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

Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 281 posts

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#261

Post by fsflover »

locallost wrote: post #260
fsflover wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You repeat the data but don't understand its implications. Reducing coal to 25% while reducing nuclear to 0% goes against the environment, even though it's better than other countries. It should've been vice versa, 0% coal, 25% nuclear.

Less coal is good for the environment, as is less nuclear. Or was Fukushima good for the environment? Of course you realize this for both, you wouldn't otherwise make up that they replaced nuclear with coal, and ignore mentioning Fukushima even once.

> as is less nuclear

This is false: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987.

The Fukushima and Chernobyl are included in all statistics for nuclear. Even then, it's the most safe, green energy source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874421 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24324974.

I did not make up that coal replaced nuclear. It's the fact which you are unable to accept. Let's come back to our examples.

Possibility 1. Coal 45% to 25%, nuclear 10% to 0%. Why is coal not at 0%? Because the renewables are not enough to cover the energy usage! This is why coal is still there. In other words, coal (partially, along with the renewables) replaced the removed nuclear, despite they both are used less.

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#262

Post by ekianjo »

locallost wrote: post #79
ekianjo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are one of the largest exporters of electricity in Europe any source for that claim?

https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/153533/umfrag...

What do these negative values mean?

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#263

Post by ekianjo »

ketzu wrote: post #72
ekianjo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you have enough uranium to last for hundreds of years if not thousands.

Most sources I found on the topic seem to be as diverse as this one: [1] The estimates range from 80 years to hundreds of thousands of years, depending on the assumptions made, including: Possible sources (land mining, sea refining), current consumption level, efficiency of reactors. Where it is approximately this: Mining land uranium at current consumption (i.e., no new nuclear): 80-250 years. Refining uranium from…

> Overall, it seems to me that just assuring that we have resources for hundreds of thousands of years is a bit misleading or at least undisclosed strong optimism.

there's also apparently asteroid uranium resources, and with SpaceX making it progressively possible to have payload delivered with economies of scale such industry may start in space once it makes economic sense.

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#264

Post by ekianjo »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #140
hagbard_c wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extracting Uranium from sea water might solve the fuel problem but it does not deal with the waste problem. Breeder reactors can deal with both by reworking spent fuel into new fuel and a bit of waste. The resulting waste has a far smaller volume and shorter half-life which means it needs to be stored for hundreds, not thousands of years. Combining the two - Uranium from the sea plus breeder reactors to rework spent…

The costs for keeping waste for hundreds of years are currently not accounted for in the nuclear energy prices. In fact, they are not even properly estimated because we cannot make economic forecasts for centuries. So any decision that involves storing waste for hundreds of years is basically offloading the consequences of dealing with it to future generations. Obviously this is not a responsible way to handle such m…

> The costs for keeping waste for hundreds of years

Do you know that you could fit the whole amount of nuclear waste on a ridiculously small surface? That's not for no reason uranium works: it's extremely dense in energy, and the same goes for its waste.

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#265

Post by locallost »

ekianjo wrote: post #262
locallost wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/153533/umfrag...

What do these negative values mean?

That they exported more than they imported. All countries (or I guess at least) both import and export electricity depending on their needs. In the end the total says if you imported more or exported more.

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#266

Post by locallost »

fsflover wrote: post #261
locallost wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less coal is good for the environment, as is less nuclear. Or was Fukushima good for the environment? Of course you realize this for both, you wouldn't otherwise make up that they replaced nuclear with coal, and ignore mentioning Fukushima even once.

> as is less nuclear This is false: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 . The Fukushima and Chernobyl are included in all statistics for nuclear. Even then, it's the most safe, green energy source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874421 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24324974 . I did not make up that coal replaced nuclear. It's the fact whic…

I already asked and got no answer: if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? If coal replaced nuclear, what replaced the missing coal? Nuclear?

Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument.

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#267

Post by fsflover »

locallost wrote: post #266
fsflover wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as is less nuclear This is false: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 . The Fukushima and Chernobyl are included in all statistics for nuclear. Even then, it's the most safe, green energy source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874421 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24324974 . I did not make up that coal replaced nuclear. It's the fact whic…

I already asked and got no answer: if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? If coal replaced nuclear, what replaced the missing coal? Nuclear? Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument.

> if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear?

IMHO it depends on the purpose of the decrease. If it's about green energy, then removing the nuclear while keeping the coal is a wrong choice (see links above), and the remaining coal was chosen to be kept instead of the remaining nuclear. I would call it "coal replaced nuclear".

> Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument.

There is a difference between an anecdote and reliable statistics.

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#268

Post by fsflover »

locallost wrote: post #266
fsflover wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as is less nuclear This is false: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 . The Fukushima and Chernobyl are included in all statistics for nuclear. Even then, it's the most safe, green energy source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874421 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24324974 . I did not make up that coal replaced nuclear. It's the fact whic…

I already asked and got no answer: if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? If coal replaced nuclear, what replaced the missing coal? Nuclear? Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument.

> if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear?

IMHO it depends on the purpose of the decrease. If it's about green energy, then removing the nuclear while keeping the coal is a wrong choice (see links above), and the remaining coal was chosen to be kept instead of the remaining nuclear. I would call it "coal replaced nuclear". You may have a different opinion on the semantics. It doesn't matter much. What matters is the wrong choice which led to unnecessary CO2 and radiation in the air (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Damage_to_human_health).

> Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument.

There is a difference between an anecdote and reliable statistics.

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#269

Post by locallost »

fsflover wrote: post #267
locallost wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I already asked and got no answer: if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? If coal replaced nuclear, what replaced the missing coal? Nuclear? Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument.

> if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? IMHO it depends on the purpose of the decrease. If it's about green energy, then removing the nuclear while keeping the coal is a wrong choice (see links above), and the remaining coal was chosen to be kept instead of the remaining nuclear. I would call it "coal replaced nuclear". > Nuclear is so green, the j…

Of course there is a difference, that's why somebody posted the estimate (in another comment) that the insurance of one nuclear power plant would be around 70 billion per year. And we know from another recent story, that people doing those estimates are really good at math.

You can call it any way you want, but the question remains. If there is less coal use now than before, and coal was used to replace the reduced nuclear, what replaced the coal? It has to be nuclear, no?

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#270

Post by fsflover »

locallost wrote: post #269
fsflover wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? IMHO it depends on the purpose of the decrease. If it's about green energy, then removing the nuclear while keeping the coal is a wrong choice (see links above), and the remaining coal was chosen to be kept instead of the remaining nuclear. I would call it "coal replaced nuclear". > Nuclear is so green, the j…

Of course there is a difference, that's why somebody posted the estimate (in another comment) that the insurance of one nuclear power plant would be around 70 billion per year. And we know from another recent story, that people doing those estimates are really good at math. You can call it any way you want, but the question remains. If there is less coal use now than before, and coal was used to replace the reduced n…

> It has to be nuclear, no?

No, it can be renewables.

> the insurance of one nuclear power plant would be around 70 billion per year. And we know from another recent story, that people doing those estimates are really good at math.

The insurance takes into account huge costs unreasonably added by politicians. This is not what you should look at for a scientifically sound comparison.

Post reply on HN