[HN Gopher] Germany Rejected Nuclear Power-and Deadly Emissions ...
___________________________________________________________________
Germany Rejected Nuclear Power-and Deadly Emissions Spiked
Author : spamalot159
Score : 23 points
Date : 2021-05-09 16:30 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| domano wrote:
| Since the HN crowd is really pro-nuclear and in my bubble nobody
| is maybe somebody could explain how to handle nuclear waste and
| if modern reators are really as safe as it is often portraied in
| the comments here.
|
| Even modern reactors would produce radioactive waste, right? In
| germany we don't have any place that is safe enough for long term
| storage.
|
| How can this be handled? Would really like to change my mind
| regarding nuclear power, since it would solve the transitional
| phase towards renewables.
|
| Also: Quite regurarily cracks are found in the reactors in
| germany and other countries. Other smaller things happen all the
| time too. Are modern reactors failsafe? I
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Interesting to see what happened after the 2011 - 2017 timeframe
| the study looked at:
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electr...
|
| Coal sucks, and they probably could have got rid of it faster,
| but they still seem on a good path and the story is similar
| worldwide.
|
| edit: even in the 2011-2017 timeframe they added more renewables
| than nuclear lost, so it seems odd that emissions would spike,
| unless there was either a big shift in the coal/gas/import mix,
| or just a general rise in demand.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| And deaths also spiked, although they're so diffuse only the
| statisticians will pay attention.
|
| Nuke is clearly safer than any fossil fuel source by a *wide*
| margin. By some arguments utility-scale solar is safer than nuke
| --but only if by some miracle you can get virtually all your
| power from solar. We don't have the storage technology for that
| and if you have to run the natural gas plant when the sun doesn't
| shine you put nuke way in the lead for safety.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > Nuke is clearly safer than any fossil fuel source by a _wide_
| margin.
|
| Not financially.
|
| > A nuclear power plant takes roughly 10 years and at least 2-3
| billion dollars to build.
|
| And probably even more time and money to decommission, which
| shareholders have no intention of paying, and banks won't fund.
|
| And when there's an accident, the US govt. limited compensation
| to peanuts:
|
| https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/n...
|
| Remember that Chernobyl was partially responsible for
| destabilizing an empire.
| anoncake wrote:
| > Nuke is clearly safer than any fossil fuel source by a _wide_
| margin.
|
| Only if you 1. only take deaths into account and 2. redefine
| danger to include predictable damage.
| anoncake wrote:
| Another article that neglects to mention that we had already
| decided to quit nuclear in 2002. But the corrupt government we
| had in 2010 reverted that.
|
| I'd also like to know what emissions spiked, considering our
| nuclear policies ultimately didn't change in 2010/2011.
| merb wrote:
| not sure why you are downvoted. you basically said nothing
| wrong the article is plain fud.
|
| as if germanies' co2 emission alone did make our world wide
| temperature rise so bad. the study/article also dismisses so
| much things. like that we have basically no end storage, that
| nuclear was already dead in germany and that the plants all
| were mostly over their end of lifetime anyway (but the
| governement raised it over and over), such a stupid
| study/article.
| tonyjstark wrote:
| Additionally the government started to reduce subsidizing for
| renewable energy which ruined a lot of very high tech and
| innovative companies in the solar power field. Further the
| government made it harder to install wind turbines in the
| countryside. All while still pumping money in coal.
| javagram wrote:
| " as if germanies' co2 emission alone did make our world wide
| temperature rise so bad"
|
| This nicely demonstrates how CO2 emissions is a collective
| action problem between all the world's countries.
|
| Any one country, even the #1 emitter the USA, giving up on
| fossil fuels isn't enough to stop changing the climate via
| CO2 emission.
|
| So each country can claim that its failure to build nuclear
| or to replace all fossil fuels with renewable and battery
| storage isn't a big deal.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| The #1 emitter is China, not the US.
| domano wrote:
| Per head USA is first, in absolute terms china is.
| drannex wrote:
| Nuclear is the only way to reduce our carbon emissions in both
| the short term and long term, and the best way to produce energy
| per unit than any other energy source.
|
| When you remove nuclear from existing supply, you increase your
| dependence on fossil fuels. Renewables are not able to produce
| enough energy to cover the absense of nuclear, perhaps in the
| future, but not with our current engineering.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-09 23:02 UTC)