Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Great German Energy Experiment

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 209 posts

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#141

Post by krschultz »

onli wrote: post #110
krschultz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are really lumping things together here. What do the USSR nuclear accidents say about German or US or Japanese reactors? Look at how many nuclear accidents USSR Navy ships had compared to US Navy ships. I can see an argument to 'close the old ways, we do it better now'. But 'close all of them, because I don't know the difference between them and I'm afraid of anything with the world nuclear in it' is just fear mo…

Neither the three mile plant nor Fukushima nor the accidents in german plants were located in the USSR. And Tschernobyl was in the neighbourhood (even if it weren't a technical comparable plant, it would still be an in my eyes understandable factor).

And how many people were killed by those two accidents ..........

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#142

Post by skore »

ars wrote: post #93
skore wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely agreed - but we can "solve" energy differently. Not so much for other applications. So nuclear waste in energy is completely avoidable. Not sure I understand your second paragraph.

> but we can "solve" energy differently Really? How? Just about every other technology is net negative on energy, so how do you plan to solve energy?

Oh, ok then. I thought this was a business discussion - cost input vs. benefit output. Instead, it seems like we're arguing for what would give us the perfect energy perpetuum mobile.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#143

Post by ars »

skore wrote: post #142
ars wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but we can "solve" energy differently Really? How? Just about every other technology is net negative on energy, so how do you plan to solve energy?

Oh, ok then. I thought this was a business discussion - cost input vs. benefit output. Instead, it seems like we're arguing for what would give us the perfect energy perpetuum mobile.

> I thought this was a business discussion - cost input vs. benefit output

It's not. It's a physics discussion: Energy produced vs pollution created.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#145

Post by ars »

skore wrote: post #139
ars wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Energy demand is going up ... no amount of pollution that is avoidable is acceptable Exactly. And renewables produce HUGE amounts of pollution compared to nuclear. It's not even close. Nuclear wins the pollution battle by such a large amount that's it's not even a race. Everything else is a joke. Do you know how much waste nuclear produces? Very very little - it's tiny. The entire waste from a person's lifetime of…

> renewables produce HUGE amounts of pollution compared to nuclear. It's not even close. There is hardly anything as destructively polluting as nuclear waste. It's not a even race indeed. And yes, I know how "little" waste nuclear produces, they drive it around on rails every couple of years. > We don't have to solve the storage problem. What we will eventually do is burn the waste, and gain energy from it. Sure, I'd…

> There is hardly anything as destructively polluting as nuclear waste.

Oh really? Fly ash is much worse, since it's also radioactive, and there is a LOT more of it. The pollution sent up smoke stacks is also much worse since it's actively spread to people, and there is a lot of it.

In contrast nuclear waste is very small, and stays far away from anyone.

> they drive it around on rails every couple of years.

A pollution source that can be shipped on rails? And you only need to do it every few years? Does it get more ideal?

> When do you think that will happen?

Not for a long long time. Doesn't matter, in the meantime we'll just stick the nuclear waste somewhere where there are no people.

> Yes. Really.[1]

Did you actually read that link yourself? I did - it sounds very low risk to me. Why would you link to something that supports my position?

> Ah great, relativism, always enjoy that coming up.

I'm glad you enjoy that since that's exactly what we are talking about: "Relatively speaking, since none are perfect, which energy source is best?"

> Yup, and I'd rather NOT pick the one were we put money into a dead-end technology that has the potential of devastating pollution at worst and hardly solvable storage problems at best and instead invest that money in technology that will actually be of use in the future and for the rest of mankind.

And I'd rather not spend money on technology that doesn't work, probably can not work, and definitely is terrible while we wait. Instead of the "potential of devastating pollution" you have devastating pollution right now - and you just want to ignore that? I'll take potential over actual any day.

Renewables will be of no use in the future since they can not ever produce enough energy. It doesn't matter how badly you want them to, they just can't do it. It's a dead-end technology. Nuclear power is not a dead end technology - it's the cleanest power we have, and more engineering can make it even cleaner.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#146

Post by marvin »

ars wrote: post #103
marvin wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim about 20 years required to return the energy to produce a solar panel is false. Googling a bit after "energy returned on energy invested" (EROI) indicates that there aren't really any reliable ways to measure this number. Wikipedia quotes 1.5 for the US, which seems ridiculously low. This study ( http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/10/1796/pdf ) from 2011 indicates an average EROI for solar panels of 6.5, and…

You are misreading that number. It's not years, it's how much energy is returned compared to invested. i.e. 6.5 times as much energy returned as invested over the entire life of the device. For comparison hydrocarbon fuels have numbers in the 30 range, and nuclear is 60 and up (depending on how long the plant lasts). So 6.5 is quite poor. And they list no numbers on expected lifespan - lifespan is the number one thin…

You sure I'm reading that number wrong? EROI=6.5, expected panel lifetime 30 years => 30/6.5=4.6 years to earn back the energy required to create the panel. Expected panel lifetime of 20 years gives a payback time of 3 years.

For instance, panel lifetime of 20 years and EROI of 1 would give your number, 20 years, to pay back the energy required to produce one panel. Regardless, your original claim of 20 years to get back the original energy investment is greatly exaggerated.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#147

Post by xxgreg »

macavity23 wrote: post #2

Great article - upvoted. That it's inconceivable that the US or UK government could think about spending such an amount (~5% of GDP!) on a long-term science and engineering project speaks volumes about why the Germans are where they are, and why we're where we are, economically speaking. From an engineering point of view I think it's foolish to turn off the nuke plants, but public opinion is what it is, and this caus…

Not ~5%GDP.

"the country will spend somewhere between $125 billion and "$250 billion on infrastructure expansion and subsidies in the next eight years—between 3.5 and 7 percent of Germany's 2011 GDP"

The sentence is a bit confusing but I think they mean this:

~5% of 2011 GDP / 8 years = ~0.6% 2011GDP per year.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#148

Post by hollerith »

gaius wrote: post #36
loceng wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economics are easy. Money on war 'invests' your resources into other countries (no return, negative return likely), vs. money on innovation and infrastructure in your own country (positive return, long-term; potential for making other things more efficient, more cost-efficient become higher).

Sorry, but that's nonsense, you cannot underestimate the impact of military technologies like jet engines, radar, communications satellites, GPS, the internet, superglue... The whole of the modern world is based on military tech. Plus you gainfully employ lots of people (e.g. teaching trades to people who haven't done well in mainstream education) and as a free bonus you get the defence of the realm.

>jet engines, radar, communications satellites, GPS, the internet, superglue

Don't forget computers: Turing's work relies heavily on his experiences working at Bletchley Park, ENIAC was designed to calculate artillery firing tables for the United States Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory, and the calculational needs of the Manhattan Project drove a lot of early computer development.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#149

Post by ars »

marvin wrote: post #146
ars wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are misreading that number. It's not years, it's how much energy is returned compared to invested. i.e. 6.5 times as much energy returned as invested over the entire life of the device. For comparison hydrocarbon fuels have numbers in the 30 range, and nuclear is 60 and up (depending on how long the plant lasts). So 6.5 is quite poor. And they list no numbers on expected lifespan - lifespan is the number one thin…

You sure I'm reading that number wrong? EROI=6.5, expected panel lifetime 30 years => 30/6.5=4.6 years to earn back the energy required to create the panel. Expected panel lifetime of 20 years gives a payback time of 3 years. For instance, panel lifetime of 20 years and EROI of 1 would give your number, 20 years, to pay back the energy required to produce one panel. Regardless, your original claim of 20 years to get…

Sorry, I misunderstood what you wrote.

If the EROI is indeed 6.5 then yes you are correct.

But last time I looked at EROI they always cherry picked the best results. (Bright sun, perfect angle, clean new panels, etc.) They also usually ignored installation costs (inverter, wires, framework). Additionally as the cells age they produce less energy.

In more typical installations the number I remember was 20 years after including everything. Although it you told me it was really 10 years I wouldn't argue much.

Under 5 years seems unlikely to me. I'll tell you how I know:

Market forces. With a ROI (not EROI - but obviously they are strongly related) of under 5 years you will have people installing the panels as an investment, with no subsidies needed. Yet you don't see that happening, and I suspect it's because the ROI is worse than 5 years.

This is a bit of a backward argument of course, but the fact that you need subsidies to get people to install solar panels tell me the ROI is not good enough.

I would support subsidies only for one purpose: To initially stimulate the market, in order that scale would reduce prices long term. But subsidies long term are wrong.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#150

Post by skore »

ars wrote: post #145
skore wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> renewables produce HUGE amounts of pollution compared to nuclear. It's not even close. There is hardly anything as destructively polluting as nuclear waste. It's not a even race indeed. And yes, I know how "little" waste nuclear produces, they drive it around on rails every couple of years. > We don't have to solve the storage problem. What we will eventually do is burn the waste, and gain energy from it. Sure, I'd…

> There is hardly anything as destructively polluting as nuclear waste. Oh really? Fly ash is much worse, since it's also radioactive, and there is a LOT more of it. The pollution sent up smoke stacks is also much worse since it's actively spread to people, and there is a lot of it. In contrast nuclear waste is very small, and stays far away from anyone. > they drive it around on rails every couple of years. A pollut…

> Fly ash is much worse, since it's also radioactive

My apologies, I was indeed talking about radioactive waste in general being hard to top in terms of pollution. It goes without saying that I'm not terribly happy with how this country is getting into coal lately. So yes, fly ash is definitely a concern as well. I just happen to think waste from nuclear fuel is easier to "not produce" right now.

> A pollution source that can be shipped on rails? And you only need to do it every few years? Does it get more ideal?

Yes, they ship it around and it radiates. Remember - in the US, they recently had to scrap plans for that one site because it meant the fuel had to travel there a long way. I was also off a little - it's pretty much an every year event, but I guess that's still not a threshold trigger for you.

Still, again, the real problem here is that nobody really knows where to ship this to and what to do with it once it's there. And how safe it will be the next couple hundred thousand years.

> Not for a long long time. Doesn't matter, in the meantime we'll just stick the nuclear waste somewhere where there are no people.

See - I'm just not really satisfied with that answer and I guess I don't see how anybody can be. Sorry.

> Why would you link to something that supports my position?

You were asking me to qualify 'horrifying' - seems like we have a different measure there. I find any radiation exposure leading to death by lung cancer horrifying.

> I'm glad you enjoy that since that's exactly what we are talking about: "Relatively speaking, since none are perfect, which energy source is best?"

Nope, sorry, that's not the same. Comparing two things is one thing - Relativism is something else entirely. That branch discussion was about discussing how extracting fuel from the earth is polluting. You qualified that by saying: Hey, there are a lot of things that are polluting, like iron/coal/oil/gas. Yes - I understand that - but that's not adding to the discussion.

It is inherently a better idea to not use fuel in the first place. No matter which one, you have to keep digging it up to keep it going and that's bad. It's also the crucial difference between renewable and fossil sources of energy. No matter how "little" fuel you need: on the long scale, it will fail with 100% certainty, eventually.

> And I'd rather not spend money on technology that doesn't work, probably can not work, and definitely is terrible while we wait.

Now I'm not even sure we read the same article anymore. That's not really a defensible statement in light of how widely used this technology already is. Or are you still hung up on solar?

> Nuclear power is not a dead end technology - it's the cleanest power we have, and more engineering can make it even cleaner.

Dead-end in terms of: "What technological progress does this provide on the side?". Sure, making it "cleaner" may be one form of progress, but I think "green" energy simply has more potential for innovation and collateral technological benefit for everybody.

Post reply on HN