Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima • Hacker News Board

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#31

Post by secretasiandan » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:38 PM UTC

serichsen wrote: post #14

secretasiandan wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a knee jerk reaction. I think this is a move for short term political gains without regard for the long term societal costs. They had decided to extend the life of the reactors just last year. No new risk inherent to their design has been exposed. No new tsunami or earthquake risk in Germany has been exposed. I agree with the person quote in TFA (despite the fact that his statement may be a poli…

Note that Sigmar Gabriel wants to shut down all nuclear reactors himself.

Here is a link to an article from his official web page where he appears to be stating a generally anti-nuclear point of view

http://www.sigmar-gabriel.de/Nachrichten/details/20110313_at...

This gives his statement about Merkel's move just being politics more weight

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#32

Post by paganel » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:38 PM UTC

jgrahamc wrote: post #16

bhousel wrote: post #9

This strikes me more as a political stunt by Merkel to rally the conservative base in Germany than anything else. Still, it doesn't surprise me that this is such a hot button issue right now. I've long been a supporter of nuclear power, but the events of the past week have made me start to reconsider a lot of my beliefs about its safety.

Which beliefs? That a nuclear power station situated in a major earthquake zone next to the coast could magically survive a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami? Right now, we don't know how serious this situation is, it could be that this will end with a small amount of radiation leaked and four reactors that have to be decommissioned. Or it could end with a major environmental disaster. We simply don't know yet. I'd cautio…

> That a nuclear power station situation in a major earthquake zone next to the coast could magically survive a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami?

The un-posed question is "what happens if a group of terrorists fly an A380 directly into one of these plants"? Someone on reddit was mentioning that a nuclear plant in Texas was built to "withstand a direct hit from an F-16 traveling at supersonic speeds", but I guess an A380 is so much heavier and larger than a F-16. Because right now terrorists don't even need to get access to the US aerial space, they can hit a nuclear plant in Mexic (let's say this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguna_Verde_Nuclear_Power_Stat...) and still be able to cause important damage to the US population.

Here's the reddit comment I was talking about: http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/g3tfr/and_you_are_tell...

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#33

Post by nopassrecover » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:38 PM UTC

wladimir wrote: post #17

pieter wrote: post #2

I guess a knee-jerk reaction can be expected in a country where nuclear power is currently pretty controversial.

It's only a temporary measure anyway, the plants will be inspected and (if everything well) turned on again until 2023 or so. Personally, I'd feel a lot safer if all nuclear plants were turned off forever. Sure, the chance of something going horribly wrong is low, but if it goes wrong it is a big big mess. Just too horrible to warrant any of the advantages that nuclear power has.

The deaths from other fuel sources, while not as immediately obvious as "oh look that nuclear plant just blew up" are potentially far greater.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#34

Post by EliRivers » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:41 PM UTC

mironathetin wrote: post #26

bhousel wrote: post #9

This strikes me more as a political stunt by Merkel to rally the conservative base in Germany than anything else. Still, it doesn't surprise me that this is such a hot button issue right now. I've long been a supporter of nuclear power, but the events of the past week have made me start to reconsider a lot of my beliefs about its safety.

I still remember the voices after Chernobyl: Light water reactors are safe and core meltdown can never happen, because the moderator is water. If it evaporates, the moderator is gone and the core will cool down. Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor. When the core overheated, the graphite melted together with the uranium and the nuclear reaction could not be stopped any more. Now we see how reliable those report…

"There is no base for any beliefs, if you ask me."

Yet I bet you go on eating food, in the belief it will keep you alive.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#35

Post by newguy889 » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:41 PM UTC

xlpz wrote: post #25

thematt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I actually think the events of the past week prove it's safety. Let put it in perspective: a 40 year old nuclear reactor gets hit by a 9 magnitude earthquake, then slammed with 20 ft. tall swell of water, followed by an explosion due to the buildup of hydrogen gas that blows off the roof of the building, and after all that the core was still mostly intact and contained. That seems like an amazingly positive resu…

What potentially devastating consequences would there be if instead of a nuclear plant a windmill had been hit by an earthquake, tsunami and explosion? I honestly fail to be impressed by this kind of reasoning about nuclear energy's safety. Disclaimer: I still think fission power might be better in the long run than coal power (catastrophic global warming is worse than any nuclear disaster), but I'd rather do without…

How much land needs to be paved over with windmills to equal the power output of one nuclear plant?

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#36

Post by nakkiel » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:41 PM UTC

jgrahamc wrote: post #16

bhousel wrote: post #9

This strikes me more as a political stunt by Merkel to rally the conservative base in Germany than anything else. Still, it doesn't surprise me that this is such a hot button issue right now. I've long been a supporter of nuclear power, but the events of the past week have made me start to reconsider a lot of my beliefs about its safety.

Which beliefs? That a nuclear power station situated in a major earthquake zone next to the coast could magically survive a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami? Right now, we don't know how serious this situation is, it could be that this will end with a small amount of radiation leaked and four reactors that have to be decommissioned. Or it could end with a major environmental disaster. We simply don't know yet. I'd cautio…

Nuclear Plant vs. 9.0 Earthquake & Tsunami.

I honestly wouldn't have bet on the Nuclear Plant only a week ago.

I'll add that besides the headlines, Thailand is considering to cancel its 5 plants project. Fortunately, this simply means lobbying will be a bit more expensive.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#37

Post by ErrantX » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:42 PM UTC

xlpz wrote: post #25

thematt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I actually think the events of the past week prove it's safety. Let put it in perspective: a 40 year old nuclear reactor gets hit by a 9 magnitude earthquake, then slammed with 20 ft. tall swell of water, followed by an explosion due to the buildup of hydrogen gas that blows off the roof of the building, and after all that the core was still mostly intact and contained. That seems like an amazingly positive resu…

What potentially devastating consequences would there be if instead of a nuclear plant a windmill had been hit by an earthquake, tsunami and explosion? I honestly fail to be impressed by this kind of reasoning about nuclear energy's safety. Disclaimer: I still think fission power might be better in the long run than coal power (catastrophic global warming is worse than any nuclear disaster), but I'd rather do without…

The problem is that you can't (currently) replace that nuclear plant with a Windmill (or even a few Windmills) because the power production is still not high enough.

So I don't feel that is an entirely fair comparison.

What if such an event had hit, say, an Oil fired power station - you'd likely be looking at a reasonable level local oil contamination, and probably a large fire. I don't know how much more likely that such an event would be to happen but I am going to guess that safety and fail safes at fossil fuel stations are not quite the same as at a nuclear plant :)

(in terms of your last point; it totally can. But practically speaking it is something that has to start at home. Millions of people can afford solar panels on their home; but they mostly don't bother (and some moan about the lack of action...!). And we could be pressuring local government to introduce housing regs requiring new builds to have solar panels.)

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#38

Post by masklinn » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:42 PM UTC

Germany's green party has been trying to kill the nukes there fore quite some time now: the SPD/Greens officially announced their desire to phase out all nuclear power in Germany in 2000, and two power plants had been shut down in 2003 and 2005 and were planned for dismantling.

The CDU (Merkel's party) was an opponent to the phase-out, and has been very open about it since 2008, but I'm guessing they saw the writing on the wall: the Fukushima events can only fuel the already powerful german anti-nuclear movement (we're talking rallies of tens of thousands in recent years) further and there's no point in wasting political capital on a lost battle.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#39

Post by scotch_drinker » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:42 PM UTC

xlpz wrote: post #25

thematt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I actually think the events of the past week prove it's safety. Let put it in perspective: a 40 year old nuclear reactor gets hit by a 9 magnitude earthquake, then slammed with 20 ft. tall swell of water, followed by an explosion due to the buildup of hydrogen gas that blows off the roof of the building, and after all that the core was still mostly intact and contained. That seems like an amazingly positive resu…

What potentially devastating consequences would there be if instead of a nuclear plant a windmill had been hit by an earthquake, tsunami and explosion? I honestly fail to be impressed by this kind of reasoning about nuclear energy's safety. Disclaimer: I still think fission power might be better in the long run than coal power (catastrophic global warming is worse than any nuclear disaster), but I'd rather do without…

Anything can be done but at what cost? Along with that willingness must also come the understanding that the standard of living for the majority of the planet's population will be lowered, probably dramatically in some places. Renewable energy, to this point, has been much more expensive than non-renewable energy and this has allowed the human species to enjoy a reasonably high standard of living, especially in the developed world. Now, the developing world wants part of that and telling them they have to use renewable energy seems rather disingenuous to me.

Renewable energy is entirely possible but it's a truly difficult problem, not just technologically but from a cost-benefit side as well.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#40

Post by cpr » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:43 PM UTC

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/... has a fairly sober analysis that shows just the safeguards are generally working even in a scenario not even imagined.

(Yes, yes, one has to imagine all possibilities, but all human life involves some risk.)