

I really like the way that you have phrased this here. This analogy is succinct and helpful. Thank you!

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#220

Post by JohnBooty » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:38 PM UTC

karamanolev wrote: post #172

avgcorrection wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FWIW, I'm a fan of nucear, but ... they don't have to counter that argument. It doesn't have to be earthquakes - it can be 1 of 100 problems. Japan knew they have to deal with earthquakes and didn't. What should make people more comfortable that Germany will be able to safeguard against their known risks?

    What should make people more comfortable 
    that Germany will be able to safeguard 
    against their known risks?

The safety of nuclear power plants isn't exactly some great unknown.

There are ~450 plants currently operating in the world, with an average age of multiple decades. Plus all the ones that have been retired. That's a lot of data.

You don't really have to take anybody's word for it. They're safe.

They are not zero-risk, because literally nothing is. We also absolutely know the risks of fossil fuels (the planet is burning, and buyers potentially become dependent on hostile countries like Russia) and the current limitations of renewable energy sources.

So, to answer your questions: that is how you judge their potential safety in Germany or anywhere else.