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

Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 210 posts

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#161

Post by ugh »

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #156
ugh wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that gets us no closer to knowing the marginal cost of one additional kilo of nuclear waste (of any description). My suspicion is that the marginal cost is quite low. All I'm saying is this: You likely can't take the average cost of safely storing one kilo of waste given current levels of waste and calculate the additional cost that results from letting the reactors run a few more years. This is econ 101. I…

There is also a variable cost in allowing the old designs to continue to run that you are not accounting for.

Building, dismantling and taking care of waste all costs money and generates no revenue. (Building a nuclear power plant at least brings with it potential future revenue. Power companies have no interest in dismantling plants or taking care of waste, it doesn't make them money.) Running the plant also costs money but also generates revenue. Especially old nuclear power plants (which are already written off) are profitable as hell. Why do you think are power companies interested in keeping them running as long as possible?

Every additional day those nuclear power plants run decreases their cost/kWh.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#162

Post by Xixi »

alexqgb wrote: post #135
Xixi wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Germany is surrounded by countries that flagrantly pollute the environment. What is more likely is that more power will be imported from France, which massively use nuclear energy (>75% of the national electricity production), and doesn't intend (so far) to move to something else.

Um, have you SEEN what goes on in Eastern Europe?

It's inefficient to carry electricity over long distances, so I don't see Germany buying energy from say Ukraine. That said it seems that Poland is big on coal and crude oil...

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#163

Post by eliasmacpherson »

swombat wrote: post #72
rubashov wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only solid argument against nuclear goes along the lines, The main argument against nuclear goes that it creates a dangerous set of problems that must be handled over many human lifetimes. People simply cannot do that. In fact, it's a little ridiculous to safely assume your successors perhaps 100 years hence will have the means to shut down a plant and safely store all the waste. What if things have gone all Ma…

If things have gone Mad Max I could care less about the decommissioning of power plants. In all other cases, it is reasonable for other countries and NGOs to pool in to avoid a nuclear disaster - much like they've done with dangerous facilities in other poor countries, e.g. toxic waste dump cleaning, etc.

Somalia is closer to Waterworld than Mad Max I will grant you however it is not as if the international community has leapt to their aid in the manner you describe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4312553.stm "Tsunami waves could have spread illegally dumped nuclear waste and other toxic waste on Somalia's coast, a United Nations spokesman has said."

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#164

Post by eliasmacpherson »

ugh wrote: post #161
eliasmacpherson wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also a variable cost in allowing the old designs to continue to run that you are not accounting for.

Building, dismantling and taking care of waste all costs money and generates no revenue. (Building a nuclear power plant at least brings with it potential future revenue. Power companies have no interest in dismantling plants or taking care of waste, it doesn't make them money.) Running the plant also costs money but also generates revenue. Especially old nuclear power plants (which are already written off) are profi…

They are interested in keeping them running as long as possible because that is where their pay checks come from. Every additional day they run increases the risk of catastrophic failure, that is the point I am making. I don't see them as a valid or viable enterprise. The cost/revenue model of accounting is really stretched when it comes to dealing with the timelines necessary for proper nuclear disposal. I see what you are saying about how it is a tiny cost over that huge 30000 year period. Taking that period as given, do you agree that the years where the plant is operational are the most risky?

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#165

Post by eliasmacpherson »

Typhon wrote: post #157
eliasmacpherson wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weeks after Fukushima alleged terrorists were found making their way towards Sellafield in the UK. The obvious viability of this hypothetical attack became apparent after March 11th.

Yes, and ? Nothing happened. The fact is that terrorists want to target nuclear plants. What's unlikely is that any of them should succeed. Terrorism isn't that easy.

Over a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everything drops to zero - and nuclear has a pretty long timeline.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#166

Post by moe »

Typhon wrote: post #153
moe wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, your reactor was just turned into a burning pile of radioactive rubble by having something like 150,000 lb of mass smashed into it. And you say radioactive material will not disseminate?

Not on a comparable scale. Besides, reactors are a small target that's mostly underground. That should limit the damage. In any case, may I remind you we're discussing a very hypothetical scenario ?

Not on a comparable scale.

Excuse me? As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima. And they were very worried about maintaining the cooling in the damaged buildings.

In a plane crash scenario we might be talking about no containment and no cooling at all. Instead we might be left with a pile of radioactive rubble and a kerosine fire.

After all you could be right that the scale would not be comparable...

In any case, may I remind you we're discussing a very hypothetical scenario?

Well, 9/11 did happen, and reactor walls are not built to resist a plane crash. So what exactly is hypothetical about the scenario?

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#167

Post by moe »

Typhon wrote: post #157
eliasmacpherson wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weeks after Fukushima alleged terrorists were found making their way towards Sellafield in the UK. The obvious viability of this hypothetical attack became apparent after March 11th.

Yes, and ? Nothing happened. The fact is that terrorists want to target nuclear plants. What's unlikely is that any of them should succeed. Terrorism isn't that easy.

It seems about as unlikely as someone flying planes into the world trade center...

But gladly terrorism isn't that easy, right?

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#168

Post by nl »

Typhon wrote: post #153
moe wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, your reactor was just turned into a burning pile of radioactive rubble by having something like 150,000 lb of mass smashed into it. And you say radioactive material will not disseminate?

Not on a comparable scale. Besides, reactors are a small target that's mostly underground. That should limit the damage. In any case, may I remind you we're discussing a very hypothetical scenario ?

reactors are a small target that's mostly underground

Not sure where you are getting this idea, but it's not true. The reactors are usually above ground, and they aren't small at all.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#169

Post by nl »

tomp wrote: post #125
olaf wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, the Fukushima case is not yet closed. Tepco told us today (faz.net), that the three damaged reactors are stiil out of control, at least until end of this year. We will see, what will happen. Second: don't you ignore the risk of how many people _could_ die, in the case of a big disaster? That would have global conequences for quite some days (ironic). Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear an…

I can hardly imagine a bigger catastrophe than Fukushima... Now, the following facts are from my memory, so they might not be absolutely accurate, but I believe the points stand. - It was hit by an earthquake with a magnitude 1 point higher than it was built for, and it was perfectly OK. - Only the following tsunami damaged it, and only because it interrupted the power supply of the cooling pumps. Let us not forget t…

They were lucky at Fukushima.

There were no substantial aftershocks that damaged the plant, nor were there any secondary tsunamis.

I can hardly imagine a bigger catastrophe than Fukushima

That's a failure of imagination. Imagine if a comparatively minor secondary tsunami had hit after the containment vessel had been breached. That could spread highly radioactive materials just abotu anywhere - and, worse - could have made it too dangerous to get close enough to the plant for the for the fire engines (!) to spray water to cool the reactors.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#170

Post by alexqgb »

Xixi wrote: post #162
alexqgb wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, have you SEEN what goes on in Eastern Europe?

It's inefficient to carry electricity over long distances, so I don't see Germany buying energy from say Ukraine. That said it seems that Poland is big on coal and crude oil...

My point exactly. From what I understand, reliance on Poland's (exceedingly dirty) coal-burning capacity is a big part of Germany's plan to wean itself off nuclear power.
Post reply on HN