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

Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 141 posts

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#51

Post by ugh »

more_original wrote: post #22

Context: The previous government had decided to phase out nuclear power by 2020. After the last election the current revoked that decision and even allowed old power plants that were due to be shut down to operate longer. So, if they hadn't revoked that decision, the seven reactors we are talking about her would have been shut down already or would be about to be shut down anyway.

I don’t think all those seven nuclear power plants would already have been shut down – more like three or so.

I listened to the press conference this morning and it sounded like their decision to shut down all seven pre-1980 plants had something to do with the relevant law. This law makes a distinction between pre-1980 and post-1980 plants which can be used to justify their decision.

If the government wants to shut down power plants they obviously need some basis in law to do just that. There seems to be a section in the relevant law that allows them to shut down nuclear power plants but arbitrarily shutting them down is not possible. (At least if the government doesn’t want to pay damages to the operators.)

The government probably is worried that a decision to arbitrarily only shut down certain pre-1980 nuclear power plants without a good reason for the distinction would run counter to the principle of equality.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#52

Post by Qz »

paganel wrote: post #32
jgrahamc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

KE = 1/2mv^2, so depending on how supersonic they're talking about, it could very well withstand an A380 impact as well as a supersonic F16.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#53

Post by wladimir »

nopassrecover wrote: post #33
wladimir wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Frankly, I have heard that argument many times. I know other fuel sources cause deaths too. Gas tanks can explode, fossil fuels exhaust gasses can be poisonous, oil can leak into the sea, and so on.

And still I'd rather be exposed to all of those risks than worry about one nuclear explosion. As I said, the consequences can be just too horrible, for too many people.

I'd love to move on from fossil fuels to something else, but not something that can cause such disasters.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#54

Post by krschultz »

paganel wrote: post #32
jgrahamc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

K=1/2*mv^2?

My intuition (as a mechanical engineer, desinging military systems as my day job) is that the F16 going supersonic is far worse. Either way, there is no possible way you have enough information to make any of the claims you just made.

A better question to ask yourself how safe your highway transportation is, because within an hour of my house we've had 15 people killed in bus accidents in the last 72 hours. And that doesn't even begin to count car accidents. I live within 5 miles of over 10 nuclear reactors and they have never and will never scare me because I actually understand the engineering behind them. Nuclear power is not magic. Small doses of radiation scare me far less than the concussions I get from sports I play.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#55

Post by sasvari »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #10
jrockway wrote: post #3

Nice to know that there is another country out there that's as irrational as the US. Does Germany have a lot of tsunamis?

Naww, but soon they'll have more people with lung cancer from breathing all that burning coal and oil for energy. I think this is a political move that is going to help in the next election. The "greens" will see this as a handout to them and nuclear power is too complex and scary an issue to have someone defend it properly. Oh well, back to fossil fuels!

the situation is a little bit more complex in Germany: after the former government negotiated the nuclear power exit with the four big power companies maintaining nuclear power stations, these big four were able to adapt their strategy for the days after, which they did. so especially the concession made by the current government about letting the old power plants run longer than planned is considered to be just a huge gift to these companies by a lot of germans (unexpected bonanza for the companies).

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#57

Post by cma »

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 disasters are so rare that a single data point of the magnitude of damage provides so much information on our risk assessment of nuclear power that it seems reasonable to idle plants while we wait and see how this one plays out. This is only the third major issue to ever happen.

Waiting this one out doesn't tell us more about the frequency of occurrence (it already occurred), but it does tell us about the magnitude of damage, which is one of the biggest unknowns and arguably why the US caps nuclear plant liability at ~12 billion via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_... .

The overt reason was that it was such an unknown that no one could insure it; a cynic might say that the cap was known to be incredibly low from the outset, and it was really just a hidden subsidy towards the creation of fuel for more and more nuclear weapons (this was the late 50s).

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#58

Post by mortenjorck »

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…

The real tragedy here is that while it's almost certain no civilians will die from radiation poisoning in this case, there quite likely will be or have already been deaths stemming from lack of electrical power.

But people dying from illness from lack of clean water because their water treatment plant is offline and their hospital is out of emergency power doesn't get TV ratings, pageviews, and political attention like apocalyptic visions of radioactive fallout.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#59

Post by kiiski »

EliRivers wrote: post #34
mironathetin wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think he spoke of beliefs about nuclear safety.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#60

Post by mironathetin »

EliRivers wrote: post #34
mironathetin wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is the wrong comparison. You can choose the food you eat, but you cannot choose the energy you use. At least not as easily. But there are similarities: the industry that sells energy wants to go on running their reactors. They advertise and we belief and consume.

There is also an industry (or industries) that tries to control the food market. We belief and consume. Now look at the rate of overweight people and tell me they do a good job.

As much as I like to get healthy (as good as possible) food I also want clean (as good as possible) energy. Japan shows again, that nuclear power is hard to control. And loss of control has devastating consequences.

This is not what the nuclear industry tells us, right? So it is not the right thing to believe. The same with the food industry, as you dug out this comparison.

Post reply on HN