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

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#231

Post by V__ » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:46 PM UTC

evilos wrote: post #227

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…

Based on the fact that Berlin is planning for 2-3 hour* organized blackouts, I don't think they have enough electricity. EDIT: Not 2 to 3 blackouts, 2 to 3 hour blackouts. When grid is overstressed.

I would hope they are planning for the worst-case. I want the government to have contingency plans. Doesn't mean it will happen.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#232

Post by luckylion » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:48 PM UTC

wizofaus wrote: post #136

luckylion wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 radio…

It looks extreme to me, and from my experience is closely related with a general fear of GMOs, strong dislike for plastics, a preference for "alternative medicine" etc. It's fundamentally an emotional approach that isn't concerned with "how do we deal with the waste?" but just grips on to that to rationalize the intuitive fear. Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I am not overly concerned about nuclear plants, I'll gladly live next to one (but not too close, I don't want to live in a shadow half the day) and have the waste containers stored a few hundred meters below me. And my willingness just increases with a thought of all the great things energy does for us.

Of course there are risks, but everything has risks attached -- we calculate the probabilities and then stop worrying about the risks if they're minuscule. And of course there's an economic part to consider, but I'm pretty sure if you counted the amount of hours Germans have spent in 2022 talking about the energy crisis, we could've been well on our way to 100% nuclear coverage if we had spent that time productively instead.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#233

Post by cedilla » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:49 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…

It is scary, but it's not quite what happened. The original nuclear exit was a plan over some decades and included a clear exit from coal power as well. It also included a multi billion dollar plan to accelerate renewable energy as well, one that still reaps dividends today.

Unfortunately, the Merkel government stopped these subsidies and dragged its feet regarding renewables for sixteen years. The flip-flopping stance regarding nuclear didn't help either, of course.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#234

Post by evilos » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:50 PM UTC

Isolus wrote: post #82

_dain_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The whole political position of this party rests on their fanatic opposition to Nuclear power. Btw if anyone thinks this is exaggeration, it's not. They are evil fanatics: https://twitter.com/giuliasaudelli/status/158097313099012505... >"Nuclear power and fossil fuels brought us here. They caused this crisis, they are not the solution." >Strong and at times emotional speech by Robert Habeck, after weeks under pressu…

> Reality: the Greens and their allies spent half a trillion USD on the "energy transition" and turned off perfectly good nuclear reactors. Result: energy shortages and diplomatic submission to Russia. Um no. Renewable energy is now actually cheaper than nuclear energy. You could build renewable energy + storage within the same range of cost. The problem is the former government shut down nuclear power plants and the…

It's only recently cheap. It's true that if they had pivoted to Nuclear instead, they would not had these energy shortfalls and maybe even Russia wouldn't have felt they had the leverage to invade Ukraine.

The global output of battery storage isn't high enough to switch to solar/wind. Energy is a solved problem. It's a natural progression of mankind's command of energy. Wood->Coal->Oil->Fission. There's enough Uranium in the ground and oceans to supply humanity for million of years. We can't let a few accidents hold us back for ever.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#235

Post by jimlongton » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:52 PM UTC

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“

Nuclear technology is risky but Fukushima isn't a good reflection of what modern nuclear power plants can accomplish. The reactors at Fukushima were designed half a century ago and were known to be flawed 35 years before the accident happened [1]. It's ironic that the plant was running longer than was originally planned in part because of Green opposition to newer power plants.

[1] https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-reactor-flaws...

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#236

Post by Jon_Lowtek » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:53 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #20

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

Good thing they exported 15% of their domestic energy production to the friendly state of Russia - in the form of natural gas imports ($20B per year). What could possibly go wrong?

96% of european uranium demand is met by imports, 4% is domestic, and 20% are imported from russia.

Source: Euratom Supply Agency - Annual Report 2021 - Page 14 https://euratom-supply.ec.europa.eu/publications/esa-annual-...

Also look at page 26ff which states that it would take years to replace current dependency on russia, not only in raw ressources, but also enrichment and recycling services.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#237

Post by someweirdperson » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:53 PM UTC

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…

> For a start, do we know how expensive (per unit energy) US Navy reactors are?

Price does not matter. It has to work reliably, not only in calm days of peace, but during times of war. Having a source of power to move the big boats without relying on external supplies is worth the price. There even were experiments to generate jetfuel using nuclear power on carriers, certainly not because it is cheap.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#238

Post by naniwaduni » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:54 PM UTC

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.

Pretty sure the nuclear still comes ahead after averaging those out with all the nuclear plants that have gotten quietly decommissioned with no explosions, though?

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#239

Post by llsf » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 9:59 PM UTC

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…

Only one death related to radiation. All the 2,000 deaths mentioned are "disaster-related deaths" (evacuation, stress, etc.). source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#240

Post by metadat » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 10:00 PM UTC

karamanolev wrote: post #211

metadat wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A good reactor design would account for the human factor, and perhaps this is the truly difficult problem with practical nuclear power.