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

Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

clashreport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 192 posts

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#141

Post by eru »

energy123 wrote: post #125
eru wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am saying that your suggested course of action might be morally superior, but it's hard to get (re-) elected with it. So there's a selection bias amongst the politicians you see in power.

Agreed that it's in their self-interest to participate in the mass hysteria, but I believe my point still stands that it's an abrogation of leadership.

There's probably plenty of people who would be happy to be elected leaders but who don't compromise their morals like this. You just never see them elected.

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#142

Post by defrost »

eru wrote: post #140
defrost wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horizontal directional drilling costs $10 to $30 (USD) per linear foot with upfront fixed costs of $30K or so. How does that compare to building above ground towers to support cable weight in all conditions? I'd assume / guesstimate that route planning, community advisement, actual cable length, etc. costs are more or less the same in either case.

> Horizontal directional drilling costs $10 to $30 (USD) per linear foot with upfront fixed costs of $30K or so. Underground power lines are expensive, but not that expensive. As far as I know, you dig a ditch, put the power line into it, and then put the material back in over the top. Why would you drill?

To pass under roads, under rivers, avoid digging up tarmac, houses, orchards, crops, things on the surface, etc.

Trenching is straightforward, I mention horizontal directional drilling as that puts a cap on the total cost of going underground Vs pylons and above ground stringing.

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#143

Post by aubanel »

uecker wrote: post #134

As a physicist I disagree. While one should have left the existing plants running longer (but those things are decided a long time in advance), the exit was fundamentally th correct decision from an economic point of view. The extreme drop in prices in renewables world-wide only comparable to Moore's law also clearly confirms the success of Germany's Energiewende. But you need to look at data, not fakenews to underst…

The success of the Energiewende ? Just take a look at average electricity price and carbon footprint in Germany Vs France.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/live/fifteen_minutes

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#144

Post by aubanel »

uecker wrote: post #133
Zufriedenheit wrote: post #57

The german energy policy has really been an economic failure on an epic scale. They destroyed 30+ fully functional nuclear power plants because of fear of radiation. In the last 20 year spend >500billion € to remodel the energy grid. Now subsidizing electricity with ~30billion € per year. And the result: Carbon intensity of energy production on the same level as US and 3x the electricity price!

This is lot of nonsense. The cost is mostly due to the funding of renewables at a time when they were still very expensive. This was highly successful in bringing down cost. Despite fakenews in this direction, fossil fuel consumption did not increase in Germany and is on the decline with a corresponding reductions in CO2 emissions. According to the following link Germany 338g / kWh Co emissions, US 384g /kWh. https:/…

Yet the carbone intensity of energy production in Germany is among the worst in Europe.

And France (nuclear powered, no particular huge investment in a green transition) beats them easily in both price and carbon.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/live/fifteen_minutes

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#146

Post by anal_reactor »

flowerthoughts wrote: post #80
Mythli wrote: post #25

I'm from Germany and wanted to be a nuclear engineer. My mom to this days has a sticker on her car "Nuclear, no thank you". And she is an educated woman, a professional chemist. It was what bought political victory at the time for the CDU, thats why it was done.

Curious what her argument against it is.

I'll never forget the video of some Arab dude saying "Democracy is the rule the of the people, but the people, they are retarded".

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#147

Post by quotemstr »

uecker wrote: post #134

As a physicist I disagree. While one should have left the existing plants running longer (but those things are decided a long time in advance), the exit was fundamentally th correct decision from an economic point of view. The extreme drop in prices in renewables world-wide only comparable to Moore's law also clearly confirms the success of Germany's Energiewende. But you need to look at data, not fakenews to underst…

The spectacular success of nuclear power where it's been tried combined with equally spectacular failures to rebase first world power grids on renewables should have prompted you to question your assumptions by now.

One must conclude the problem lies not in splitting the atom, but educating physicists.

You're a scientist, right? Can you think of any evidence that even in principle might prompt you to change your mind on nuclear?

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#148

Post by uecker »

aubanel wrote: post #143
uecker wrote: post #134

As a physicist I disagree. While one should have left the existing plants running longer (but those things are decided a long time in advance), the exit was fundamentally th correct decision from an economic point of view. The extreme drop in prices in renewables world-wide only comparable to Moore's law also clearly confirms the success of Germany's Energiewende. But you need to look at data, not fakenews to underst…

The success of the Energiewende ? Just take a look at average electricity price and carbon footprint in Germany Vs France. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/live/fifteen_minutes

Germany started out with a high amount of coal and lignite (as a domestic source of energy with many jobs depending on it). The carbon footprint dropped with the rollout of renewables according and will be very low once the transition to renewables is completed. It makes no sense to compare it to France, which switched to a nuclear a long time ago. This is relatively easy to understand in my opinion.

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#149

Post by uecker »

quotemstr wrote: post #147
uecker wrote: post #134

As a physicist I disagree. While one should have left the existing plants running longer (but those things are decided a long time in advance), the exit was fundamentally th correct decision from an economic point of view. The extreme drop in prices in renewables world-wide only comparable to Moore's law also clearly confirms the success of Germany's Energiewende. But you need to look at data, not fakenews to underst…

The spectacular success of nuclear power where it's been tried combined with equally spectacular failures to rebase first world power grids on renewables should have prompted you to question your assumptions by now. One must conclude the problem lies not in splitting the atom, but educating physicists. You're a scientist, right? Can you think of any evidence that even in principle might prompt you to change your mind…

There is no spectacular success of nuclear power. It provides an irrelevant fraction of overall power in the world and time and money needed to scale it up would be immense. The France's nuclear industry is an economic disaster and the EDF has been fully re-nationalized (and during the time it was semi-private there was plan to close 17 plants by 2025). The rollout of renewables works very nicely in Europe, there is no "grid failure". I am a physicist, I draw my information from looking at the underlying data, not the press.

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#150

Post by uecker »

aubanel wrote: post #144
uecker wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is lot of nonsense. The cost is mostly due to the funding of renewables at a time when they were still very expensive. This was highly successful in bringing down cost. Despite fakenews in this direction, fossil fuel consumption did not increase in Germany and is on the decline with a corresponding reductions in CO2 emissions. According to the following link Germany 338g / kWh Co emissions, US 384g /kWh. https:/…

Yet the carbone intensity of energy production in Germany is among the worst in Europe. And France (nuclear powered, no particular huge investment in a green transition) beats them easily in both price and carbon. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/live/fifteen_minutes

Again, this is a misleading argument. The low carbon footprint in France is the result form investments of the past, while Germany relied on coal and lignite for a long time and only started to transition to carbon-neutral renewables much latter. The result was substantial drop of CO2 emissions form the grid which will continue. You can see it over time here: https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/co2_emissions/chart.ht...
Post reply on HN