6 ms·

Why would they phase out nuclear before coal??

by aianus 10y ago

rhino369 10y ago
The Fukushima scare. Germany decided to go nuclear free afterward.
- aianus 10y ago
  That's very short-sighted and reactionary. Shame on them. What about the every-other-day Beijing/Shanghai smog scare?
  - thescriptkiddie 10y ago
    And what about the 20,000 people killed in coal mining accidents every year[0]? What about the 130 million tonnes[1] of radioactive waste[2] produced by coal plants annually? Why are we still building a new coal power plant every other week[3]? [0]http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595235,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595235... [1]https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics [2]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r... [3]http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/as-u-s-shutters-coal-plants-china-and-japan-are-building-them/ http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/as-u-s-shutte...
  - jj89 10y ago
    Welcome to germany, land of the green and people who consider their morality to be superior. We spend $25bn/year to produce 1% of our energy usage by renewables. We shut down our mostly modern atom reactors to burn more coal. We now spend ~30 dollar cent per kilowatt hour to have much dirtier energy than most of the rest of europe. We pay money to our neighbours so they take away our surplus of energy at peaks and push the energy distribution to the limits which results in instabilities. Newbuild house prices have increased by 40% in the last ten years just because of the extremely high energy standards home builders have to adhere too (insulation, stupid energy exchangers et. al) And all the while we are the only sane people in our own eyes.
    - akiselev 10y ago
      > We spend $25bn/year to produce 1% of our energy usage by renewables. We shut down our mostly modern atom reactors to burn more coal. We now spend ~30 dollar cent per kilowatt hour to have much dirtier energy than most of the rest of europe. This is so wrong I don't know if you're pushing some sort of agenda or just trolling. Read the facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
    - morsch 10y ago
      We spend $25bn/year to produce 1% of our energy usage by renewables. In 2015, the total power generation in Germany was 559 TWh. Renewables amount to about 121 TWh, i.e. about 22%. [0] Newbuild house prices have increased by 40% in the last ten years That sounds like a lot. From what I can find, construction prices have increased by about 20% since 2005 -- that goes for virtually all kinds of construction, including road construction[1][2]. Must be all the heat exchangers in those new roads... I'm not sure if that figure is corrected for overall inflation, it doesn't appear to be (cumulative inflation in Germany since 2005 is about 15%[3]). [0] https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_de.htm https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_de.htm [1] https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Preise/Baupreise/BauwirtschaftPreise2170400163214.pdf https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Preise/B... [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baupreisindex#/media/File:Baupreisindex_Deutschland_2001_2012a.png https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baupreisindex#/media/File:Baup... [3] http://www.zinsen-berechnen.de/inflationsrechner.php http://www.zinsen-berechnen.de/inflationsrechner.php
      - jj89 10y ago
        Yeah you get nice numbers if you ignore the total energy usage. The numbers you gave are only one fifth of Germanys total energy consumption. I was off by 2% though, 3% is covered by renewables. We are not only talking electric, but total energy: heat, oil etc. http://m.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article156130737/Energiewende-Das-Schlimmste-steht-uns-noch-bevor.html http://m.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article156130737/Energie...
        10y ago
- janfoeh 10y ago
  While they doubled down on phasing out nuclear after that, initially Germany's exit was decided upon in '98. It was a, if not the major topic in the first federal election I was allowed to vote in.
- spangry 10y ago
  I really hate how irrational green groups are on nuclear power generation. And how much the media stokes irrational fears about nuke plants. There were no deaths directly attributable to radiation exposure (although 300 Tepco workers were exposed to above lifetime legal limit radiation). WHO estimated life time risk of thyroid cancer for infants in the immediate area increased by 0.5 per cent, relying on the linear no threshold hypothesis (an untested hypothesis that the UN has recently backed away from). More generally, the IPCC calculated nuclear fission to be the second safest form of power generation in human morbidity and mortality terms end to end, mining to waste disposal (the first being hydro electric). The stupidity of the German decision makes me want to scream.
  - whyever 10y ago
    While Fukushima did not claim lifes, it made a huge area uninhabitable. The public has to suffer the damages, not the company that profited from the plant.
    - douche 10y ago
      Last time I checked, Germany has infinitesimally small chances of being struck by tsunamis.
      - patall 10y ago
        Tsunamis yes. But unfortunatly, quite a few studies have proven that the german nuclear reactors are susceptible to earth quakes, terrorists and floods. With almost no precautions taken, the big energy companies have noone to blame but themself.
      - kuschku 10y ago
        Yet, a nuclear plant, at a river that frequently floods in autumn, with not-working emergency generators, is in quite a risky position, don’t you think? It’s about the same risky position Fukushima was in. And most German plants are like that. Then add the fact that German inspections are a corrupt business regarding nuclear plants, and that the nuclear waste storage was a huge disaster polluting tap water for a large area, and you can see where the problems come from.
th0br0 10y ago
Because we have got a serious issue with finding long-term storage solutions for nuclear waste. And past commission(s) on solving this issue have often ended in a rather public and politically bad fiasco.
- astrodust 10y ago
  The long term storage of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't a problem?
- spangry 10y ago
  Not really. France generates about 70 per cent of their power from nuclear and don't seem to have many problems. For really inefficient solid fission, waste disposal basically consist of digging a swimming pool in a techtonically stable area, throwing in the spent rods, and filing it with concrete. Heck, as long as it was properly guarded, you could store the waste in my backyard shed without any health issues arising.
  - thesumofall 10y ago
    And who ensures that it stays there for the next centuries?
    - warfangle 10y ago
      Who says we won't figure out how to reprocess it and safely burn the fissile waste in the next centuries? :)
    - spangry 10y ago
      I doubt it would stay there for even the next few decades. As crazy as it sounds, I imagine at some point it would become cheap enough to launch into space or in to the sun. I mean, it wouldn't make economic sense. But at some point it would be worth the cost if only so that we don't have to listen to the irrational and ignorant braying of the so called 'green movement'. They're like the kids in high school who decided they were avowed communists, except now all grown up.
    - 10y ago

Why would they phase out nuclear before coal??

by aianus 10y ago

Why would they phase out nuclear before coal??

rhino369 10y ago

The Fukushima scare. Germany decided to go nuclear free afterward.

aianus 10y ago
That's very short-sighted and reactionary. Shame on them. What about the every-other-day Beijing/Shanghai smog scare?
- thescriptkiddie 10y ago
  And what about the 20,000 people killed in coal mining accidents every year[0]? What about the 130 million tonnes[1] of radioactive waste[2] produced by coal plants annually? Why are we still building a new coal power plant every other week[3]? [0]http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595235,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595235... [1]https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics [2]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r... [3]http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/as-u-s-shutters-coal-plants-china-and-japan-are-building-them/ http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/as-u-s-shutte...
- jj89 10y ago
  Welcome to germany, land of the green and people who consider their morality to be superior. We spend $25bn/year to produce 1% of our energy usage by renewables. We shut down our mostly modern atom reactors to burn more coal. We now spend ~30 dollar cent per kilowatt hour to have much dirtier energy than most of the rest of europe. We pay money to our neighbours so they take away our surplus of energy at peaks and push the energy distribution to the limits which results in instabilities. Newbuild house prices have increased by 40% in the last ten years just because of the extremely high energy standards home builders have to adhere too (insulation, stupid energy exchangers et. al) And all the while we are the only sane people in our own eyes.
  - akiselev 10y ago
    > We spend $25bn/year to produce 1% of our energy usage by renewables. We shut down our mostly modern atom reactors to burn more coal. We now spend ~30 dollar cent per kilowatt hour to have much dirtier energy than most of the rest of europe. This is so wrong I don't know if you're pushing some sort of agenda or just trolling. Read the facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
  - morsch 10y ago
    We spend $25bn/year to produce 1% of our energy usage by renewables. In 2015, the total power generation in Germany was 559 TWh. Renewables amount to about 121 TWh, i.e. about 22%. [0] Newbuild house prices have increased by 40% in the last ten years That sounds like a lot. From what I can find, construction prices have increased by about 20% since 2005 -- that goes for virtually all kinds of construction, including road construction[1][2]. Must be all the heat exchangers in those new roads... I'm not sure if that figure is corrected for overall inflation, it doesn't appear to be (cumulative inflation in Germany since 2005 is about 15%[3]). [0] https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_de.htm https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_de.htm [1] https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Preise/Baupreise/BauwirtschaftPreise2170400163214.pdf https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Preise/B... [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baupreisindex#/media/File:Baupreisindex_Deutschland_2001_2012a.png https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baupreisindex#/media/File:Baup... [3] http://www.zinsen-berechnen.de/inflationsrechner.php http://www.zinsen-berechnen.de/inflationsrechner.php
    - jj89 10y ago
      Yeah you get nice numbers if you ignore the total energy usage. The numbers you gave are only one fifth of Germanys total energy consumption. I was off by 2% though, 3% is covered by renewables. We are not only talking electric, but total energy: heat, oil etc. http://m.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article156130737/Energiewende-Das-Schlimmste-steht-uns-noch-bevor.html http://m.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article156130737/Energie...
      - 10y ago
janfoeh 10y ago
While they doubled down on phasing out nuclear after that, initially Germany's exit was decided upon in '98. It was a, if not the major topic in the first federal election I was allowed to vote in.
spangry 10y ago
I really hate how irrational green groups are on nuclear power generation. And how much the media stokes irrational fears about nuke plants. There were no deaths directly attributable to radiation exposure (although 300 Tepco workers were exposed to above lifetime legal limit radiation). WHO estimated life time risk of thyroid cancer for infants in the immediate area increased by 0.5 per cent, relying on the linear no threshold hypothesis (an untested hypothesis that the UN has recently backed away from). More generally, the IPCC calculated nuclear fission to be the second safest form of power generation in human morbidity and mortality terms end to end, mining to waste disposal (the first being hydro electric). The stupidity of the German decision makes me want to scream.
- whyever 10y ago
  While Fukushima did not claim lifes, it made a huge area uninhabitable. The public has to suffer the damages, not the company that profited from the plant.
  - douche 10y ago
    Last time I checked, Germany has infinitesimally small chances of being struck by tsunamis.
    - patall 10y ago
      Tsunamis yes. But unfortunatly, quite a few studies have proven that the german nuclear reactors are susceptible to earth quakes, terrorists and floods. With almost no precautions taken, the big energy companies have noone to blame but themself.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      Yet, a nuclear plant, at a river that frequently floods in autumn, with not-working emergency generators, is in quite a risky position, don’t you think? It’s about the same risky position Fukushima was in. And most German plants are like that. Then add the fact that German inspections are a corrupt business regarding nuclear plants, and that the nuclear waste storage was a huge disaster polluting tap water for a large area, and you can see where the problems come from.

th0br0 10y ago

Because we have got a serious issue with finding long-term storage solutions for nuclear waste. And past commission(s) on solving this issue have often ended in a rather public and politically bad fiasco.

astrodust 10y ago
The long term storage of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't a problem?
spangry 10y ago
Not really. France generates about 70 per cent of their power from nuclear and don't seem to have many problems. For really inefficient solid fission, waste disposal basically consist of digging a swimming pool in a techtonically stable area, throwing in the spent rods, and filing it with concrete. Heck, as long as it was properly guarded, you could store the waste in my backyard shed without any health issues arising.
- thesumofall 10y ago
  And who ensures that it stays there for the next centuries?
  - warfangle 10y ago
    Who says we won't figure out how to reprocess it and safely burn the fissile waste in the next centuries? :)
  - spangry 10y ago
    I doubt it would stay there for even the next few decades. As crazy as it sounds, I imagine at some point it would become cheap enough to launch into space or in to the sun. I mean, it wouldn't make economic sense. But at some point it would be worth the cost if only so that we don't have to listen to the irrational and ignorant braying of the so called 'green movement'. They're like the kids in high school who decided they were avowed communists, except now all grown up.
  - 10y ago