12 ms·

> The Greens have not been in government for the last sixteen years. While this is true, they have always been in favour of shutting down nuclear power plants

> The Greens have not been in government for the last sixteen years. While this is true, they have always been in favour of shutting down nuclear power plants and now they would have the opportunity to reverse this course, but they don't. The Greens have been founded as an anti-nuclear party. In the 80s, they even demanded to replace nuclear power with coal (https://twitter.com/MoormannRainer/status/1435297744487338015 https://twitter.com/MoormannRainer/status/143529774448733801...). Shutting down nuclear power plants is obviously more important to them than the climate. > and just look at France just how catastrophic nuclear power actually is. What's so catastrophic about France? Despite all the troubles they currently have, their CO2 emissions per kW are still a fraction of Germany's.

mschuster91 4y ago
> While this is true, they have always been in favour of shutting down nuclear power plants and now they would have the opportunity to reverse this course, but they don't. Because nuclear does not make sense. The financial risk of accidents at a Fukushima or Chernobyl scale is too high (as no insurer will take on that risk, the taxpayers will have to pay for it, and as the Ukraine invasion and the fighting around Chernobyl shows, disaster plants are a danger for decades!), a lot of the uranium comes from questionable sources (Russia and Khazakhstan [1]), and Europe does not have permanent storage solutions for the nuclear waste [2]. Renewable energies already make up 41% of our electricity generation, it could be 100%. > What's so catastrophic about France? Despite all the troubles they currently have, their CO2 emissions per kW are still a fraction of Germany's. For the sake of not spamming around the same text, I consolidated the list of issues here in a sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32605337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32605337 As for the CO2 emissions: yeah because the CO2 everyone else in Europe generates to compensate their nuclear issues is not counted in their CO2 budget but ours. [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uranium-comes-from.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uraniu... [2] https://www.br.de/nachrichten/wissen/atommuell-die-suche-nach-einem-endlager-in-anderen-laendern,SBbRStO https://www.br.de/nachrichten/wissen/atommuell-die-suche-nac...
- tjansen 4y ago
  > Because nuclear does not make sense. Assuming your three points would be solved, would you be in favour of nuclear power plants? Or what exactly would need to change?
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    I would of course not be in favor of nuclear power. A new nuclear plant takes well over a decade to build - it makes way more economical sense to build renewable power plants because they can be ready far faster and pose less danger and waste to our children.
    - tjansen 4y ago
      > I would of course not be in favor of nuclear power. Ok, let's say I could convince you that it is possible to store nuclear waste safely, and show you that building up wind power takes at least as long. Could I convince you then?
      - mschuster91 4y ago
        No, because of the financial risks involved in constructing, operating and getting rid of them. The costs associated with Fukushima are estimated to be at least 200 billion dollars [1], Chernobyl 235 billion dollars [2]. Even leaving out disaster scenarios: A modern EPR nuclear power plant is at ~1.6 GW [3] at a cost of 11 billion euros, taking a decade or more to build, and about a billion dollars to tear down [4]. A wind park half the size costs two billion dollars in two to five years [5], has less risks in construction, no risk at all of a catastrophic failure, and assuming 80€/kWh in teardown costs [6] 16 million € for the teardown. That means wind power at a capacity factor of 0.4-0.5 [7] (meaning, you need two of them to achieve the same available capacity to the grid on average) is half as expensive as a nuclear power plant even when ignoring the efficiencies that building at scale brings with it and has virtually no risks attached. Financially, it's absolute irresponsibility to go nuclear. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK253929/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK253929/ [2] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/chernobyl-disaster https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/chernobyl... [3] https://taz.de/Finnischer-Reaktor-geht-ans-Netz/!5829751/ https://taz.de/Finnischer-Reaktor-geht-ans-Netz/!5829751/ [4] https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/energie/energiewende-die-kosten-sind-immens/8801768-4.html https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/energie/energiewend... [5] https://renewablesnow.com/news/construction-starts-on-800-mw-vineyard-wind-762018/ https://renewablesnow.com/news/construction-starts-on-800-mw... [6] https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Parlamentarische-Anfragen/2018/19-3619.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4 https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Parlamentarische-Anfragen/2... [7] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volllaststunde https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volllaststunde

mschuster91 4y ago

> While this is true, they have always been in favour of shutting down nuclear power plants and now they would have the opportunity to reverse this course, but they don't. Because nuclear does not make sense. The financial risk of accidents at a Fukushima or Chernobyl scale is too high (as no insurer will take on that risk, the taxpayers will have to pay for it, and as the Ukraine invasion and the fighting around Chernobyl shows, disaster plants are a danger for decades!), a lot of the uranium comes from questionable sources (Russia and Khazakhstan [1]), and Europe does not have permanent storage solutions for the nuclear waste [2]. Renewable energies already make up 41% of our electricity generation, it could be 100%. > What's so catastrophic about France? Despite all the troubles they currently have, their CO2 emissions per kW are still a fraction of Germany's. For the sake of not spamming around the same text, I consolidated the list of issues here in a sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32605337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32605337 As for the CO2 emissions: yeah because the CO2 everyone else in Europe generates to compensate their nuclear issues is not counted in their CO2 budget but ours. [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uranium-comes-from.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uraniu... [2] https://www.br.de/nachrichten/wissen/atommuell-die-suche-nach-einem-endlager-in-anderen-laendern,SBbRStO https://www.br.de/nachrichten/wissen/atommuell-die-suche-nac...

tjansen 4y ago
> Because nuclear does not make sense. Assuming your three points would be solved, would you be in favour of nuclear power plants? Or what exactly would need to change?
- mschuster91 4y ago
  I would of course not be in favor of nuclear power. A new nuclear plant takes well over a decade to build - it makes way more economical sense to build renewable power plants because they can be ready far faster and pose less danger and waste to our children.
  - tjansen 4y ago
    > I would of course not be in favor of nuclear power. Ok, let's say I could convince you that it is possible to store nuclear waste safely, and show you that building up wind power takes at least as long. Could I convince you then?
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      No, because of the financial risks involved in constructing, operating and getting rid of them. The costs associated with Fukushima are estimated to be at least 200 billion dollars [1], Chernobyl 235 billion dollars [2]. Even leaving out disaster scenarios: A modern EPR nuclear power plant is at ~1.6 GW [3] at a cost of 11 billion euros, taking a decade or more to build, and about a billion dollars to tear down [4]. A wind park half the size costs two billion dollars in two to five years [5], has less risks in construction, no risk at all of a catastrophic failure, and assuming 80€/kWh in teardown costs [6] 16 million € for the teardown. That means wind power at a capacity factor of 0.4-0.5 [7] (meaning, you need two of them to achieve the same available capacity to the grid on average) is half as expensive as a nuclear power plant even when ignoring the efficiencies that building at scale brings with it and has virtually no risks attached. Financially, it's absolute irresponsibility to go nuclear. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK253929/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK253929/ [2] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/chernobyl-disaster https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/chernobyl... [3] https://taz.de/Finnischer-Reaktor-geht-ans-Netz/!5829751/ https://taz.de/Finnischer-Reaktor-geht-ans-Netz/!5829751/ [4] https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/energie/energiewende-die-kosten-sind-immens/8801768-4.html https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/energie/energiewend... [5] https://renewablesnow.com/news/construction-starts-on-800-mw-vineyard-wind-762018/ https://renewablesnow.com/news/construction-starts-on-800-mw... [6] https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Parlamentarische-Anfragen/2018/19-3619.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4 https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Parlamentarische-Anfragen/2... [7] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volllaststunde https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volllaststunde