[HN Gopher] Germany mulls extending nuclear plants' life-span
___________________________________________________________________
Germany mulls extending nuclear plants' life-span
Author : tosh
Score : 167 points
Date : 2022-02-27 21:36 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| fuoqi wrote:
| I guess, "greens" in the coalition will be really "happy" about
| that.
| urthor wrote:
| "Robert Habeck said"
|
| "It is part of my ministry's tasks to answer this question. I
| would not reject it on ideological grounds - but the preliminary
| examination has shown that it does not help us."
|
| "Because the preparations for the shutdowns are already so far
| advanced that the nuclear power plants could only continue to
| operate under the highest safety concerns and possibly with fuel
| supplies that have not yet been secured," Habeck said."
|
| Unexpectedly, I feel like I have to call fake news on Reuters for
| this.
|
| The headline looks _nothing_ like what the quotes in the body
| imply.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| tpush wrote:
| You mixed up the first quote I think:
|
| "It is part of my ministry's tasks to answer this question. I
| would not reject it on ideological grounds - but the
| preliminary examination has shown that it does not help us."
|
| But your point is absolutely true: Germany doesn't mull it at
| all.
| urthor wrote:
| Ah yes. I copied the same quote twice apologies.
| zx85wes wrote:
| Pretty smart ;-)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30426934#30427548
| jacquesm wrote:
| Not so simple though to restart the ones that are already down.
| aerosmile wrote:
| When Putin was first elected two decades ago, a lot of my
| Austrian friends correctly saw in him a threat to Europe. I don't
| buy it that the German government didn't know him better than the
| average citizen did. They are just trying to ride whichever wave
| presents itself at any given moment. In the days of the Fukushima
| crisis, being against nuclear would get you the most votes. In
| the days of the Ukraine crisis, being against gas would get you
| the most votes. While Germany is the one looking bad here, it's
| actually a structural problem of every democracy in the world.
|
| The other option is to put too much trust in the hands of
| dictators. Over the course of hundreds of years, that actually
| seems to work less well (eg: China - given their potential, they
| should have never had to play catch up). But every once in a
| while, there are a few decades where an individual comes along
| that plays all of their cards right and engages in a long game
| that vastly outperforms the 4-year back and forth circus of
| democracies.
|
| But I don't trust myself to reliably recruit a front desk
| colleague, let alone someone with nuclear codes. So democracies
| it is.
| RivieraKid wrote:
| Finally! I really hope this will happen.
| brazzy wrote:
| It will in fact most definitely not happen, as the article
| makes pretty clear.
|
| Not that it would be a good idea, at all.
| Ecko123 wrote:
| [deleted]
| NoPie wrote:
| This will be a big change in policy. I suspect that it is related
| to current war in Ukraine. Could be that finally Germany has seen
| the true face of Putin? I speculate but in relation to other big
| announcements today by the EU (providing fighter jets to Ukraine,
| promising Ukraine accession to the EU), it only makes sense.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| I don't get it. A nuclear accident halfway across the world and
| Germany decides to shut down. A war halfway across the continent
| and it decides to keep on?
|
| Both threats (nuclear accident and Putin's madness) have always
| existed.
|
| What changed? Did they suddenly discover Putin is not trustworthy
| to depend on for half of your energy supply?
| markdown wrote:
| In a democracy, you need public support for this sort of thing.
|
| The anti-nuclear movement has been behind the shutdowns. With
| Russia invading Ukraine, nuclear proponents might be able to
| sway public opinion in the opposite direction for once.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| This is like Brexit, the populous are too easily led away
| from reason when nuclear power is mentioned. I'm not sure
| what the solution is.
|
| People were freaking the F out in South Wales, UK, because
| sand from Sizewell development (near Bristol) was being
| dumped a mile offshore, sand with one or two banana-
| equivalent doses per tonne (IIRC). Like maybe if you spend
| every day at the beach eating sand then you might be able to
| cause yourself some harm but there's no beach in Cardiff, the
| sand is way offshore and UK needs more non-fossil baseline
| power sources.
|
| I think perhaps the public information giving preparedness
| guidance for nuclear war did a number on us in the 80s.
| Chernobyl didn't exactly help, mind you.
| [deleted]
| thelittleone wrote:
| I see sub $1m revenue businesses doing supply chain risk
| analysis. Surprised that a great nation such as Germany could
| justify 50% of it's energy coming from Russia.
| spockz wrote:
| What changed is that to move away from nuclear the dependency
| on Gas has increased. This alleviated the immediate stress
| levels generated from the nuclear disasters around the world.
| Then a more immediate threat popped up by Russia invading
| Ukraine. This makes the gas dependency a liability again. This
| makes the far away risk of something might go very wrong with
| nuclear palatable again compared to the gas is risky right now.
| olivermarks wrote:
| Large scale nuclear plants - whether alive or dead are
| important strategic and tactical elements in modern warfare
| https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/02/26/conflict-
| betwe...
|
| Small nuclear reactors are the answer imo. Russia has poured
| funding into opposing fracking for natural gas and
| encouraging european green initiatives arguably to increase
| their grip on euopean energy supplies
|
| https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14972531398371901.
| ..
|
| https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14972531398371901.
| ..
| christkv wrote:
| Never mind that they live right next door to the most active
| user of nuclear power in Europe France. So likelihood of a
| nuclear accident not affecting them is close to zero.
| steve_gh wrote:
| Not just right next door, but downwind
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| woodpanel wrote:
| nest0r wrote:
| I would love to see you functioning in real life if you are not
| able to reassess your decisions. People like you who see
| science and politics as absolutes must be helpless in a
| changing environment.
| joshe wrote:
| Here's better, more numerate coverage:
| https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1498005296299622408
|
| Also the whole thread covers other nuclear topics the press is a
| bit lost on. Remember, the number of nuclear engineers at reuters
| is 0.
| stdbrouw wrote:
| "As Energy Ministries across the EU become "ecology" Ministries
| led by people who don't even know the _units_ used to quantify
| energy, Finance Ministries become the adults."
|
| This is not more numerate coverage, it's semi-informed snark.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| "Weather: famously indifferent to German wartime needs."
|
| Ouch.
| [deleted]
| throwaway4good wrote:
| Surely a better idea than building LNG terminals.
| Traster wrote:
| I know this article isn't great, but is there anyone on HN who
| lives in Germany who could explain why there's such a scepticism
| of Nuclear power there? I'm from the UK and we have largely
| transitioned away from Nuclear for one clear reason - there was
| no political appetite to spend a tonne of money on an expensive
| form of energy that wasn't likely to pay off in the current
| parliamentary term. The german response to Nuclear seems to have
| been far more extreme though.
| BSVogler wrote:
| We still have not found a place to store the waste. No one
| wants to live near a reactor so there are not really any place
| to build them (NIMBY). It also turns out that it is quite
| expensive when considering all costs like dismantling and
| insurance. Germany also does not mine uranium any more since
| 2021, so needs to buy them from other countries so you will
| have again dependencies on other countries. And then there is
| the historical experience of Chernobyl.
| fsflover wrote:
| https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html
| okl wrote:
| Chernobyl disaster, fears stemming from nuclear weapons
| stationed in Germany, no viable solutions for waste disposal.
| Mostly that. Of course it's also not economically sensible if
| you factor in externalised costs. I'm also concerned about
| sloppy work and engineering, neglect and human mistake with
| catastrophic consequences. For example, there is one incident
| documentend where some idiotic fools drilled a hole into the
| containment to hang a fire extinguisher. [https://www.badische-
| zeitung.de/panne-in-leibstadt-arbeiter-...]
|
| However, if it would help to bring down the sick Putin regime
| in Russia I would support a limited extension.
|
| EDIT: Russian trolls be downvoting me. Idi nahui.
| quattrofan wrote:
| Reason077 wrote:
| > _" I'm from the UK and we have largely transitioned away from
| Nuclear"_
|
| While the UK's nuclear power capacity is well down on its 1990s
| peak, it's hardly correct to say the UK has "largely"
| transitioned away from nuclear. A major new nuclear plant
| (Hinkley Point C) is under construction, and two more (Sizewell
| C and Bradwell B) seem to still be moving ahead.
|
| If all three are completed, they would represent 8.6 GW of
| _new_ nuclear capacity, significantly more than the combined
| capacity of all UK nuclear power stations today!
| raymond_goo wrote:
| We still have mushrooms that radiate more than normal due to
| Chernobyl. Then we witnessed the Fukushima catastrophe from
| afar but with great shock. And we have no state who wants to
| store the nuclear waste. We believe the future is renewables
| and we invest heavily into it.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| The future is renewables but without storage (or fusion,
| which is realistically 40y out _if_ it works) then we're
| screwed and that's a couple of decades more development away.
| We need fission to bridge that gap or we're left relying on
| fossil fuels and missing our targets massively on GHG
| emissions (or we maintain Lockdown level restrictions .. and
| still have a short fall).
| rob74 wrote:
| From what I understand the current plan to store renewable
| energy is to convert it to hydrogen - this hydrogen can
| either be used to power vehicles, or in power plants
| (converted natural gas power plants or plants that have
| been designed from the outset to operate flexibly with
| hydrogen or natural gas)
| wongarsu wrote:
| It's not like there are no options for storage, pumped
| hydrostorage works well in Germany, and building pumped
| storage plus solar makes more financial sense than fission.
| Nuclear plants just take too long to plan and build, and
| are extremely expensive to build and tear down.
| k__ wrote:
| After the Fukushima catastrophe, it was clear that the unknown
| unknows are worse than anticipated.
|
| Sad thing is, Germany should have pumped a whole lotta more
| money into renewables and their research.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| We sat on our arses too long and essentially our skills for
| producing nuclear faded away and now we need to rely on Japan
| and France if we want nuclear but it seems like we're out of
| the loop. I thought w had a couple of new nuclear facilities in
| progress, Sizewell C [0] and somewhere else (and plans are
| afoot for an experimental fusion reactor which is the most
| forward thinking I've seen in the UK in a decade so perhaps
| that's being driven by EDF? [as well??]).
|
| [0] https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-
| projects/...
| guerrilla wrote:
| Who stands to profit the most from decommissioning them all? I
| mean besides Schroder and Russia.
| knbknb wrote:
| Off the top of my head :
|
| German multinationals (in the energy sector such as Siemens,
| Wintershall) have removed it from their strategies because
| Nuclear technologies inefficient and bear a lot of risks. New
| reactor types don't work as promised.
|
| Government does not want Nuclear Energy because it needs
| enormous amounts of subsidies, and still there are regular cost
| overruns just as enormous. And Consortias still demand price
| guarantees. Worldwide the number of operational reactors is
| decreasing anyway. Nuclear reactors need a lot of protection
| (physical security) . Instead a decentralised infrastructure is
| envisioned.
|
| The German general public does not want nuclear waste, and not
| even nuclear transports across the country. It's a form of
| NIMBYism, but the point is valid.
|
| The German anti-nuclear movement is very old, covers 2-3
| generations.
|
| Germany is densely populated and the prospect of entire
| countries becoming inhabitable after a single disaster of a
| nuclear power plant is feared and despised by many people.
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| It's associated with waste that no one wants and nuclear
| weapons that no one wants either.
|
| Germany had a SPD/Greens coalition. They decided to not renew
| the contracts with the nuclear power plants and phase them out
| (afaik they are allowed to run 25 years, then they need to
| renew that, sorry missing some vocubaulry here). The next
| government was CDU/FDP (Merkel 1), who decided to renew the
| contracts again and cancel the rpior government phase out
| plans. Couple of weeks later Fukushima happened. Merkel stood
| in front of parliament and said: "On a day like today, we can
| not say that nuclear power plants are safe. They are safe."
| That is a direct quote of her speech. In the de speech she
| annoinced that Germany will stop using nuclear power.
|
| Because they had just signed the renewed contracts, the power
| plant companies sued Germany for the lost profit. Funnily
| enough, when Merkel decided to renew the contracts, they also
| introduced a tax on nuclear fuel, however the law had mistakes
| which made it unconstitutional and Germany had to pay back the
| taxes.
|
| I still to this day believe that Schauble messed up the law on
| purpose. It happened back during the economic crisis, when
| there were spending cuts on normal people stuff, and this tax
| was a part of the media circus of "the big corps also have to
| do their part". That first part is 100% fact, this last part is
| just my pet conspiracy theory tough :D
| novok wrote:
| Why would germany worry about making nukes themselves
| although?
| lm28469 wrote:
| Yeah, nothing to do with russian gas, dirty money and
| lobbyists....
|
| https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-former-chancellor-gerhard-
| sch...
|
| https://www.politico.eu/article/outrage-germany-ex-
| chancello...
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| I retold the history, not the motivations.
|
| Also, Schroder and Merkel are from different parties, so
| it's hard to see how Schroders corruption influenced
| Merkel.
| rob74 wrote:
| Small correction: the CDU/FDP government was the second
| Merkel cabinet (of four), and the only one where the FDP was
| involved. In fact it was so "successful" that at the next
| elections the FDP fell below the 5% threshold and wasn't
| represented in the Bundestag for the next four years.
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| Thanks for the correction.
| maxhille wrote:
| German here, but I'll be a bit lazy and refer to
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany . I
| quickly skimmed over it and I think it touches the history
| well.
|
| From my personal perspective, I can definitely relate being
| nuclear skeptic due to Chernobyl (I was 7 years old at the
| time) and basically constant demonstrations/problems with the
| end storage facility subject - for as long as I remember.
|
| Also, at least in my memory around ~2000 it became clear that
| nuclear was not economically viable vs going green and that was
| also when the Atomausstieg was sealed by the new Schroder
| government which had the Greens in the coalition.
|
| Merkel (conservative) wanted to prolong the run times but when
| Fukushima happened all those plans quickly turned over.
|
| Happy to answer any questions about it.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| So how did plans to import natural gas via NS1/NS2 fit into
| these plans?
| MobiusHorizons wrote:
| My understanding was that Natural gas in Europe is used for
| house heat, and industrial processes that have never been
| electrified. I was not aware of using it (at a wide scale)
| for electricity generation. (definitely not an expert
| though)
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > Also, at least in my memory around ~2000 it became clear
| that nuclear was not economically viable vs going green and
| that was also when the Atomausstieg was sealed by the new
| Schroder government which had the Greens in the coalition.
|
| And yet, Germany has twice the emissions of France because it
| relies heavily on gas and coal. Very sad to see that global
| warming is considered more economically viable than nuclear
| energy.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > Also, at least in my memory around ~2000 it became clear
| that nuclear was not economically viable vs going green
|
| That would be surprising. I would have said that renewables
| (without comparing massively subsidised and unproven
| renewables costs with unsubsidised and well understood
| practical nuclear costs) would only be relatively recently
| even in the same ballpark as nuclear. And even then, only
| when the sun's shining/wind's blowing.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-27 23:00 UTC)