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

181–190 of 210 posts

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#181

Post by berntb »

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #160
berntb wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are (probably) willing to set aside places for Luddites to live. For now, you can go to North Korea or some other nice place without much energy use... (Be careful when choosing, poor countries have lots of environmental destruction which they can't afford to clean -- it might be bad for your health.) :-) Edit: It is not a false dichotomy; I compared to the only known low-energy societies. My point is that there i…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_n... Table for figure 54 World power use by region, 1990–2008, TWh Europe: 2857 US: 4533 pdf warning - albeit free of charge. By your logic - europe is for luddites because it approaches half the consumption of the US per captita.

If you really are going to argue that Europe is a low energy society, sure... :-)

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#182

Post by Typhon »

moe wrote: post #167
Typhon wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, it is probably more unlikely than a big earthquake followed by a tsunami.

How many terrorist attacks of that scale have been successfully conducted ?

Over the last twenty years, only one.

During the same period, there has been a dozen of large-scale earthquakes.

And as I said, you're fare more likely to die from a car accident than from any big disaster you see on television.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#183

Post by Typhon »

nl wrote: post #168
Typhon wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Compared to the WTC, it's quite small, and easy to miss from above. It's quite telling that most people identify a nuclear plant by its cooling towers, something that isn't a specific part of their design.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#184

Post by moe »

Typhon wrote: post #180
moe wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem. See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open, but of course, if irradiated water goes right back in the ocean, there's dissemination on a bigger scale than Chernobyl. « 9/11 did happen » A huge scale terrorist at…

Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem.

Where are you getting that from? Afaik they flooded the buildings with seawater on purpose, as a means of cooling. They did that because it appeared to be the lesser of two evils.

See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open

It does seem to fly pretty well when you add fire. At least that's what the 2600 squaremile no-go zone in chernobyl would suggest.

statistically less likely than an earthquake

That may be true, yet it's bound to happen eventually, right?

How would you rate the socio-economic impact of a single such event in contrast to, say, 9/11?

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#185

Post by Typhon »

moe wrote: post #184
Typhon wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem. See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open, but of course, if irradiated water goes right back in the ocean, there's dissemination on a bigger scale than Chernobyl. « 9/11 did happen » A huge scale terrorist at…

Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem. Where are you getting that from? Afaik they flooded the buildings with seawater on purpose, as a means of cooling. They did that because it appeared to be the lesser of two evils. See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open It does seem to fly pretty well when you add fire. At least that…

Chernobyl had no core containment, it used graphite as a moderator, and it wasn't merely fire that disseminated radioactive material, it was a big explosion. Also, the director was incompetent. Note that the impact of Chernobyl remained rather localised. 2600 square miles may sound big, but on a European scale, it's not much, and Europe is the smallest continent.

If you're telling me poor design and incompetence are bad and especially dangerous in security-sensitive contexts, I agree. So ?

Flooding the reactors was indeed the lesser of two evils.

« That may be true, yet it's bound to happen eventually, right? »

No. It may happen.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#186

Post by moe »

Typhon wrote: post #185
moe wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem. Where are you getting that from? Afaik they flooded the buildings with seawater on purpose, as a means of cooling. They did that because it appeared to be the lesser of two evils. See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open It does seem to fly pretty well when you add fire. At least that…

Chernobyl had no core containment, it used graphite as a moderator, and it wasn't merely fire that disseminated radioactive material, it was a big explosion. Also, the director was incompetent. Note that the impact of Chernobyl remained rather localised. 2600 square miles may sound big, but on a European scale, it's not much, and Europe is the smallest continent. If you're telling me poor design and incompetence are…

Chernobyl had no core containment

Can we agree that any given reactor will likely have no core containment either, after a passenger jet crashed into it?

it was a big explosion

Likewise can we agree that there will be a big explosion when a plane crashes into a reactor?

the director was incompetent

And that is unheard of in other reactors?

on a European scale, it's not much

So, which of these areas would you like to evacuate permanently?

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/power-reactors-map-sm....

No. It may happen.

I wonder where you're taking your optimism from. Yes, terrorism may disappear. But it doesn't seem too likely, does it?

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#187

Post by Typhon »

moe wrote: post #186
Typhon wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl had no core containment, it used graphite as a moderator, and it wasn't merely fire that disseminated radioactive material, it was a big explosion. Also, the director was incompetent. Note that the impact of Chernobyl remained rather localised. 2600 square miles may sound big, but on a European scale, it's not much, and Europe is the smallest continent. If you're telling me poor design and incompetence are…

Chernobyl had no core containment Can we agree that any given reactor will likely have no core containment either, after a passenger jet crashed into it? it was a big explosion Likewise can we agree that there will be a big explosion when a plane crashes into a reactor? the director was incompetent And that is unheard of in other reactors? on a European scale, it's not much So, which of these areas would you like to…

Can we agree that any given reactor will likely have no core containment either, after a passenger jet crashed into it?

No. A broken core containment still provides some protection.

I take my optimism from the fact that I'm not too impressed by things that have little chance from happening, which prevents me from being scared of meteor rains, terrorist attacks, or whatever disaster you can think of.

To put things in perspective, again :

There are much less nuclear power plants than there are dangerous pesticide or fertiliser factories. It is also more likely that a pesticide or fertiliser factory will be poorly maintained.

And yet, people who want to shut down nuclear plants are much more numerous and listened to than people who want to shut down chemical plants.

The only reason people are afraid of nuclear power is that it is associated with those bombs so powerful nobody ever dared to use them in a war since 1945.

There is no rational reason to shut down nuclear plants, and get rid of an energy source that's more efficient and cleaner than any other we know of.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#188

Post by moe »

Typhon wrote: post #187
moe wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl had no core containment Can we agree that any given reactor will likely have no core containment either, after a passenger jet crashed into it? it was a big explosion Likewise can we agree that there will be a big explosion when a plane crashes into a reactor? the director was incompetent And that is unheard of in other reactors? on a European scale, it's not much So, which of these areas would you like to…

Can we agree that any given reactor will likely have no core containment either, after a passenger jet crashed into it? No. A broken core containment still provides some protection. I take my optimism from the fact that I'm not too impressed by things that have little chance from happening, which prevents me from being scared of meteor rains, terrorist attacks, or whatever disaster you can think of. To put things in…

A broken core containment still provides some protection.

Have you seen what a plane crash does to a structure?

As far as I know most reactor walls are not hardened to withstand a plane-crash. That means you wouldn't end up with a "broken core containment". You'd end up with a pile of rubble.

not too impressed by things that have little chance from happening

That's a valid opinion. But I think it's an equally valid opinion that terrorist attacks are not as rare as meteor rains. And that terrorists will specifically target these facilities.

The only reason people are afraid of nuclear power is that it is associated with those bombs

Personally my concerns are not related to the bombs.

I merely think the economic equation that makes nuclear plants appear cost-effective will collapse over the first such event.

Your average nuclear plant is said to be profitable to the tune of $500mio USD/yr. The total cost of the chernobyl disaster is estimated at around $235 billion dollars, and counting.

That means all US nuclear plants combined (circa 100) have to run for 10 years in order to break even with a single disaster. And that's under the assumption that a meltdown in the middle of the USA wouldn't be quite a bit more expensive than a disaster in the middle of Ukrainian nowhere.

Thus my conclusion is that the facilities will be shutdown rather quickly when and if such an event occurs.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#189

Post by eliasmacpherson »

berntb wrote: post #181
eliasmacpherson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_n... Table for figure 54 World power use by region, 1990–2008, TWh Europe: 2857 US: 4533 pdf warning - albeit free of charge. By your logic - europe is for luddites because it approaches half the consumption of the US per captita.

If you really are going to argue that Europe is a low energy society, sure... :-)

No, it's a place that's energy demands are lower, are growing at a lower rate, while offering a comparable standard of living. Why do you keep trying to make a false dichotomy? It's not a binary choice that has to be made.

Re: Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

#190

Post by berntb »

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #189
berntb wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really are going to argue that Europe is a low energy society, sure... :-)

No, it's a place that's energy demands are lower, are growing at a lower rate, while offering a comparable standard of living. Why do you keep trying to make a false dichotomy? It's not a binary choice that has to be made.

Yes, the US system seems to have bad incentives and waste energy. At least, compared to Europe.

>>Why do you keep trying to make a false dichotomy?

I am not, you didn't read read what I argue against. :-)

I started by answering a comment by "Andi" above. He/She argued against growth and technical development. Which is just stupid, since pollution and energy use gets less with better economy/technology. (E.g., not so many decades ago there were no cleaning facilities on coal plants and no waste management for cities.)

Post reply on HN