[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)