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

What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

tandfonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 62 posts

Re: What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

#31

Post by SiempreViernes »

pdubouilh wrote: post #2

ABSTRACT: Germany has one of the most ambitious energy transition policies dubbed ‘Die Energiewende’ to replace nuclear- and fossil power with renewables such as wind-, solar- and biopower. The climate gas emissions are reduced by 25% in the study period of 2002 through 2022. By triangulating available information sources, the total nominal expenditures are estimated at EUR 387 bn, and the associated subsidies are so…

No analysis of costs if Germany had adopted a strategy of transitioning to renewables in 2002 is offered, you are just meant to look at figure 2 and say take it on fait it is the result of a coherent green transition strategy rather than Germany dallying and going back to its traditional coal power.

Re: What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

#32

Post by thyristan »

cjblomqvist wrote: post #19
ardaoweo wrote: post #7

I've always wondered how big of a part Soviet Union / Russia psych ops played in stirring this completely irrational anti-nuclear mentality. The side-effect of getting Germany hooked on Russian gas was extremely convenient to them. Of course the Chernobyl disaster played some part, but it didn't result in such irrationality in most other surrounding countries. Perhaps the anti-war mentality and guilt from the horrors…

EU, one of the most successful peace projects of human history, is based on the idea that tight economic integration leads to peace. Obviously not working out in full with Russia, and I think Germany could've put themselves in a far better situation energy wise. But, it still stands that the core purpose of EU has been fulfilled. And very easy to judge in hindsight.

Looking at the behaviour of e.g. Hungary as an EU member state and Russian puppet at the same time, I'd like to disagree here.

Re: What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

#33

Post by fabian2k »

wrKaxnc wrote: post #12
KingOfCoders wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We won't settle this debate (and I'm not against nuclear), but it's a discussion around "Do I need fire insurance when my house has a low chance to burn down" and should I use the money for something else. If it doesn't burn down, you look great. If it burns down, you look like an idiot. I think people will not understand (some|most) Germans if you haven't lived through Chernobyl and Pershing-II days, dying forrests…

Germany is stationing nuclear capable missiles again, with the approval of the Green Party, which had been at the forefront of the anti Pershing-II protests but is now a war party: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-shrugs-off-putin-comments-on-u... If that is possible, why not pebble bed reactors?

They're conventional missiles, not nuclear. And nuclear capable is a bit misleading here as that capability was dismantled for the Tomahawk cruise missiles. Of course the US could add it back with some effort, but that goes for essentially every missile that is large enough.

Re: What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

#34

Post by DarkNova6 »

wrKaxnc wrote: post #18
ardaoweo wrote: post #7

I've always wondered how big of a part Soviet Union / Russia psych ops played in stirring this completely irrational anti-nuclear mentality. The side-effect of getting Germany hooked on Russian gas was extremely convenient to them. Of course the Chernobyl disaster played some part, but it didn't result in such irrationality in most other surrounding countries. Perhaps the anti-war mentality and guilt from the horrors…

Russia did nothing in that respect. The original anti nuclear protests were authentic.

I'm doubtful it can be ruled out with a handwavy gesture. Given just how much Russia has invested into Elite capture you know they will set everything in their power to make the west suck up their Gas deliveries.

No dependency on Russian gas, no money.

Re: What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

#35

Post by obscurette »

ardaoweo wrote: post #7

I've always wondered how big of a part Soviet Union / Russia psych ops played in stirring this completely irrational anti-nuclear mentality. The side-effect of getting Germany hooked on Russian gas was extremely convenient to them. Of course the Chernobyl disaster played some part, but it didn't result in such irrationality in most other surrounding countries. Perhaps the anti-war mentality and guilt from the horrors…

Both were certainly there – a guilt made psyops far more easier for Russians. But this energy related psyops have been everywhere. I've experienced it almost first hand. After decision to decommission Ignalina Nuclear Power Station in Lithuania there have been joint attempts to build a new one with Estonia, Latvia and Poland. Russian "No need! Dangerous! Russian gas is cheap!" influence during these talks was very prominent. This was also very much there during 2012 Lithuanian nuclear power referendum.

Re: What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

#36

Post by thyristan »

DarkNova6 wrote: post #30

And let's not forget that Germany then decided to create the economically viable solar power industry from scratch. Only to then remove the subsidies, destroy the domestic industry they just created and hand over the technology advantage they had to China. Genious decisions all around.

An industry isn't viable if it can only exist with subsidies.

Re: What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

#37

Post by p51-remorse »

croes wrote: post #11

Less emissions but more waste. Germany still hasn't a Nuclear waste repository. The time plan shifted now to somewhere after 2070. And all this doesn't possible terror attacks and sabotage into account. Can't remember any fears about rockets hitting Ukrainian wind turbines.

> somewhere after 2070.

This is clearly willful incompetence.

Re: What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

#38

Post by jojobas »

wrKaxnc wrote: post #27
jojobas wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an idiotic take. By choosing better economy over freedom they'd lose both economy and freedom.

How so? Germany and everyone else trades with Saudi Arabia. Do you lose freedom because of that? It is a business decision, same as Ukraine's decision to still collect transit fees for Russian pipelines.

Last I checked Saudi Arabia minded their own business and didn't issue ultimatums to NATO to expel members or else.

Re: What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

#39

Post by simonsarris »

baumgarn wrote: post #23
ardaoweo wrote: post #7

I've always wondered how big of a part Soviet Union / Russia psych ops played in stirring this completely irrational anti-nuclear mentality. The side-effect of getting Germany hooked on Russian gas was extremely convenient to them. Of course the Chernobyl disaster played some part, but it didn't result in such irrationality in most other surrounding countries. Perhaps the anti-war mentality and guilt from the horrors…

The argument agains nuclear is not irrational. The true cost of nuclear is not sufficiently priced in. Example from recent history here in Germany the nuclear interim storage mine Asse is leaking and the garbage has to be recovered. Cost estimated to be 3.7 billion tax payer money. There is no solution for safe nuclear garbage storage in sight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

I mean, this sounds like the true cost of being insanely bone-headed. And in some sense nuclear lets you be bone-headed in novel ways, which is a risk, but being this irresponsible is not a necessary condition.

> The mine near Wolfenbüttel in Lower Saxony is the perfect example of how a final storage facility for nuclear waste should not be built.

> Between 1967 and 1978, around 126,000 metal barrels containing low and medium-level radioactive waste were stored in the former salt mine. They contained contaminated laboratory waste, construction rubble and scrap metal, mainly from nuclear power plant use. Officially, it was an "experimental mine" in which the long-term storage of radioactive material was only to be tested. In fact, many of the barrels were simply dumped into the emptied salt chambers.

> The Asse became a problem in 1988. At that time, the operator at the time discovered that water was penetrating the mine. To date, 350 active and now dry areas have been found. The water is collected and brought to the surface - an average of 12.5 cubic meters per day. Without this work, the mine would flood. Recovering the waste, as decided by the Bundestag in 2013, would be impossible.

from: https://www.fr.de/wirtschaft/asse-milliardengrab-12926812.ht...

Re: What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

#40

Post by spacebanana7 »

baumgarn wrote: post #23
ardaoweo wrote: post #7

I've always wondered how big of a part Soviet Union / Russia psych ops played in stirring this completely irrational anti-nuclear mentality. The side-effect of getting Germany hooked on Russian gas was extremely convenient to them. Of course the Chernobyl disaster played some part, but it didn't result in such irrationality in most other surrounding countries. Perhaps the anti-war mentality and guilt from the horrors…

The argument agains nuclear is not irrational. The true cost of nuclear is not sufficiently priced in. Example from recent history here in Germany the nuclear interim storage mine Asse is leaking and the garbage has to be recovered. Cost estimated to be 3.7 billion tax payer money. There is no solution for safe nuclear garbage storage in sight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

Both positions can be correct.

There can be legitimate objections to nuclear power, and it can be in the Russian interest for those objections to be heard as loudly as possible.

Post reply on HN