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

Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 222 posts

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#211

Post by acdha »

cluckindan wrote: post #151
acdha wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Around the turn of the century that was a stronger argument–it’s one of the reasons why I backed nuclear then–but now we have cheaper renewables which can be online decades sooner so the choice isn’t nuclear vs. coal but vs. solar & wind which have orders of magnitude less pollution. Even if we’re talking natural gas, which has killed coal economically, there’s still far more pollution and direct health risk avoided…

Solar and wind haven’t yet solved the two major issues: producing power 24/7/365 even when it isn’t sunny or windy (or when it’s too windy). Batteries are one solution, but the power storage requirements far surpass the world’s capacity for battery production, and come with the same caveats: rare earth metals, which need mining. Mining is a huge source of air pollution, as mining equipment is usually diesel powered,…

First, it’s rare to have protected periods where the entire grid has no wind, solar, hydro, etc. That can happen regionally, but it’s not a secret and grid operators prepare for it just as they do the impact of heatwaves shutting down nuclear or fossil plants getting iced up.

Second, power is so cheap with renewables that storage of over-production makes sense. Some of that can be things like pumped water systems but batteries are coming online by the hundreds of gigawatt-hour now and sodium isn’t exactly a rare earth mineral so that’s going to accelerate even more following market forces:

https://electrek.co/2025/09/25/us-first-grid-scale-sodium-io...

https://newmobility.news/en/2026/04/29/catl-turns-sodium-ion...

Again, this is so much cheaper that it makes nuclear even less competitive and it’s online so much faster that you’re basically weighing the gamble that storage which is already competitive won’t get substantially cheaper over multiple decades.

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#212

Post by ZeroGravitas »

amarant wrote: post #204
boshomi wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power has been killed off by economic forces; there’s no turning back. Solar and wind power generate cheap electricity in abundance, and midday electricity prices in Europe regularly dip into negative territory (as low as minus €500 (sic!) on May 1!). Modern grids do not require high-risk investments in ultra-inert baseload power that ultimately fails to find a market; instead, they require low-risk investmen…

Electricity prices in Sweden have tripled as a direct result of the political decision to shut down German nuclear power(interconnected grid) Even the German government has admitted it was a mistake.[1] Solar generates an abundance of electricity in the summer, but the winter production ranges from tiny to nothing. The anti nuclear crowd loves looking at buildout graphs and saying we can replace all energy production…

The specific German who "admitted it was a mistake" doesn't like wind turbines and thinks they'll be replaced by fusion in 10 years.

https://www.rechargenews.com/policy/merz-says-wind-power-is-...

> By then, Germany should "bring the world's first fusion reactor online." Its electricity would be so cheap "that no other generation methods will be needed,” Merz was quoted as saying.

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#213

Post by ZeroGravitas »

dyauspitr wrote: post #182
boshomi wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power has been killed off by economic forces; there’s no turning back. Solar and wind power generate cheap electricity in abundance, and midday electricity prices in Europe regularly dip into negative territory (as low as minus €500 (sic!) on May 1!). Modern grids do not require high-risk investments in ultra-inert baseload power that ultimately fails to find a market; instead, they require low-risk investmen…

Then why are China and India building so much nuclear?

They're not.

Both have a reducing share of nuclear in their electricity mix as they're not building enough to keep up with their demand growth.

Luckily both are deploying wind and solar at a rate that outpaces their demand growth.

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#214

Post by mpweiher »

boshomi wrote: post #78
ainch wrote: post #11

I love Kraftwerk, but contributing to anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany hasn't been a major success. If only more European countries had followed the French example and developed substantial nuclear fleets.

Nuclear power has been killed off by economic forces; there’s no turning back. Solar and wind power generate cheap electricity in abundance, and midday electricity prices in Europe regularly dip into negative territory (as low as minus €500 (sic!) on May 1!). Modern grids do not require high-risk investments in ultra-inert baseload power that ultimately fails to find a market; instead, they require low-risk investmen…

> Nuclear power has been killed off by economic forces

That turns out not to be the case. Everywhere nuclear was killed off it was killed off purely by political forces.

> there’s no turning back

That also turns out not to be the case:

1. Sweden enacted a nuclear phase-out, turned back

2. Japan shut off all its nuclear plants, turned back

3. Belgium enacted a nuclear phase out, turned back

4. Taiwan enacted a nuclear phase out, is turning back

5. Italy enacted a nuclear phase out, is turning back

In fact, the number of countries that have turned back from a nuclear phase-out to re-embracing nuclear power is larger than the number of countries that are sticking to nuclear phase-outs. Never mind the countries that never embraced that particular madness ("World's Dumbest Energy Policy") in the first place or that are just now turning to nuclear power.

Countries representing 70% of the world's GDP have agreed to triple nuclear generating capacity, and that doesn't include India, which has its own plans to triple much sooner.

> [electricity prices in] negative territory

That's not a good thing. It means the electricity is worth less than nothing, essentially garbage, not that it doesn't cost anything to produce. In fact, it costs a lot of money to first produce this useless electricity and then more money to dispose of it. A lose-lose.

One of the reasons Germany, for example, has among the highest electricity prices in the world. And this correlation of high intermittent renewable penetration and high electricity prices holds worldwide.

> The break-even point for France’s EDF for old nuclear power plants that had long since been written off financially was at roughly the same level [€700 in 2020.

Also not true. Even the ARENH price was €40/MWh in 2020. And that still left margin. German plants were delivering electric at around €20-€30 / MWh.

> There were solid economic reasons why EDF was recently nationalized 100%

EDF was not recently nationalized. It was always a state company, with 100% state ownership for most of its existence. For a brief time, around 15% were held by private entities. These were bought out to simplify control for the upcoming nuclear investment program. At the same time, investments in intermittent renewables have been scaled back.

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#215

Post by mpweiher »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #213
dyauspitr wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why are China and India building so much nuclear?

They're not. Both have a reducing share of nuclear in their electricity mix as they're not building enough to keep up with their demand growth. Luckily both are deploying wind and solar at a rate that outpaces their demand growth.

The are.

They are both building rapidly and share was not in the OP's claim.

China has signed up to the international tripling pledge and now has the capacity to build 50 plants a year.

India is building rapidly and is planning on tripling nuclear capacity by 2032.

https://ddnews.gov.in/en/india-to-triple-nuclear-power-capac...

Not sure if India is going to triple its electricity demand by 2032. Seems rather doubtful, but if you have evidence for that tripling of electricity demand

But even if what you claim about falling share were true (it's not), a sinking share is not a contradiction to increasing absolute capacity, which was the claim.

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#216

Post by mpweiher »

iSnow wrote: post #176
cluckindan wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Revisionism it is not. It was Schröder’s administration that shut down Germany’s nuclear power plants. Where is the peace movement and so-called environmentalism rooted? Pro-nuclear is pro-environment. The alternatives are fossil fuels and renewables, which are both extremely anti-environment: water power require large artificial reservoirs and create flood risks, wind power kills/drives away wildlife and is almost u…

>It was Schröder’s administration that shut down Germany’s nuclear power plants. That's not even true, it was Merkel's administration. Under Schröder, the plan for the phase-out was formulated and set in motion, only to be stopped and then restarted by Merkel. The modern anti-nuclear movement in Germany got started in the 1970's by the TMI accident and a book named "Der Atom-Staat". Chornobyl of course put the nails…

> That's not even true, it was Merkel's administration.

Nope, that is actually not true.

> Under Schröder, the plan for the phase-out was formulated and set in motion,

It wasn't just "formulated" it was passed into law in 2002 by the red-green coalition led by Schröder.

It was never stopped/rescinded.

https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2012/38640342_...

> only to be stopped and then restarted by Merkel.

That is also not the case. Merkel never actually stopped the phase-out, her administration just extended the running times. The phase-out always remained in place, and for example to prohibition against building new nuclear plants was never touched.

So no.

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#217

Post by Neil44 »

AdamN wrote: post #180
Neil44 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not express an opinion on whether subsidies are good or bad :)

You expressed an opinion with how you framed it.

I think solar and wind are a good idea, and subsidies can be a useful tool, I think making a statement about how cheap solar and wind are without mentioning that they're subsidized is not entirely accurate or honest.

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#218

Post by cluckindan »

Ringz wrote: post #160
cluckindan wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Revisionism it is not. It was Schröder’s administration that shut down Germany’s nuclear power plants. Where is the peace movement and so-called environmentalism rooted? Pro-nuclear is pro-environment. The alternatives are fossil fuels and renewables, which are both extremely anti-environment: water power require large artificial reservoirs and create flood risks, wind power kills/drives away wildlife and is almost u…

The alternative is only renewables. And we don’t have to stop all industries for it. Show us some evidence based and peer reviewed studies for your claims. Repeating the same old and scientifically unproved claims doesn’t help.

Why don’t you show your claims to be true?

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#219

Post by cluckindan »

shmeeed wrote: post #193
cluckindan wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think the Chernobyl accident was not embraced to influence European policy?

Occam's razor.

How does that make sense? Is it not more simple to amplify and reframe current events than it is to manufacture entirely new narratives?

Re: Kraftwerk's radical 1976 track

#220

Post by cluckindan »

acdha wrote: post #211
cluckindan wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar and wind haven’t yet solved the two major issues: producing power 24/7/365 even when it isn’t sunny or windy (or when it’s too windy). Batteries are one solution, but the power storage requirements far surpass the world’s capacity for battery production, and come with the same caveats: rare earth metals, which need mining. Mining is a huge source of air pollution, as mining equipment is usually diesel powered,…

First, it’s rare to have protected periods where the entire grid has no wind, solar, hydro, etc. That can happen regionally, but it’s not a secret and grid operators prepare for it just as they do the impact of heatwaves shutting down nuclear or fossil plants getting iced up. Second, power is so cheap with renewables that storage of over-production makes sense. Some of that can be things like pumped water systems but…

> power is so cheap with renewables

Heavily disagree. A ”green” power contract typically has at least double the price of a generic one.

Post reply on HN