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

Germany's Energy Catastrophe

quillette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 171 posts

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#141

Post by mvgcf »

elsjaako wrote: post #16
daccle wrote: post #2

Yikes! Totally ignoring the climate impact of nuclear power. Not understanding that nuclear doesn’t play well with renewables (it is hard to control the output in a short amount of time). Finally explaining that there were only 28 deaths after the Chernobyl accident, ignoring all the additional deaths by cancer and deformed unborn children. Sorry, this article is totally wrong in so many ways.

Genuinely curious, because I haven't heard these arguments before. > Totally ignoring the climate impact of nuclear power What climate impact? I though it was CO2 neutral (except for construction, which has similar costs to wind an solar). A quick google doesn't give me anything. > it is hard to control the output in a short amount of time I thought nuclear was basically a steam boiler, same as coal or gas plants? Wh…

On nuclears climate impact: https://amp.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-...

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#142

Post by avar »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #97
sexy_panda wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure we do, just aerosolize it Sounds interesting, would you mind to expand / link some site that goes into details? > It's not nuclear that's massively subsidized, everything else is. Germany massively cut funding for solar power being supplied into to the grid (Einspeise­vergütung) back in 2012 [1] and it still isn't funded the way it was before. But it is and was still worth it for most people, if they just cons…

> Sounds interesting, would you mind to expand / link some site that goes into details? I think that the comment was ironic, to show a parallel with how coal waste is "utilized"

Partially ironic.

I seriously do wish someone would write a book called "The case for a Chernobyl plant in your neighborhood!".

Such a case wouldn't concede the point about the safety paranoia surrounding nuclear power, but instead suggest that we literally power the entire word with pre-Chernobyl RBMK reactor designs. Or hell! Something even more dangerous if we can find it.

We can then assume that we'd have N meltdowns per year somewhere in the world, i.e. a "Chernobyl-level incident", and we'd still be far ahead in terms of safety compared to where we are today.

And that's not just comparing nuclear to coal, just the deaths and injuries from rooftop solar installations are in the ballpark of a Chernobyl incident every year.

Discussions about nuclear are paralyzed by safety concessions[1] beyond all reason. That's the problem with nuclear, not that it's comparatively unsafe or expensive when the costs and risks are fairly evaluated against the alternatives.

1. https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-p...

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#143

Post by mvgcf »

Ekaros wrote: post #125
tallanvor wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they're lying to you. Unless you're on a completely separate power grid, your energy is, in reality, provided by the power source closest to you. It might be solar or wind sometimes, but the rest of the time it's probably a non-renewable source. German companies claiming to get their energy through renewable sources are primarily buying credits from Norway and a few other sources in Europe. You can stick your he…

It's funny that those wind and solar contracts don't stop delivering when there is no supply... Makes one wonder about truth.

It’s funny that you cannot provide a single day within the last 10 years where there was neither solar nor wind supply.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#144

Post by BrandoElFollito »

avar wrote: post #142
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sounds interesting, would you mind to expand / link some site that goes into details? I think that the comment was ironic, to show a parallel with how coal waste is "utilized"

Partially ironic. I seriously do wish someone would write a book called "The case for a Chernobyl plant in your neighborhood!". Such a case wouldn't concede the point about the safety paranoia surrounding nuclear power, but instead suggest that we literally power the entire word with pre-Chernobyl RBMK reactor designs. Or hell! Something even more dangerous if we can find it. We can then assume that we'd have N meltd…

For the record, I am profoundly pro-nuclear, happy with living in France and if i was given a choice between living next to a nuclear reactor and a coal plant I would choose the former immediately (all other things equal).

I think there are basically two problems with nuclear safety:

- one is that a single incident is broadcasted everywhere, no matter if there are causalities or not. This is similar to planes: when one crashes and 200 people die it makes the news. We have in France about 10 people dying every day in car accidents.

- the second one is the nature of the accident. When you fall from a rooftop, well bad luck. The place you fell on is not unuseable for millenia. This may be (and only "may") be the case with nuclear incidents. Now, the newer plants do not explose like Chernobyl did, because physics is going to drive down the reaction. There can be leaks, even dangerous leaks, but they will be quite localized.

xkcd had a wonderful graph on radiation: https://xkcd.com/radiation/

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#145

Post by ucha »

mvgcf wrote: post #139
ucha wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On sustainable energy sources: I, as many other germans, receive all of my electricity from purely renewable energy sources for more than ten years now. 24/7. How can you receive energy purely from renewable energy sources when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? Germany doesn't have any significant capacity for electricity storage. It's such a bold statement but it seems physically impossible.

One example: my energy provider builds biogas plants. Guess what, they turn agricultural waste into electricity. Even at night. Your argumentation is similar to suggesting Tesla should stop developing electrical cars because there is no charger infrastructure. So 2010.

I thought biomass was marginal but you actually produce almost as much electricity with biomass as with natural gas. I stand corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#146

Post by Ekaros »

mvgcf wrote: post #143
Ekaros wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny that those wind and solar contracts don't stop delivering when there is no supply... Makes one wonder about truth.

It’s funny that you cannot provide a single day within the last 10 years where there was neither solar nor wind supply.

Can you on other hand prove that for all 5-minute periods in past 10 years wind or solar production was more than sold as such?

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#147

Post by dang »

mvgcf wrote: post #10

This op-ed is getting things so utterly wrong, I don‘t even know where to start. The Energiewende (so cool he can make use of a german word, so much credibility) here in Germany is working just fine. It is a reasonable investment in our future. The reason natural gas is a problem right now is not that we have insufficient energy. The lack of gas is problematic because it is a preliminary product used in chemical proc…

> so cool he can make use of a german word, so much credibility

Please omit swipes like this from your HN comments. They're against the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and they weaken your argument.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#148

Post by rasz »

flohofwoe wrote: post #83
ajuc wrote: post #23

The funniest thing is - Germany was repeatedly warned by Eastern European states that this (literally this) will happen if they continue to build Nord Stream 1 and then Nord Stream 2 and try to "fix" Russia by trade. Russian government already poisoned Ukrainian presidential candidate in 2004. Killed opposition and journalists both in Russia and in EU. Invaded 2 countries (Chechnia and Georgia - I don't even count Li…

Not to rain on your parade - a few points are definitely justified - but Poland has just switched to fill their "natural gas gap" with imports from Germany when it was cut off by Russia recently. Did you ever ask yourself where that "German" natural gas is actually coming from?

Did you ask yourself why was NS1 build in the first place? and why was Yamal pipeline shut down?

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#149

Post by ben_w »

dispat0r wrote: post #132
ben_w wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect Germany to import the smallest amount of natural gas that the government can be confident will prevent economic collapse. I also expect this quantity to be much lower than it would've been last year, as I also expect significant effort to be put into both improvements (e.g. home insulation) and alternatives (e.g. renewables).

Germany doesn't have the infrastructure to import from other sources. The LNG terminals don't work yet, and the capacity is too low and LNG is much more expansive than the Russian pipeline gas. And even if we have the LNG infrastructure, we have to buy a big chunk of the world market, which screws poorer countries. Our home insulation is already pretty good and renovating all old buildings is expansive, and we don't…

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

If we can insulate 1% of the worst houses and apartments, that's still an improvement, in that less money goes to Russia.

If we can get 1% of our needs from LNG terminals built in the next 6 months, that's still 1% less fuel trade with Russia.

If fuel oils, benzine, diesel, biofuels, and new wind turbines combined can substitute 1% of Russian natural gas, that's 1% less money going to Russia.

The USA put speed limits on their highways in response to a fuel crisis, if we do that with the Autobahns and it only reduces Russian imports by 1%, that's 1% less of our money that ends up funding the Russian government.

While coal is much worse for the climate than natural gas, a short-term political need to deal with a warmongering fuel supplier can override that, so burn it and starve the Russian government.

Etc.

It adds up. Even if Germany sill buys 90% as much Russian natural gas in December 2022 as in December 2021, that's still better than buying 100%.

I'm relaxed about nuclear power, but unfortunately this is not the majority position and hoping for them here is wishful thinking. Also, nuclear just can't be constructed fast enough to be relevant for this winter, not even with a major increase in their political acceptability.

Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe

#150

Post by TheChaplain »

locallost wrote: post #6

Germany proceeded with their "nuclear exit" in 2011. Had they gone the other way and all in on nuclear, they would be in the same situation as they are today as planning and building nuclear plants takes a lot longer than 10 years. Actually they would be way worse because instead of having 50% of electricity coming from renewables, they would still have 45% of it coming from coal, instead of 25% in 2020 (did not chec…

Sweden built one in 6 years (Barseback) and another in 5 years (Oskarshamn), both ran fine without causing nuclear disasters.

And now almost 50 years later we have way waaay more knowledge, experience and technology to build safe powerplants within a short time.

The hindrance is bureaucracy. Ask anyone who is or have been working for the government how incredibly inefficient it is.

Post reply on HN