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

Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

dw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 392 posts

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#171

Post by Narretz »

anm89 wrote: post #22
OrangeMonkey wrote: post #4

Good. Germany was facing a cold winter, without energy for heating, and the potential for rolling blackouts. With this change, it does not eliminate the threat but makes it less likely. Who in their right mind would decom any type of energy that could help stave off pain for their citizenship - especially one that has no carbon footprint.

Germany is still facing a very cold winter by all accounts. This will help around the margins

We don't even know how the temperatures are going to be. It currently points to an average / mild winter, so I don't know where you are getting "a very cold" winter from if the weather base isn't even there yet.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#172

Post by karamanolev »

avgcorrection wrote: post #148
JohnBooty wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this argument, isn't Japan known for its earthquakes? Chernobyl has often been characterized as the result of a corrupt and incompetent late-stage USSR, whereas post-WWII Japan is seen as a generally well-run country. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that, just trying to describe public opinion.

You’re not countering the implicit argument that Germany won’t have a problem with earthquakes ruining their nuclear powerplants. Germany is also a “well-run country” if you want to run with the old anti-Soviet argument.

FWIW, I'm a fan of nucear, but ... they don't have to counter that argument. It doesn't have to be earthquakes - it can be 1 of 100 problems. Japan knew they have to deal with earthquakes and didn't. What should make people more comfortable that Germany will be able to safeguard against their known risks?

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#173

Post by jhrmnn »

naasking wrote: post #156
felixfbecker wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nuclear plant that doesn't explode, that is. Pretty sure Tschernobyl released more radiation than a coal plant over its lifetime. Probably more than all coal plants in Germany in their lifetime combined.

And new reactor designs are meltdown proof, so what's the problem exactly?

I think the fear of black swans, that is, unknown risks. I think most people don’t understand that the experts can really rule out something like a meltdown in modern reactors

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#174

Post by karamanolev »

epivosism wrote: post #140
Cwizard wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> „If Japan can’t control the technology nobody can“. I don't understand this argument, isn't Japan known for its earthquakes? Which are essentially non-existent in Germany? In my opinion Fukushima should be an argument _for_ nuclear power. The death toll was really low, roughly 2000, and many of those death were caused by the evacuation rather than radiation. The death toll of the tsunami/earthquake was 15000 accord…

There was 1 disputed radiation/nuclear related death from Fukushima. And mention of 2200 related to the (post-tsunami) evacuation. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_ac...

That aside, what about price?

Completely cleaning up and taking apart the plant could take a generation or more, and comes with a hefty price tag. In 2016 the government increased its cost estimate to about $75.7 billion, part of the overall Fukushima disaster price tag of $202.5 billion.

I'm a fan of nuclear, but those are eye-watering numbers.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#175

Post by this_user »

worldvoyageur wrote: post #121
dependsontheq wrote: post #87

While I agree that it would have been sensible to phase out coal and then nuclear, the german position is more complex. The fallout from Tschernobyl was measurable in Germany… measurable as in my science teacher measured it in his garden. Up to today boar and mushrooms have an elevated level of radiation in the forests around my home. So this is the emotional background, the risks are not far away. Fukushima gave the…

When Chernobyl happened I was a physics undergrad in Kingston, Ontario, Canada and was spending the summer term on campus. We (the grad students really) went up to the roof of the physics building and started measuring for the radiation. There was much rejoicing when it turned up, which as I imperfectly remember was about two weeks after the incident. Which is to say, that the radiation could be measured is different…

Not all of us have the luxury of having more than 7000 km between us and the next nuclear accident, though. But I can send you some mushrooms from the forests of southern Germany if you would like to explore the health risks further.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#176

Post by V__ »

naasking wrote: post #120
V__ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether one is pro nuclear or not, I think it makes sense to look at the specific situation at hand. Was it a mistake to shut down all nuclear reactors while not pushing for more renewables and replacing all gas and coal plants first? I think so. Should the last three remaining nuclear plants be kept online? I don't think so. Germany's main source of heating is gas and yes, gas is used to generate electricity, so nuc…

> However, only about 10% of gas is used for electricity and Germany has enough electricity. Energy prices in Germany suggest otherwise. Also, Germany is facing a gas pinch given the geopolitics right now, so freeing up 10% is nothing to sneeze at.

I made a mistake, 10% of electricity is gas.

Due to the fact that nuclear is base load and gas plants are mostly used for grid compensation, it would result (according to estimates) in a 1-2% increase in gas usage.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#177

Post by Narretz »

What's noteworthy is that Kanzler Scholz basically told his ministers that all 3 plants will stay open and the ministers have to organize it. That's very unusual. The coalition was actually still arguing about this, so some people, especially in the Green party are going to be pissed. But at least they now have theoretically more time to deal with other pressing issues instead of bickering about a few months more run time.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#178

Post by JohnBooty »

luckylion wrote: post #150
konschubert wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people do things that they know are bad for others because they want to hurt others.

Sure, but I don't believe you run into a lot of actually evil villains in politics that only do what they do because they want to see suffering and want their action to scale instead of ripping the wings from a butterfly one by one. Stalin or Mao didn't just enjoy seeing peasants starve, they believed that sacrificing a million here and there is the price to pay for the communist utopia they thought they were buildin…

I agree that very few, if any, leaders are intentionally evil. Even the most (in)famous ones such as your examples.

However, I'm not sure the distinction is too useful. Ultimately we're judged by actions, not intentions.

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#179

Post by qwytw »

legulere wrote: post #91
mabbo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could have instead replaced the fossil fuel electrical generation with those renewables, and kept the nuclear plants. That would have been a massive reduction in carbon emissions by Germany. Odd choice.

I would agree, especially from the standpoint of today, but I guess you have to see things historically. Issues with nuclear like fallout from Chernobyl still leading to contamination today in German or bad handling of nuclear waste at the Asse II mine have been a topic in German society for a very long time. The climate crisis picked up as a topic only really in the late 90s. That explains the first nuclear exit pla…

What about fallout from burning coal? Which is much worse than what reached Germany after Chernobyl .

Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

#180

Post by V__ »

plextoria wrote: post #132
V__ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether one is pro nuclear or not, I think it makes sense to look at the specific situation at hand. Was it a mistake to shut down all nuclear reactors while not pushing for more renewables and replacing all gas and coal plants first? I think so. Should the last three remaining nuclear plants be kept online? I don't think so. Germany's main source of heating is gas and yes, gas is used to generate electricity, so nuc…

It’s true that Germany might have enough electricity, but we are sharing with EU. And it so happens that in the biggest neighbor, France, half of the nuclear reactors are stopped for maintenance and the French might need to import considerable amounts of electricity this winter.

They are planning to get them up and running till winter, but I don't know enough to have an opinion on whether this is achievable and if not how much of a problem that would be and if those three nuclear plants would make a difference.
Post reply on HN