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

351–360 of 392 posts

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#351

Post by lm28469 »

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…

> Up to today boar and mushrooms have an elevated level of radiation in the forests around my home.

Their coal power plants made you breath more radioactive particles than Chernobyl

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#352

Post by lm28469 »

karamanolev wrote: post #174
epivosism wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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.

Seeing everything through the economical lens is exactly why we're still burnin coal and sucked Putin gas until a few months ago.

We're letting imaginary numbers dictate the future of humanity, "why did you let the world die, it was cheaper than fixing it" isn't a valid excuse}

And if you want to talk about number show much does it cost to the German healthcare system to take care of the hundred/thousands of people getting sick and dying because of coal pollution ?

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#353

Post by lm28469 »

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, without energy for heating, and the potential for rolling blackouts. With this change, it does not eliminate the threat but makes it less likely.

Eeeeh not really, most building are heated by gas, the industry runs on gas, nuclear does't really help with either.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#354

Post by lm28469 »

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…

> Another issue is the safe disposal of nuclear waste.

And coal waste isn't an issue because it's filtered by our own lungs, right ?

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#355

Post by lm28469 »

rfool wrote: post #73

IMHO totally unnecessary. Nuclear energy is superfluous, at least in Germany. https://www.app.electricitymaps.com

They're the second largest electricity importer of Europe. They're pulling the same shit as Belgium, shutting down their nuclear power plants and importing from France. Guess what France uses to generate electricity ?

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#356

Post by raxxorraxor »

JohnBooty wrote: post #220
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 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 zer…

Problem is that one plant critically failing is enough to devastate large portions of land, especially in tightly packed Europe. And the fault in Fukushima was due to economic reasons, the risk of backup generators being flooded was known. These are realities that you won't ever address fully because it would make energy generation too expensive.

A full life-cycle analysis of nuclear power isn't really favorable. Germany is a net power exporter. Sure, there is more to it since the energy isn't generated in correct place at the right time, the infrastructure has problems and then some.

But in the end nuclear isn't a solution here. Expensive, slow, another resource dependence and nobody knows yet how to get cheap uranium in the future. The developments previously are going in the correct direction and that direction did not include nuclear power in the meantime.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#357

Post by raxxorraxor »

naniwaduni wrote: post #238
felixfbecker wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There aren't many nuclear plants that are fully decommissioned. Perhaps around 10 and that still includes management of the waste.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#358

Post by fartsucker69 »

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.

if you really weigh against all coal plants in germany, the numbers are not far off

and radioactive material is like a fraction of the problem with coal. they have much worse health impact in other areas. they're linked (directly or indirectly) to 10000s of thousands of deaths a year.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#359

Post by fartsucker69 »

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…

aren't people here supposed to be educated?

there have been many studies on this. tschernobyl has had no measurable impact on any health related metrics you could come up with in countries outside the ukraine. even directly at tschernobyl the long lasting impact was minimal and most related deaths were an effect of accute exposure.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#360

Post by throw0101c »

Salgat wrote: post #320
JohnBooty wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 zer…

The problem is that nuclear plants only need to fail once to have global catastrophic consequences. Chernobyl was so catastrophic that Gorbachev blamed the Soviet Union's collapse on it. Solar and other renewable energy sources can never even remotely approach this level of environmental risk.

> The problem is that nuclear plants only need to fail once to have global catastrophic consequences.

As opposed to many other reliable generation types which have global catastrophic consequences† while running normally.

And by "reliable" I mean can consistently provide power more that 50% of the time:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_facto...

† E.g., climate change.

Post reply on HN