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

191–200 of 209 posts

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#191

Post by andreasvc »

lukeschlather wrote: post #171
tokenadult wrote: post #138

I guess the problem with a long article, even an interesting long article like the one submitted here, is that it is hard to read to the end. Near the end of the submitted article is this paragraph: "A second problem is that even when it comes to alternative energy sources, Germany doesn't reward carbon dioxide reduction. Rather, its policy establishes well-defined subsidies for specific technologies: a kilowatt-hour…

This isn't a decision grounded in economics, obviously. This is about minimizing side-effects from energy production. The sun blasts roughly 10,000 times our electricity needs at us each year. (And that's just what directly impacts the surface.) I'd say we have some wiggle room in which it makes sense to focus on being cleaner rather than more efficient. We should worry about efficiency if we have serious scarcity is…

This 10,000 times figure is meaningless because it is theoretical; in reality that energy comes in diffuse rays which make it very difficult to capture anywhere near the amount of electricity that is actually needed. Hence the need to turn on coal power plants, which are harmful to the environment (very unwise to have turned off those nuclear plants IMO). Therefore, we SHOULD worry about efficiency, to avoid such things as much as possible.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#193

Post by soc88 »

ars wrote: post #136
sophacles wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an overly simplistic argument: 1) are the raw materials the same raw materials? (Iron is easier to get than tungsten for instance). Are the materials used in either type of generation actually hard to find or in danger of becoming scarce? 2) How much extra energy is spent on processing the raw materials to the finished product? The vast majority of weight in a turbine is the tower, which is relatively simple…

1: Most of a nuclear plant is concrete (the containment building) and iron (the reactor body). And both those materials are easy to get. The pipes are minor in comparison (in terms of materials, not in terms of construction). There isn't much if any tungsten used in a reactor, it's all ordinary iron, copper, concrete, etc. In contrast a wind turbine uses hard to get neodymium rare earth magnets. Nuclear plants don't…

> Nuclear plants don't require exotic materials.

Yeah, I bought 1 kilo of Uranium in the supermarket last week. Was pretty cheap.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#194

Post by andreasvc »

cygx wrote: post #98
orangecat wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the german public, for the environment and the whole humanity the risks from nuclear plant are that high that coal plants, even though they are now used more and are unhealthy, are way less dangerous. Yes, and the German public is flat-out wrong.

I disagree. The current generation of nuclear plants needs to be shut down as the technology is irredeemably flawed (nuclear waste, no disaster-proof emergency shutdown). Accidents have happened, will happen again and carry a cost that's hard to accurately quantify (death toll among the hundreds of thousands of Chernobyl liquidators is approaching 10% according to their Union and still on the rise; a new sarcophagus…

I agree that current nuclear plants should be phased out. Unfortunately it is very unlikely that people can be convinced that other forms of nuclear power exist and should be developed, because the word "nuclear" will probably be forever tainted.

45% sounds very high; did you mean 4.5%?

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#195

Post by soc88 »

sneak wrote: post #53
onli wrote: post #20

The article has a heavily biased view. Some points it gets wrong: >"If you close eight nuclear plants, which were carbon-free, overnight, you will increase carbon emissions," Nuclear plants are not carbon free. Getting the uranium, transporting the nuclear waste, transporting the people who run the plant costs a lot of carbon emissions. You need to look at the whole picture. >Inevitably, some hot July week will come…

> The summer in Germany isn't that hot. Middle europe, not california. Accordingly, we don't have air conditioners (in general) Germans are always saying this. It was 90F in Berlin yesterday. That is air conditioner weather, period. The part about most people not having them is true, though. This US expat is hooking his up this week, despite power costing twice here what it does in California.

> That is air conditioner weather, period.

Whine whine whine

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#196

Post by randallsquared »

ClHans wrote: post #127
cturner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theere's a basic role of government that's widely agreed upon - that it keeps us from hurting one another and clarity on the use of roads and telecommunications channels and the like. And I realise that opinions diverge above that, but I'll put mine. Generally government is poor at picking winners, and inefficient, and seems like a bad place to look for inspiration in engineering. When governments set up things like…

"Generally government is poor at picking winners, and inefficient" [citation needed] "Often the government people end up on the side of workers in the field rather than the public that they're meant to be serving." [citation needed] Oh, it was all opinion. That's fine. In my opinion, government is as efficient as the private sector (ever seen the waste and mismanagement going on in these huge megacorps? it's insane!)…

"Often the government people end up on the side of workers in the field rather than the public that they're meant to be serving." [citation needed]

Citation provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture#American_exa...

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#197

Post by soc88 »

ars wrote: post #92
skore wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have enough uranium to supply our energy needs for centuries That's incredibly short sighted. And not just the measure of 'centuries' (even if that were true, it's still arguably just postpone the problem). Energy demand is going up, sharply, as more countries join our standard of living. We will , definitely, need technologies that are as clean as possible to meet the demand, eventually. No amount of pollution…

> 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…

> The entire waste from a person's lifetime of energy use could fit in a teacup.

Sir, I have no other words for you, but you are a fucking stupid idiot.

I invite you to come here and have a look into Asse. Maybe you even want to move in, because it is so ... uhm ... "empty" down there?

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#198

Post by andreasvc »

DasIch wrote: post #49
lmm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I find the criticism torwards the Energiewende quite hard to understand, sure it is a very difficult problem but unless we find a fundamentally new energy source or nuclear fusion becomes viable the path Germany is on is without alternative. There's one obvious alternative: Build and run nuclear power plants. We have enough uranium to supply our energy needs for centuries, and the overall environmental impact is bet…

Nuclear technology is extremely risky and prohibitively expensive even if we ignore the cost of accidents and waste disposal covered largely by governments because not a single company controlled by sane people would ever build a nuclear power plant otherwise. That being said it is not at all clear whether there is enough uranium for a couple or even one century, especially given the massive increase in demand that w…

Fortunately other nuclear fuels exists, such as Thorium. They are also less dangerous and more plentiful, therefore we should invest in them. You shouldn't equate nuclear technology with the kind of fission reactors that were developed during the cold war with the twin goal of generating energy and supplying material for nuclear bombs.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#199

Post by skore »

ars wrote: post #177
skore wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every single pollution tops radioactive waste since radioactive waste sits in a storage cask Of course, preferably, every type of pollution should sit in a storage cask. I was under the impression that we were discussing the potential of pollution of different pollutants. If we compare storage casks, we get to actually compare how dangerous they are. In that comparison, radioactive waste should win the battle for w…

> discussing the potential of pollution No, the actually of pollution, not the potential. > coal plants. Where did I say I support those? You didn't - except that by blocking nuclear power you end up with it by default, so you have to accept that you are implicitly supporting it. > why is it different for alternative, renewable sources of energy? Because there aren't any. Sun and wind can do a portion, and I'm glad f…

> so you have to accept that you are implicitly supporting it.

Nope, I don't have to do that. You don't just get to claim I'm in a catch 22.

Actually, this appears to be what the article echoes as well: Everybody is telling Germany they can't do it, but they just do it anyways.

> But what about the rest?

Increase in efficiency of what is existing, smarter use of the energy that we have. That should get us quite a long way.

> Yes, I know the potential is worse. But the actually is better!

Which is why I don't think we have to increase 'potential' to make sure that the 'actually' stays that way.

> Not unless we cover the earth with energy collectors, and I don't want that. I assume you don't either.

No, totally terrible plan - creating all those jobs and encouraging all that innovation. I've already said it before in this thread - I'm very much OK with setting up as many collectors as it takes.

> but then what? What about the final 70%?

In the short term, Germany is gunning for 35% - once we are there, we will reassess. I don't claim to be able to predict the future like you apparently do, but I sure know which path sounds better. To me, at least.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#200

Post by skore »

ars wrote: post #178
skore wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no technological reason to fear the rail shipment of nuclear waste. It is not difficult to engineer enclosures that will withstand the most energetic possible train wreck. Actually, it is difficult and there is considerable dissent over whether the currently used technology is safe enough or as safe as advertised. [1][2] > And obviously they are well shielded for radiation. They are shielded, but how well…

> Not finding any amount of radiation acceptable is where I seem to be losing most of the people who understand themselves to be pragmatic supporters of nuclear energy in this discussion. Because background radiation means we are always exposed to it. So setting a no tolerance policy doesn't make sense. People go to these http://resources.yesican-science.ca/trek/radiation/final/ear... places for a vacation, to enjoy…

Good to know that you're willing to go that far to try to make a point in an argument.

Once again: Adding radiation when there are other options is what bothers me.

Post reply on HN