Live data from Hacker News

Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

dw.com

251–260 of 392 posts

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#251
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.

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.

Nuclear waste is tiny and contained. It kills no one when handled correctly, which it is.

Coal and gas plants produce pollution that kills thousands every year, and that's how it's supposed to work.

Meltdowns are next to impossible at correctly designed and built plants, which the German ones are.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 l…

I agree it's irrational fear, but I can understand for many that if they had to choose between living near something that there's no reason to believe will ever prove immediately fatal (a coal-fired power station) and one for which there have been historic examples of unexpected fatal explosions, they'd choose the former, all else being equal (which of course we know it isn't). In Germany's case I agree it makes no sense, given the number of reactors located in neighbouring countries and the fact Germany has an established nuclear industry with experienced engineers etc. (and more limited renewable options), and is generally well positioned to scale up rapidly to replace fossil-fuel based power.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can import 100% of Uranium from actual allies without problem.

the linked Euroatom Supply Agency Report says otherwise.

But it's besides the point anyway: the grandparent argued that it is stupid to import 15% energy

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#255
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost to dismantle a nuclear power plant is the same as for coal/gaz power plants. ~10% of the initial price. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...

That's irrelevant to this particular discussion. I'm not talking about regular "dismantling a nuclear plant", but if 1/100 of the plants have 1000x the cleanup costs due to accidents, that changes the math. I pulled the above numbers out of my hat, they're probably wrong. I'm just adding a bit of nuance to the TCO calculation.

If we're talking TCO we need to calculate the TCO of coal and gas as including the cost of the destruction of the entire planet's climate.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#256

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…

Emotions certainly played a major role when Germany decided to phase out nuclear in 2011, and the execution and timeline of that phase-out were poor.

But that doesn't mean Germans haven't pondered seriously about this topic in the meantime. And the result is that, apart from this band-aid solution for the current winter, Germany will still phase out nuclear. Let me try to summarize the most important points I know of:

- Cost. Nuclear energy is expensive energy. It just happened to be cheaper than solar and wind energy a decade ago. But the cost of renewables went down spectacularly, and the cost of nuclear went up at the same time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity). So why invest in nuclear energy when we could have more low-carbon energy for the same price elsewhere?

- Subsidies. So far, all nuclear power plants have been heavily subsidized. There isn't a single country where the full cost of decommissioning and permanent storage of radioactive material is properly taken into account. And there is no power plant with a full insurance, so those risks are carried by the public. Once we eliminate these subsidies, the cost of nuclear grows even further.

- Reliability. Some people dislike renewables because there are times with no wind and no sunshine. But they forget that wind and sunshine are relatively predictable and have worst-case bounds. So investing into storage and the electricity grid makes renewables highly reliable. Now look at nuclear. The worst case scenario is roughly what just happened in France: you discover a problem that affects an entire generation of power plants, and all of them have to be taken offline until the problem is resolved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis...). Without its European neighbors, France would be in deep trouble. If we take precautions against this risk, the cost of nuclear grows even further.

- Inflexibility. Nuclear power plants need a high uptime to amortize their construction cost. But once they operate in a grid with a substantial amount of renewables, they are displaced more and more and the cost per unit of energy grows even further.

- War. The Russian army has recently captured a Ukrainian nuclear power plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_at_the_Zaporizhzhia_Nuc...). The plant is now used to store military equipment, the employees are bullied or even tortured, and all pillars of nuclear safety are being violated. There are credible approaches how we can build a power plant that resists human stupidity or a natural disaster, but there is no way we can build a power plant that is unconditionally safe in a war zone.

- Nuclear Proliferation. Once the know-how and the infrastructure for handling fissionable material is in place, even if only for civilian purposes, there is a much stronger incentive to also look into military use. And the last thing our planet needs is more nuclear weapons.

Given these points, the current German position seems quite sensible and I wonder why some other nations are suddenly so eager to build new nuclear power plants.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can import 100% of Uranium from actual allies without problem.

the linked Euroatom Supply Agency Report says otherwise. But it's besides the point anyway: the grandparent argued that it is stupid to import 15% energy

Russia is 19% of your Uranium imports. Larger for natural gas.

You can easily source that 19% from Canada, Kazakhstan, Australia, and the US instead of Russia.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#258

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

Here are three arguments that I personally find both reasonable and convincing. 1) Nuclear fuel and waste are clearly dangerous. Your linked article makes a logical fallacy in that it claims a dangerous activity is safe because few people have died from it. But we know things are dangerous even when nobody dies from it. The level of security surrounding nuclear is beyond anything else, and it's required to keep it sa…

1) Can you point to negative implications of nuclear waste? Anyone that got hurt or harmed in Germany for example?

2) If it's too expensive it will not happen, no need for the government to step in.

3) Have a look at the link, some renewables like Biomass emit a lot of C02, all energy sources are trade offs

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#259

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

Here are three arguments that I personally find both reasonable and convincing. 1) Nuclear fuel and waste are clearly dangerous. Your linked article makes a logical fallacy in that it claims a dangerous activity is safe because few people have died from it. But we know things are dangerous even when nobody dies from it. The level of security surrounding nuclear is beyond anything else, and it's required to keep it sa…

1) It is dangerous yes. That is the nature of the energy being so concentrated. But this concentration is a blessing because you don't need to mind nearly as much material, and it is far far easier to keep an eye on the waste. Where does the waste from coal/gas go? Into the air. It costs way more to try to contain the harms of those substances because they are the opposite of energy dense.

Nuclear waste is such a tiny tiny amount that we just keep it on site. It's solid. It's not going to leak out of its containers. It just sits in concrete casks on site. Even better, it still has 98% of the energy in it so you don't really want to get rid of it. It can be used in breeder reactors to extract more energy. I quote this too much, but all the nuclear waste the US has ever generated would sit in a single football field, 10 yards high.

2) Nuclear is capital intensive AND the only energy generation that is forced to pre fund its own decommissioning and cleanup. The increased operating costs of nuclear plants is largely due to intentional mismanagement b/c of politics. For example, in France they force nuclear plants to stop outputting power when renewables are generating. They prioritize renewables because that's what politics dictates. They also mandated a cap on power allowed to be generated by nuclear plants, forcing the closure of perfectly good and already paid for plants, so they could buy more renewables. These privatized energy markets don't want stable cheap energy because there's no money in it.

In addition, the US has largely forgotten how to build big things. But it can be done. The UAE just finished 4 1250MW reactors in 10 years. It will generate a quarter of their electricity, (basically) carbon free for 60+ years. Cost was 6B per reactor. Over 60 years, it's a steal. Renewables are only "cheap" in LCOE because the storage costs and capacity factor costs are often not included. Even if you build a megawatt of solar/wind, you really only get 20 to 40% of that peak capacity on average. In Virginia, we are building a wind farm for 10B that is 2640MW. And it is intermittent, off shore is usually 40%. You could get a 1250 MW stable nuke for that much. And it would last twice as long.

3) The main issue with solar/wind though, is that we literally don't have enough material to build enough of it. Not to mention the battery storage. It's not a matter of we can't mine fast enough, we literally don't know of the mineral reserves needed. Here's a presentation going over a report that find this: https://youtu.be/MBVmnKuBocc?t=2403

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#260

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…

The forests near mine and just about everywhere else on the entire planet have elevated levels of BEING ON GODDAMNED FIRE thanks to coal-burners.

No there's not history. There's not emotions. There's god-damned stupidity and a refusal to evaluate risk at the top level of government, that has condemned hundred of millions.

I've lived near irradiated areas too. There was zero justification for this.

Post reply on HN