Germany Quits Nuclear Power, Ending a Decades-Long Struggle • Hacker News Board

Re: Germany Quits Nuclear Power, Ending a Decades-Long Struggle

#121

Post by locallost » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 4:30 AM UTC

naasking wrote: post #116

locallost wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why hasn't the percentage of fossil fuels in the US gone down so much lower since it didn't shutdown its nuclear plants?

Are you suggesting that one country didn't have the exact same trajectory as another completely different country because of this one arbitrary variable? And you can't think of any other reason? Like the US's huge car culture, or the native oil drilling and gas production industries, or the tendency to project military power across the world to ensure a stable and cheap oil supply at the cost of human lives?

It's difficult to say I am suggesting anything considering I already explicitly wrote it: the thing people should focus on is the actual outcome. And here we have a country that uses less fossil fuels for electricity production (do not see what cars have to do with anything), and is on a faster trajectory of reduction. Claiming that it could've been even faster implies either of the two things:

1) possession of a crystal ball to view an alternative reality 2) certainty that there is no dependence between spending money on nuclear and other things

I don't think that 2) is true. The disposal of existing nuclear waste will cost the tax payers over €100B [1] and sometimes it's better to make a hard cut so people can focus on the future and not the past. Either way, it's been successful.

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-d...

Re: Germany Quits Nuclear Power, Ending a Decades-Long Struggle

#122

Post by tuukkah » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 5:27 AM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #118

tuukkah wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ukraine probably wouldn't have been invaded. Putin invaded Ukraine because he wanted to, and Germany had nothing to do with that.

As one of the strongest European economies and militaries, Germany played a big part in Russia's calculations. The belief that Germany would rather sacrifice Ukraine than lose Russian gas would have been less plausible if 30% nuclear energy had been retained.

That's pure speculation, isn't it?

Russia didn't make a rational decision: we know that Putin hid the plan from most of his subordinates, ignored concerns presented by the rest, and the system withheld important facts from him likewise. He made a huge gamble with his "3-day special operation".

Also, the nuclear plants would have provided only a partial backup for the Russian gas, as electricity from the plants couldn't replace the direct use of gas in German houses and industry anyway.

Re: Germany Quits Nuclear Power, Ending a Decades-Long Struggle

#123

Post by akmarinov » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 7:58 AM UTC

kken wrote: post #111

akmarinov wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s down a lot, but oil + gas imports are still to the tune of 6 billion euros a month https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/04/13/germany-r...

The very article you posted claims its 300mio a month. How dows that compare to 6 billion?

From the article: > Germany’s overall imports of oil and gas this February totaled 6 billion euros.

Re: Germany Quits Nuclear Power, Ending a Decades-Long Struggle

#124

Post by Timon3 » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 12:52 PM UTC

jgwil2 wrote: post #110

Timon3 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are probably being downvoted because they are pinning the decisions lead by CDU on the Green party. If they didn't misrepresent the situation they most likely would not get downvoted. Funny how that works, no?

The CDU adopted their environmental policies precisely to out-green the Greens and undercut their support. If the Greens hadn't been so vehemently anti-nuclear, the CDU wouldn't have gone in that direction. But ultimately this is on the German voting public, a large portion of whom have had an irrational aversion to nuclear for a long time.

> The CDU adopted their environmental policies precisely to out-green the Greens and undercut their support. If the Greens hadn't been so vehemently anti-nuclear, the CDU wouldn't have gone in that direction.

I agree with this, but this in no way absolves the CDU. If they try to undercut another parties support and pass legislation with negative effects, it's their fault, not the fault of the party they undercut.

> But ultimately this is on the German voting public, a large portion of whom have had an irrational aversion to nuclear for a long time.

Aside from whether I agree with the aversion being irrational, this is definitely true. The CDU was following public sentiment.

Re: Germany Quits Nuclear Power, Ending a Decades-Long Struggle

#125

Post by stkdump » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 1:27 PM UTC

pantalaimon wrote: post #99

jillesvangurp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which in Germany is on track to be shut down by the early 2030s.

2038

No, 2030. Lignite is West Germany also in 2030. Lignite in East Germany is set for 2038, but currently in discussion to also move forward to 2030.

Re: Germany Quits Nuclear Power, Ending a Decades-Long Struggle

#126

Post by ethbr0 » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 3:22 PM UTC

tuukkah wrote: post #122

ethbr0 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As one of the strongest European economies and militaries, Germany played a big part in Russia's calculations. The belief that Germany would rather sacrifice Ukraine than lose Russian gas would have been less plausible if 30% nuclear energy had been retained.

That's pure speculation, isn't it? Russia didn't make a rational decision: we know that Putin hid the plan from most of his subordinates, ignored concerns presented by the rest, and the system withheld important facts from him likewise. He made a huge gamble with his "3-day special operation". Also, the nuclear plants would have provided only a partial backup for the Russian gas, as electricity from the plants couldn…

Russia absolutely made a rational decision.

A bad one, because their facts were wrong, but one based off calculations rather than rolling dice:

+ Russian Cold War-era (and refits of same) military materiel is reaching obsolescence and end of life. Russia can't afford to modernize its military at scale (hence the obsession with announcing prototype superweapons)

+ US and European ties are at a low point, as a consequence of the Trump presidency

+ US is focused on China as a peer threat

+ Germany is uniquely diplomatically vulnerable to gas energy pressure, but only until additional renewables come online, transmission infrastructure is upgraded, and efficiency measures implemented (see the Nord Stream bombing whodoneit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sa... )

+ Remaining ex-Warsaw Pact / non-NATO countries are likely accede to NATO in the next few years (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Current_... )

... ergo, there was no better time to make the attempt than now. Everyone just assumed Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to try.

But that calculation looks very different without the energy vulnerability, as Russia understands the economic difference between themselves and Germany.