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

Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

euractiv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 399 posts

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#351

Post by janmalec »

aagd wrote: post #104

The view I share with a majority of Germans: Costs of nuclear energy are very much a burden that future generations will have to carry. A hundered thousand years of safe storage is not part of the calculation of the energy price. It is also clear now that the the companies running the plants will not pay for the deconstruction of the plants after they reached their end of life. Tax payers have to pay for this, and a…

The view is based on some false assumptions. Nuclear reactor fuel can be efficiently recycled. Besides, the reason why storage of nuclear fuel is expencive is because nuclear industry actualy takes care of biproducts of operation, unlike other industries that produce equally or more dangerous chemical waste. It is also not true that a system failure would "devastate huge territores". No PWR accident had major consequences on human health, even in Fukushima there were no fatalities from radiation. Statistically nuclear power is the safest form of electricity. The largest storage battery (Australia) can replace a NPP for about 10 seconds. In winter you might have no sun and wind for weeks. This is why you are, and will continue burning fossil fuels in Germany.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#352

Post by ashtonkem »

fomine3 wrote: post #342
loeg wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right now the choice is between a nuclear power plant during these moments, or a natural gas one. Well, gas and coal. Germany is still ~26% coal in 2021[1]. Edit: Maybe 50% coal if you look at consumption, not just generation, per 'incrudible[2]. [1]: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... (Lignite is a kind of coal) [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28857398

In this future use case, is coal plant really evil, or acceptable?

What future use case? We’re talking about right now.

Also, coal emissions kill 100,000 people yearly, 25,000 in Europe alone. Yes, it’s evil.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#353

Post by [deleted] »

aagd wrote: post #104

The view I share with a majority of Germans: Costs of nuclear energy are very much a burden that future generations will have to carry. A hundered thousand years of safe storage is not part of the calculation of the energy price. It is also clear now that the the companies running the plants will not pay for the deconstruction of the plants after they reached their end of life. Tax payers have to pay for this, and a…

[deleted]

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#354

Post by beeboop »

aagd wrote: post #104

The view I share with a majority of Germans: Costs of nuclear energy are very much a burden that future generations will have to carry. A hundered thousand years of safe storage is not part of the calculation of the energy price. It is also clear now that the the companies running the plants will not pay for the deconstruction of the plants after they reached their end of life. Tax payers have to pay for this, and a…

How is something so entirely wrong the top comment on this? Waste storage is not even close to a problem for nuclear and even having the option to store the extremely minimal waste is basically a miracle compared to the disaster that is coal, which stores the waste literally everywhere, including the air we breathe

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#355

Post by beeboop »

ilyich wrote: post #349
andbberger wrote: post #261

All the nuclear threads here are the same, and they're all deeply frustrating. HN isn't exactly a bastion of liberal speech (here fucked up conservative hot takes reign supreme) - but ostensibly the populace is more technically literate than average. Yet it's the same stupid bullshit every time. It's dangerous!!11!! fukushima! chernobyl!1!! > nope look at some statistics it's very safe ok, the waste!11! scary spicy r…

I wish I could upvote your comment a hundred times. I am astonished to see such technically literate populace just repeating mainstream bullshit propaganda instead of having their own thoughts. And it's not only regarding the nuclear but also about many other topics, especially politically charged.

HN is surprisingly conservative sometimes. I see plenty of anti vaxxer takes, subtle and less than subtle transphobia, and general empathy lacking libertarian attitudes

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#356

Post by fulafel »

ashtonkem wrote: post #345
fulafel wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The disaster scenario "no matter what" power can come from regulated backup turbines and emergency (fossil) fuel reserves I think. It's a separate/saparable subproblem. Just make the normal power companies pay a lot for tapping it, so there is disincentive to purpousefully use it.

That plan only works if we still have a functioning oil extraction and refinement system, which is something we’re obviously trying to get away from. Given how hard petroleum products are to store, these “just in case” power generation systems would require an entirely redundant but ready to operate fuel production process in the case renewables failed. It’s doable, but the cost would be absurd. Probably easier to le…

You can use fuels made from renewables for this too, was just thinking about the near future.

I'm somewhat pessimistic about large scale fossil fuel production ending in the world anytime soon. We'll have a long tail petering out period probably where the products get progressively more expensive, and if we avoid the mad max scenario, at some point get displaced by synthetic compatible fuels.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#357

Post by schleck8 »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #174
schleck8 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think canceling an already tight military budget in favor of a power source that could be devastating when hit by an airstrike is a good strategy

it wouldn't be devastating

>A meltdown or explosion at a nuclear facility could cause a large amount of radioactive material to be released into the environment.

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/RADIATIONP...

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#358

Post by tarsinge »

aagd wrote: post #140
izacus wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Germans have switched from nuclear to coal. Can you cut this "future generations are going to have to carry the cost" when the alternative is literally helping destroy the whole planet's ecosystems? Not to mention they spew up significantly more radioactivity in the air than nuclear powerplants. A 30x30m pool of radioactive fuel is nothing compared to what their powerplants are doing to the future of young genera…

In Germany renewables are at over 42% in 2021, despite a 'conservative' government that for decades has blocked the development of windfarms and solar for the benefit of the coal and nuclear lobby. That kind of lobby-work is the actual problem here. The way forward is renewable energy. The huge difference is that the source of renewable energy is free and basically limitless.

And despite 42% of renewables Germany CO2 emissions have increased in the last years, and Germany will obviously miss its 2030 target (which is already not enough). Just look at electricitymap.org to see how that strategy is going. Also nuclear is kind of renewable too so that distinction is not really relevant regarding climate. That view needs to be updated with 2021 reality, we need a baseline production that always work, and choosing fossile for that like Germany (Coal, Gas) is irrational (nuclear issues pale in comparison of climate change for future generations).

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#359

Post by rich_sasha »

fy20 wrote: post #329
rich_sasha wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They all need some enrichment, but then apparently it’s still very hard to go from a civilian reactor to weapons-grade uranium. Just, I guess, much easier than from a heap of coal. I understand that with adequate supervision from the IEA proliferation is generally a non-issue.

What is considered "adequate supervision" is of course debatable. Lithuania has made many complaints regarding it's safety concerns of the newly opened Belarusian power plant to the relevant international authorities - which have all so far fallen on deaf ears. Lithuania had its own nuclear power plant, which is currently being decommission, so it's not that they are just playing the NIMBY card without knowing what t…

I totally sympathise. In this case though, this isn’t to do with proliferation, right?

But ultimately both are semi-opt-in so I guess your point stands.

Re: Intellectuals urge Germany to keep nuclear plants online

#360

Post by Valakas_ »

aagd wrote: post #104

The view I share with a majority of Germans: Costs of nuclear energy are very much a burden that future generations will have to carry. A hundered thousand years of safe storage is not part of the calculation of the energy price. It is also clear now that the the companies running the plants will not pay for the deconstruction of the plants after they reached their end of life. Tax payers have to pay for this, and a…

Storing nuclear waste for millennia? How long ago was the first nuclear reactor activated? Do you really think in one thousand (!) years we will be using 2020's technology? In a thousand years nothing we see today will be even vaguely familiar.
Post reply on HN