[HN Gopher] Why Germany won't keep its nuclear plants open ___________________________________________________________________ Why Germany won't keep its nuclear plants open Author : jseliger Score : 74 points Date : 2022-04-14 21:16 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com) (TXT) w3m dump (unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com) | throw93232 wrote: | EU has common energy market. If Germany does not have enough | plant capacity, it will buy electricity from other countries, | driving up price. | outside1234 wrote: | Let's be real - they just don't care about anyone but themselves. | chaostheory wrote: | _"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. | Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it | is our duty to follow." -- Lord Palmerston_ | | This is apt description of nearly every nation, if not all of | them. | galooomot wrote: | Well, in terms of money, germany is among the biggest | supporters of ukraine since the war started in 2014, donating | several billion euros. https://www.auswaertiges- | amt.de/en/aussenpolitik/laenderinfo... | sprash wrote: | No they are a US vassal state. If they only cared about | themselves they would have zero sanctions and Nord Stream 2 | would be pumping cheap gas in vast quantities. | dathinab wrote: | One core assumption of this article is that the nuclear reactors | would have passed safety inspections if they would have taken | them in 2019. | | But I doubt this, many of the reactors have already been | operating beyond what they where designed for. Like from what I | know about them I honestly wouldn't be surprised if previous | safety inspections wouldn't already have slightly looked away to | allow them to pass. | V__ wrote: | > According to the text, they might even need a constitutional | amendment. I am no expert in German law, but this strikes me as | an unlikely requirement that would nevertheless be doable. | | A 2/3 majority is needed in both the Bundesrat (senate) and | Bundestag (house). Not happening. | | > This is what they say: The existing nuclear reactors should | have passed a lengthy security inspection in 2019, which they | didn't pass since they would close at the end of 2022. They would | need to pass such an inspection, and it takes a long time. | | > ... | | > Yes, of course Germany can afford to take some more time to | pass these inspections! | | The author makes it sound like those are cars which can be easily | refitted, upgraded and certified. This would take enormous | amounts of time and money for the three plants which are still | online, and who knows how much for the ones which are offline. | Let's say it would just take a year (very optimistic), it | wouldn't have any effect on the conflict. | | It's simply not worth it, when the money could be spent on other | technologies. It would probably be easier and much cheaper to | build new nuclear power plants (like ThorCon which was on HN a | few days ago). | SllX wrote: | We don't know how long this--let's not water it down with words | like "conflict"--war will last. We also don't want members of | NATO to be dependent on a hostile foreign power for heating | fuel. | | If it takes longer than a year, fine, it's something that | should have been started years ago but there's no other time | available to us than the present and future, so let's try the | present. Solar+Wind+Batteries are a necessary but not | sufficient part of a future energy plan for a large | industrialized nation, so see if infrastructure that already | exists today is usable and can be brought back online in a | useful capacity for a bill of materials competitive with the | alternatives. | V__ wrote: | > We need to expand renewables, rigorously cut consumption at | all levels, diversify, and rapidly ramp up hydrogen. [1] | | Russian coal imports are projected to go down to 25% (from | 50%) in the next month or so, and by autumn should be more or | less zero. Independence from gas should be achieved by 2024. | LNG terminals will be build and floating LNG terminals have | been secured. | | [1] https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2022/ | 03/... | | That's about the same timeframe which could be reasonably | expected for the recertification/upgrading/etc. of the | nuclear plants. The goal is to get independent of Russia. | moooo99 wrote: | > A 2/3 majority is needed in both the Bundesrat (senate) and | Bundestag (house). Not happening. | | Absolutely not ever going to happen. | | > The author makes it sound like those are cars which can be | easily refitted, upgraded and certified. This would take | enormous amounts of time and money for the three plants which | are still online, and who knows how much for the ones which are | offline. | | Even Lindner says that extending the lifetime of nuclear power | plants isn't really a realistic option. With what the FDP said | in the past and what they are saying now this makes me really | believe that there is something more to the whole debate than | the fundamental opposition of the green party towards nuclear | power. | | > It's simply not worth it, when the money could be spent on | other technologies. | | It likely is. Nuclear isn't really a feasible option for short | term actions. Given the political barriers and the progress of | the nuclear exit it would be an extremely long play with little | to no effects on the current conflict. My gut feeling is that | investing this into increasing renewables and investing into | improving the energy efficiency of buildings (where the | majority of gas import goes) has a significantly bigger impact | on energy requirements. | | Generally this is a debate that nobody seems to want to have. | Everybody is talking about how we can substitute energy | imports. Everybody talks about LNG terminals, storage | facilities and nuclear power but nobody talks about the low | hanging fruits. We do have basically free measures to take to | at least slighly reduce the fossil fuel consumption. Mandatory | home office availability for suitable jobs, car free/reduced | days, speed limits, encouraging less heating, etc. | V__ wrote: | > We do have basically free measures to take to at least | slighly reduce the fossil fuel consumption. Mandatory home | office availability for suitable jobs, car free/reduced days, | speed limits, encouraging less heating, etc. | | Lindner: Not on my watch we don't | xyzzyz wrote: | Also rationed gas, electricity only a few hours a day for | retail customers, and others. Lots of basically free measures | indeed, we don't need no nuclear. | renewiltord wrote: | Is security there the same as what we'd call security or is it | like `securite` in French which is safety? I'm pretty sure the | former is not that hard, and you can bypass it if there is a | real national need. | | The real thing is that Germany has NS and NS2 and so they're | happy to just guzzle gas. | formerly_proven wrote: | Safety. | V__ wrote: | They mean safety. | | > The real thing is that Germany has NS and NS2 and so | they're happy to just guzzle gas. | | NS2 is dead. They stopped certification, dismissed all | employes and it's sanctioned by Germany/EU and the U.S. | | I think what a lot of people don't realize is that Germany | just had a major political shift after the election last | year. The new government now has to work around the failures | of the last 16 years, in which nothing really got done. It | really is a rock and a hard place. Stop all Russian imports | and kill the economy, or try to find other sources (LNG from | Qatar) and switch as fast as possible. Both options are bad, | and the minister is also not happy but has to make it work | somehow. | Gwypaas wrote: | As long as you rely on the fallacy that nuclear is cheap to | operate any initial costs can be handwaved away. Today renewables | are cheaper than the marginal cost of nuclear, steam turbines and | all machinery around them is simply that complex. They are a | relic of an bygone era which tech enthusiasts for some reason | continue clinging to as the magical solution to all our energy | needs. Even in the face of reality. | | A dollar spent on nuclear is a dollar that could have much more | effect invested in renewables instead. | | https://www.lazard.com/media/451885/grphx_lcoe-07.png | GamerUncle wrote: | In the face of reality nuclear is the only realistic way to | address the majority of the issues that most renewables cannot | realistically face: | | https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-par... | All this talk about "a bygone era" seems to stem from a place | of hatred but what is perceived as "old" if anything most | techbros and minimalist wannabes seem to hate nuclear. | | But if you stop watching the Simpsons and look at the data, you | will soon realize that renewables are not able to provide | enough reliable energy and this has been proved time after | time. | | nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > dollar spent on nuclear is a dollar that could have much more | effect invested in renewables instead. | | The real world is made of atoms and people, not dollars. To | illustrate: if starting tomorrow, every car produced was | electric, it would take 20 years to replace all the cars. Given | unlimited money, we could not convert all production of cars to | electric in 5 years. The earliest possible switch to all | electric cars is like 2050. | | We have limited capacity to produce batteries and renewables, | and a limited speed at which that production can be expanded. | | We also have existing manufacturing capacity for nuclear and | staff with skills to build / operate them, and it should be | used. It should not be wasted. | tomohawk wrote: | > ...Russians could sabotage nuclear reactors. They use such a | remote possibility as an argument against all nuclear, seemingly | forgetting that: Germany is surrounded by other | countries with nuclear power. Russian sabotage would | be an act of war. If Germany is at the point where | Russia is attacking its nuclear power plants, I sure hope it's | not in a position where it depends on Russian gas. | | This is a deeply unserious policy direction. | Retric wrote: | Russia recently attacked a nuclear power plant not that far | from Germany, which happened to survive without serious issue. | So, this isn't meaningless speculation even if you personally | don't view it as a major issue. | | In the end designing a nuclear power plant to survive shelling | might not mitigate that much risk, but it is something being | seriously considered in many circles. | _jal wrote: | This is pattern-matching taking the place of reasoning. | | Even if you don't, I promise you Putin understands the | difference between attacking a plant in Ukraine and attacking | one in Germany. | Retric wrote: | Assuming war will never happen is at best wishful thinking. | | At the point where people are attacking something in | Germany that line becomes meaningless. | _jal wrote: | You seem to be replying to something I didn't say. | | > At the point where people are attacking something in | Germany that line becomes meaningless. | | Exactly my point. I'm not saying desperation and ego | won't drive him (along with everyone else) into the | abyss, I'm saying he's savvy enough to know that right | now, that line is protecting him. | alfalfasprout wrote: | It's a moot point. Attacking a german nuclear plant = nukes | get shot back. And all out nuclear war. | Retric wrote: | Total war is less common than you might think. Ukraine for | example isn't a giant nuclear crater, yet they had a | nuclear power plant being shelled. Meanwhile Ukraine isn't | shelling Russian civilians. | | So it's quite possible for war between nuclear powers to | avoid that level of escalation. | JamesBarney wrote: | But Ukraine isn't a nuclear power. | | And there are no circumstances where you're better off | fighting an adversary that supplies all of your energy | than having your own nuclear reactors. | Retric wrote: | Moving the goalposts doesn't actually solve this issue. | | If you can't conceive of a situation that having a | nuclear power plant inside your country is dangerous you | simply don't know enough about them. Sabotage of a spent | fuel cooling pond could get really nasty. It's not the | kind of risk anyone is taking that seriously for reasons | I agree with, but it's definitely possible. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Just because one concieved a fantastic scenario doesn't | mean it should be taken seriously. There is no evidence | of such sabotage being ever attempted or planned - and | thats a serious problem for your argument because various | agencies have tried all kinds of shit from hypnosis to | investigating supernatural abilities during the cold war. | | There are more straight forward ways to cause damage. | | It is quite staight forward to poison food supply chain, | water supply, a dirty bomb is easy to make amd acessible | to many rogue states | | Why would Russia go through the trouble of infiltration | and covert ops of a well-secured and monitored | installation that is in the middle of nowhere and will d9 | minimal damage, if they have chemical weapons, | Bioweapons, can make dirty bombs and have nukes at their | disposal? | hutzlibu wrote: | The scenario above was, russia attacks a nuclear plant on | purpose, with the intention to destroy or damage it. | | What happened in the Ukraine lately was no such thing, it was | conquering a nuclear plant and the plant itself was not | damaged in the process. Still irresponsible and criminal, | (like the whole war) - but not the same as targeting a | nuclear plant, with the intention to destroy. | Retric wrote: | The power plant avoided _critical damage,_ but it was very | much harmed in the attack. | | As far as analysis goes you can't limit things to exactly | what happened. If attacking nuclear power plants is on the | table then a single miscommunication means someone is | attempting to destroy it. Even just destroying some water | pipes or some generators could lead to very serious issues. | Johnny555 wrote: | What happened in Ukraine doesn't really provide much | insight into what would happen in a war with Germany. | | If Russia bombed Ukrainian nuclear plants and sent a cloud | of radioactive fallout over Europe, that could be seen as a | direct attack against NATO and get them involved in the | war. So Russia has a big incentive to not attack nuclear | plants. | | But if Russia is already willing to attack a NATO country, | then it's not clear that they would shy away from bombing | nuclear plants, which would act as a distraction as Germany | devoted resources to stop the radioactive emissions. | cft wrote: | If Russia was willing to attack NATO, it would drop | actual nuclear bombs, that are way more lethal than | destruction of nuclear plants | Johnny555 wrote: | But that would almost certainly trigger nuclear | retaliation... if they drop conventional bombs on nuclear | plants, the retaliation level is is much less clear. | KptMarchewa wrote: | Yeah. They didn't even sabotage reactors in a country they are | currently in war with. | fabian2k wrote: | This is a purely legal argument in the original German report. | I don't understand the legal aspect here, what the report says | is that due to constitutional law an extension of the runtime | of the nuclear reactors would require a risk/benefit analysis. | And a higher chance of attacks or sabotage would increase the | risk here. | | The only thing the report says here is that this requires | risk/benefit analysis would need to take these factors into | account. | verisimi wrote: | Germany - the only country that still makes things in Europe | really - is making decisions to jeopardise its industry and place | in the world. It will surely end up as a basket case country if | it carries on like this! | ivan_gammel wrote: | What I read in this article is that German government did a | thorough analysis, but the author dismisses the conclusions of it | because the tolerated risk level there is too low and because | it's done by a minister from the Greens party. | | If this was written by an expert, that could make some sense, but | it is not. Nuclear plant is not a startup, where you can just | skip the QA part to release faster or put a not working cookie | banner for few months, because nobody really checks compliance. | You have to conduct safety tests, there should be enough staff | and replacement parts, fuel supply must be secured, waste | disposal must be planned in advance. Calling to accept risks of | not doing this properly is not exactly what German public | supports. The polls are tricky thing to do. If you ask certain | questions you will get whatever results you want. I'm sure it was | not explained to the public in the poll that they will have to | accept higher risks of nuclear disaster if reactors will be | allowed to operate. Everyone thinks that it is as safe as it was | in the past - no wonder majority would support it to help | Ukraine. | | The thing is, this majority also includes supporters of Greens | and the party itself is not the same as it was in 80s. Greens are | no longer unconditional pacifists and anti-nuclear hippies. They | are the biggest supporters of sending heavy weapons to Ukraine | now. They would extend nuclear if possible, because it advances | the more important agenda of reducing emissions and helps | Ukraine. They were ready to wait 20 years to phase out nuclear in | 2000s, and it wasn't Greens who accelerated shutdown after | Fukushima. It was pro-business CDU with Merkel as a head of the | government. This is why I would rather trust Habeck with his | report than some random guy from the Internet with a political | message. | hedora wrote: | You're repeating some of the excuses the article addresses. | | - The author says they studied nuclear in grad school, and are | probably therefore an expert. | | - They quantify the additional risk of meltdown due to delaying | new safety regulations. It's negligible compared to operating | plants according to the new regulations. | | - Their proposal would increase Germany's stockpile of nuclear | waste by 3%, which is surely within engineering tolerances, | ignoring the fact that the disposal facilities were planned | before they decided to prematurely close the plants. | | I don't see how it matters which political party made which | political decisions in the past. Conditions have changed. | xyzzy21 wrote: | Germany is write-off as a 1st world country already - they took | the gun, put it in their mouth and pulled the trigger all on | their own. | [deleted] | fabian2k wrote: | Shutting down the current reactors has been planned for a while, | and that is simply not a decision that is trivial to reverse. You | can disagree with that initial decision, but this does have | significant effects and if you are in the process of shutting | down everything it does get much more complicated to suddenly | reverse course. | | The article seems rather dismissive towards many real problems | like availability of nuclear fuel and personnel. The report also | clearly states that due to the lack of fuel the nuclear power | plants would only be able to supply additional power in late | 2023. And it does not mention at all one of the conclusions in | the report, that if it comes to a situation where the gas supply | from Russia is shut off Germany would compensate with coal power | plants. | merb wrote: | the article also doesnt mention france's gas consumption, which | was mostly about electricity, while german uses the gas 50:50 | (heat and electricity). basically nuclear won't replaces gas | and gas won't replace nuclear. | | if we want to discuss about electricity generation, coal is the | thing that germany could reduce with nuclear, but not gas. it's | always the same thing about these articles, blame germany for a | mistake (shutting down nuclear too early) but than just blame | it on the bad gas, which is basically needed for nuclear | operations anyway... | | and no german citizens won't replace their gas heating because | of the war, that will simply not happen (of course some people | do reduce gas heating but a lot of people just can't). | fabian2k wrote: | The sentence about simply replacing gas with heat pumps is | almost delusional. You can't just switch out the main heating | system for an entire country. Heat pumps require quite a lot | of conditions that simply are not met by many older | buildings. And even if that weren't an issue, there is still | the sheer scale of the problem. | mantenpanther wrote: | I went to school in Austria in the 80s/90s. The anti-nuclear | stance was a big part of education (I assume similar to Germany). | We had to read stories like Die Wolke (The Cloud) and were | terrified and somehow traumatized in a young age. We discussed | this stuff for hours. Also a final deposit site was planned in | the mountains in my area, so after Chernobyl there was a big | activism against it - thousands of people connecting the mountain | peaks in a long human chain (Menschenkette). The site was | abandoned. | | I do not want to take sides, for our prosperity as humans I tend | to agree that nuclear may be a big part of the solution. On the | other hand realistically almost no area is safe from disaster | (naturally, politically). Risk management is key here, you can | not assume that everything works out as planned. | michaelgrafl wrote: | I went to school in Austria in the 80s/90s, too. | | I remember reading "The Children of Schewenborn" in school and | being really disturbed by it. Pretty sure I wasn't alone in | that. | | Good times! | _Microft wrote: | The author was from the town of Schlitz which served as model | for Schewenborn. That town is in the Fulda Gap which would | have been defended by nuclear means in case of a soviet | invasion. Living with the idea of getting nuked/sacrificed by | own allies in case of war might have done things to her as | well. I don't blame her to be honest. | smsm42 wrote: | The arguments against turning back on the nuclear reactors in | Germany sound so fundamentally unserious that you are forced to | choose between "these people are paid by Russians" and "these | people have a phobia about nuclear energy and won't consider any | rational arguments". I'm not even talking of the moral position | of "we'd better sponsor a genocidal maniac to the tune of a | billion euros per week than temporary suffer a minor | inconvenience that may require some small investment and a bit of | work to solve". | [deleted] | zxspectrum1982 wrote: | The best moment to start building a nuclear plant was 10 years | ago. The next best moment is today. | galooomot wrote: | Nuclear waste anyone? Case closed. That alone should be reason | enough to sympathize with the german position. | andbberger wrote: | not to feed the troll but... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... | gostirig wrote: | Nuclear waste is, from my perspective, one of the most | discussed aspects of turning off nuclear power in germany. | It's a complicated matter, that sparked a lot of controversy | between german states. For example Bavaria doesn't want it in | their back yard, despite being geologically suited. This is | an active research field with many aspects. Unfortunately | this wikipedia-link-thing won't do. | choeger wrote: | Being anti-nuclear is deeply engrained in the DNA of Germany's | green party. Even more so than climate change. In fact, when the | anti-nuclear movement started, climate change wasn't even a | topic. | | In other words, the only thing that needs to happen is the German | green party to admit a mistake in fighting nuclear power harder | than fossile fuels... | omgwtfbyobbq wrote: | There have been concerns about the risks of flooding to nuclear | plants in Germany. | | https://energytransition.org/2013/06/german-nuclear-plants-f... | | Restarting nuclear isn't a bad idea, but it needs to be | approached systematically and cautiously such that the risks | from natural disasters and economic impacts are minimized, | while also weighing the risks of continuing to support Russia. | | Unfortunately, many plants across the world have not had | accurate risk assessments done, both for natural disasters and | economic risks. | mdavis6890 wrote: | Flawed logic. Closing the nuclear plants has very large, | real, tangible and undeniable costs. One cannot discuss the | cost of opening them while ignoring the costs of closing | them. | andbberger wrote: | > Restarting nuclear isn't a bad idea, but it needs to be | approached systematically and cautiously such that the risks | from natural disasters and economic impacts are minimized, | while also weighing the risks of continuing to support | Russia. | | smells like $$$ and more delays. nuclear is already by far | the safest method of power production, and emits far fewer | radionuclides than coal, and those numbers are the old | generation more dangerous pressurized water reactors. | | water's lapping at our feet | Retric wrote: | That's not completely accurate. | | Nuclear is less safe than grid solar, it slightly beats | rooftop solar because standing on roofs is dangerous and | most solar installs are new. | | Hydroelectric vs nuclear is tricky because large dams save | lives and by reducing flooding etc, and installing | hydroelectric when building a dam is much safer than | building the dam in the first place. Which makes | calculating the deaths from hydroelectric power tricky. Low | head dams on the other hand are dangerous, but are largely | abandoned technology. | daniel-cussen wrote: | > Nuclear is less safe than grid solar, it slightly beats | rooftop solar because standing on roofs is dangerous and | most solar installs are new. | | Yeah and making the solar panel, how green is that? | | I would like to add that they should bring in bouncy | castles around homes when installing solar panels, the | kids can play on them and primarily will definitely save | the installer from falling. You could also package them | together, like "Daddy daddy let's install solar panels" | and kids could play in different places in the | neighborhood that installed them one after another. | | And then you get a better image for the kids, plus you | get to lower down the "people falling off roofs" | statistic and make solar panel look even better. | andbberger wrote: | the source I was looking at contradicts that, but w/e. a | further consideration is that for solar/wind you have to | consider energy storage associated mortality as well but | I think that's besides the point. they're all on the | order of 0.1 deaths/TwH. the public perception is that | nuclear energy is dramatically more dangerous than other | methods of energy generation. data says, it isn't. | | there are a lot of reasons why dramatic expansion (of the | kind needed to take the edge off climate change) of hydro | power isn't feasible. for one most of the suitable sites | are already used. and the environmental impact is | substantial | avl999 wrote: | > Why Germany won't keep its nuclear plants open | | Because of dogma and stupidity ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-14 23:00 UTC)