Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022 • Hacker News Board

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#11

Post by Derbasti » Mon, May 30, 2011, 12:42 PM UTC

I guess it is pretty obvious that a non-nuclear energy strategy will definitely result in higher energy prices in the short term. That said, some people might be comfortable with this as long as the price increase is moderate.

In the long run however, renewable energy sources are absolutely the way to go. It might actually pay off nicely to invest a lot of resources in renewable energy early on and come out ahead of the pack once coal, uranium, gas and oil become more expensive.

Whether or not Germany will actually be able to carry this off and reap the benefits of it will remain to be seen, though.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#12

Post by mrich » Mon, May 30, 2011, 12:42 PM UTC

Let's see how long this decision holds up, In 2000 they decided to switch off old plants by 2011 (labor+green party). This was anulled by end of 2010 by the conservatives. Only because of Fukushima (and pending elections) did they anull this again. The green party has been winning in the last elections since Fukushima, and the ruling conservatives have lost ground. This is their opportunistic way of trying to avoid becoming meaningless.

In 5 years, energy prices will be high, Fukushima will be forgotten, new reactor designs may be available (pushed by Chinese who will have to depend on nuclear?) Let's see what happens then.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#13

Post by berntb » Mon, May 30, 2011, 12:43 PM UTC

Andi wrote: post #9

henrikschroder wrote: post #6

Sweden held a referendum in 1980 about nuclear power, and the only choice was about how fast our nuclear power plants should be shut down. It took twenty years until a reactor was closed, and five more years until one whole plant was closed. During this time, Sweden's energy consumption has of course gone up, and although there's been some increase in wind and water power, the net result is that each time we close a…

I cannot agree. You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.

We are (probably) willing to set aside places for Luddites to live. For now, you can go to North Korea or some other nice place without much energy use...

(Be careful when choosing, poor countries have lots of environmental destruction which they can't afford to clean -- it might be bad for your health.)

:-)

Edit: It is not a false dichotomy; I compared to the only known low-energy societies. My point is that there is no low energy using society, where anyone would want to live (except the local junta). (And the expensive alternative to nuclear is coal, which is arguably worse with its climate effects.)

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#14

Post by Derbasti » Mon, May 30, 2011, 12:44 PM UTC

Andi wrote: post #9

henrikschroder wrote: post #6

Sweden held a referendum in 1980 about nuclear power, and the only choice was about how fast our nuclear power plants should be shut down. It took twenty years until a reactor was closed, and five more years until one whole plant was closed. During this time, Sweden's energy consumption has of course gone up, and although there's been some increase in wind and water power, the net result is that each time we close a…

I cannot agree. You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.

I agree. Computers used to be extremely expensive and unwieldy compared to other calculation devices. But they developed past that and their potential is mind-blowing. A similar argument could be made for renewable energy technology.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#15

Post by latch » Mon, May 30, 2011, 12:44 PM UTC

Germany is a leader in solar power. They installed more panels last year than the rest of the world combined. They generate more electricity from solar than Fukushima did. If they can further establish themselves as leaders and experts in new-energy, it'll make them even more disproportionally well positioned to most of Europe.

However, it's a shame they see no future in nuclear. Seems like they are betting against something we've just scratched the surface of (my money is on Thorium)..for the wrong reasons. The damage from the oil and coal that they burn is far worse.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#16

Post by dexen » Mon, May 30, 2011, 12:45 PM UTC

Closing nuclear powerplants early makes for a self-fulfilling prophecy as well, unfortunately.

The only solid argument against nuclear goes along the lines, ``nuclear power is too expensive because of the costs of disposal of wastes''.

Thing is, in normal operation the cost is amortized year by year. Normal life of a nuclear plant is a few decades; say 30 years. Could be longer, but the technological progress is so fast it just makes sensible to replace hardware before it's completely worn down.

But it becomes a hefty one-time fee if the plants are closed mid-life. The overall costs barely go down. The difference in amount of waste is small -- because large portion of nuclear wastes stems from decommissioning of the plant itself. The spent fuel itself is not that much. [1]

And the headlines in press go, ``See? It's too expensive''.

----

[1] been touring recently a nuclear powerplant in Greifswald, Germany, that undergoes decommissioning right now. Most of the waste is NOT the fuel, but infrastructure of the plant (granted, it was built with old technology).

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#17

Post by andrest » Mon, May 30, 2011, 12:45 PM UTC

Throughout the whole article no mention of any specific alternatives to be used? 23% is a big amount to make up to.

A relevant TED talk by Bill Gates (Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero): http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html

In short, the most viable option currently, in his opinion, is the thorium reactors. Current uranium reactors can be converted to work with thorium.

"The main point of using thorium, in addition to the proliferation issues with uranium, is that there is 10 fold amount of it available compared to Uranium. If you take into account also the fact that we only use uranium-235 in our nuclear reactors, and this consitutes only 0.7% of the total amount of uranium, the increase is 100 fold.

Thorium reactors also operate by burning uranium. This is created from thorium by bombarding it with neutrons. This forms uranium 232, which is highly radioactive and is hence hard to deal. This is why U232 can't be used for nuclear weapons, it's hard to handle."

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#18

Post by StavrosK » Mon, May 30, 2011, 12:46 PM UTC

vladd wrote: post #3

sapper2 wrote: post #2

Good move aka burning bridges. If managed right, this will enhance the development and use of better technologies.

Nuclear is the safest form of energy that we currently have. More people die from installing solar panels than deaths occurred in nuclear accidents: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener... .

How many people die from building and maintaining nuclear power plants?

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#19

Post by latch » Mon, May 30, 2011, 12:48 PM UTC

Derbasti wrote: post #11

I guess it is pretty obvious that a non-nuclear energy strategy will definitely result in higher energy prices in the short term. That said, some people might be comfortable with this as long as the price increase is moderate. In the long run however, renewable energy sources are absolutely the way to go. It might actually pay off nicely to invest a lot of resources in renewable energy early on and come out ahead of…

I agree..except that's assuming a static world for the next decade. Both China and India are intently looking into Thorium reactors (and the US sorta is)...that's where I'd put my money too.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#20

Post by vukk » Mon, May 30, 2011, 12:52 PM UTC

henrikschroder wrote: post #6

Sweden held a referendum in 1980 about nuclear power, and the only choice was about how fast our nuclear power plants should be shut down. It took twenty years until a reactor was closed, and five more years until one whole plant was closed. During this time, Sweden's energy consumption has of course gone up, and although there's been some increase in wind and water power, the net result is that each time we close a…

Also, the swedes reversed their decision few years ago. Nowdays while they are not increasing nor decreasing nuclear power, they are OK with replacing the old reactors.