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

Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

bnnbloomberg.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 467 posts

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#411

Post by diordiderot »

dispat0r wrote: post #407
garmaine wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not when your building's central heating is done by a natural gas furnace. Not without expensive retrofitting. (Which should be done. But it'll take time.)

It should be done, but that's almost impossible. Retro fitting to a heat pump is very expensive, you have to replace all radiators with underfloor heating and the insulation has to be redone. While this is done, you can't live in your home.

How can you say this so confidently when it's not true.

There are electric boilers...

Radiators are heated by boilers...

No heat pump necessary...

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#412

Post by diordiderot »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #392
diordiderot wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electricity absolutely, unarguably, is a substitute for gas.

You act like everyone can just miraculously pay for an entirely new HVAC system on the spur of a moment?

HVAC in Europe is, relative to America, non-existent

Edit: hyperbole ^

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#413

Post by machiaweliczny »

dekervin wrote: post #183

The nuclear issue is fascinating to watch unfold, over the years. I didn't expect the rational pro-nuclear to be almost as religious as their opponents. Which makes them also refuse to engage in debate. So, here is one of the thoughts that crossed my mind (and I am well aware there are counter arguments to it ). With its high density of energy and perceived higher potential to harm its surrounding environment, nuclea…

I think simple, safe and small reactor should be possible to build. It just matter of proper engineering.

In richer countries solar power works well but requires elastic grid and storage investment. In Poland many people get it and new homes get heat pumps as well plus good insulation to reduce demand. But in rich countires all that matters in production needs in the end. I think China will lead in this as they are most pressured.

I was on Kos/Greece recently and was surprised that they have 0 PV panels but everyone has solar water heating. Maybe they have some other good elecricity source and that makes it uncompetitive.

Most poor countries can rely on solar as it's aboundant there. They will also want nuclear though to desalt water -> see in 20 years.

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#414

Post by enaaem »

garmaine wrote: post #255
cwp wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being dependent on imported gas seems like an inherent issue of the German energy system.

Heating is largely natural gas based, so it's not substitutive. I don't think Germany should be shutting down its nuclear reactors, but that has nothing to do with Russian gas. (Unless perhaps they started making synthetic methane using the heat of a nuclear reactor, which is not a terrible idea but not something they are currently doing AFAIK.)

Gas is used for both heating and electricity. If less gas is needed for electricity heating costs will go down.

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#415

Post by alkonaut »

quelltext wrote: post #363
alkonaut wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this argument has been made for years. For decades. We are talking about banning the sales of combustion engine vehicles within 10 years. Surely in 10, 20 or 30 years one should be able to see pretty significant progress in the conversion of building heating systems? I’m assuming old multi story houses with gas heating typically use a water system (radiators) and only a single basement furnace? In that situation,…

> Now it’s electrical stoves and central heating in many places. What's "central heating"? I believe Germany already uses central heating in most places. The question is what powers it. Can it be efficiently replaced by renewable-energy (!) electric heating vs. fossil? Other commenters have posited "no". The way I see it, investing in nuclear should have been part of the plan, instead of replacing it with renewables…

Central heating is the distribution of hot water from a central location. Best case it’s leftover energy from nearby industry, worst case it’s just a place where something is burned, such as biogas/biomass/trash or fossil fuels. But many cities have some heavy industry that can supply waste heat for a lot of buildings.

Centrally burned fossil is better for the environment than burning in residential buildings, especially in cities. For the climate it makes no difference though.

Even though it’s a waste of high grade energy, one could imagine powering heating plants with electricity in a pinch. If there is so much surplus electricity that reactors are closed then perhaps…

The Stockholm City gas system, although much smaller than Berlin’s was swapped to a renewable gas (biogas) 10 years ago.

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#416

Post by lmm »

dispat0r wrote: post #410
lmm wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They'd still have a better lifestyle if they used the same amount of energy and used it more efficiently. Only if you're assuming some kind of linear relationship between energy consumption and happiness, which seems extremely dubious.

Maybe not happiness but definitely living standards. In the US air conditioning systems are common in Germany not so much.

Right but you can't jump from that to assuming that US homes are nicer to live in - the difference is at least partly because more solid construction, traditional styles, and environmentalist design mean that German homes passively hold a comfortable temperature better than US ones. Air conditioning is a very brute-force solution to the problem and it comes with a significant downsides (noise, dry air that you then have to add more appliances to address, ugly, have to keep your windows closed...).

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#417

Post by wwtrv »

_ph_ wrote: post #88
pkdpic wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Germany intends to take all coal-fired generation offline by 2038 Good if they actually mean it maybe? > leading to a likely increase in renewable-power assets in the long term... Yet in the short term, coal is helping to bridge the supply gap. This just seems asinine. But what do I know... Is there something impassably / chronically dangerous about nuclear power or is it just public fear that pushes us away from i…

First of all, the new German government adjusted the phase-out of coal power to be as close as possible to 2030. 2038 was more a bad compromise by the previous government. And yes, nuclear power can be dangerous as Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown. Those dangers could probably be addressed by new reactors, but those are very expensive. The big problem are the existing old reactors. They are not as safe and require…

However even those old reactors are several magnitudes safer per MWh than coal, over 20 000 people die each in Europe due pollution emitted from burning coal that as much as several Chernobyl's each year (even if we use the most pessimistic estimates).

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#418

Post by wwtrv »

dougmwne wrote: post #179
sam_lowry_ wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, come one! I spent most of my childhood in Minsk, 380km north-west to Chernobyl. Now in Europe my only worry is the blackout plan in case of power shortages, not the nuclear plant 60km on the east. I am always amazed how Germans are irrational about nuclear while nearby countries have a mostly pragmatic attitude. Even in Belgium the nuclear phase out is fake and every politician knows it can not be enforced until…

Nearly all the people I know in Poland who were children at the time of Chernobyl have thyroid issues, including my partner. It’s not accurate to say that it had zero health impact. Of course, coal has plenty of health impact, just not a good look to be so flippant about a major nuclear disaster.

How do you know those issues thyroid issues were not caused by fossil fuel pollution? Many more people have serious health issues or die every year due pollutants emitted from burning coal (and other fossil fuels but coal is by far the worst) than the total death count related to Chernobyl was, its not even comparable.

Poland is especially bad in this regard. It consistently has one the highest PM10 and PM2.5 levels in Europe (and I assume it should have been much worse in the 80's)

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#419

Post by sam_lowry_ »

wwtrv wrote: post #418
dougmwne wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly all the people I know in Poland who were children at the time of Chernobyl have thyroid issues, including my partner. It’s not accurate to say that it had zero health impact. Of course, coal has plenty of health impact, just not a good look to be so flippant about a major nuclear disaster.

How do you know those issues thyroid issues were not caused by fossil fuel pollution? Many more people have serious health issues or die every year due pollutants emitted from burning coal (and other fossil fuels but coal is by far the worst) than the total death count related to Chernobyl was, its not even comparable. Poland is especially bad in this regard. It consistently has one the highest PM10 and PM2.5 levels…

Indeed. We should also not forget that coal ash significantly contributes to radiation exposure in humans. Every winter it's the same all over Poland. There are places like Krakow that consistently rank among the most polluted towns in the world during winter [1].

[1] https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/12/15/polish-city-records-w...

Re: Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

#420

Post by locallost »

One aspect of nuclear that is almost never mentioned is the disposal of the waste. The owners of Germany's nuclear power plants paid 24 billion in 2017 to rid themselves of the responsibility for it. It will cost the country an estimated 170 billion for temporary and permanent solutions, and the money is now invested in a fund to grow it. It was criticised by Greenpeace as insufficiently small. The government and even the Greens accepted this as there was a danger the companies would try to weasel out of paying anything. What happens if a company goes bankrupt? The management of the waste becomes the responsibility of the society. A lot of countries (even the US) don't have a permanent solution for the storage of nuclear waste and some of the temporary ones were already reported leaking.
Post reply on HN