4 ms·

They werent that many to begin with they growing increasingly expensive to run, were coming to the end of their lifespan and Fukushima was a risk that was hard

by pydry 4y ago

They werent that many to begin with they growing increasingly expensive to run, were coming to the end of their lifespan and Fukushima was a risk that was hard to ignore. It's interesting how Poland's electricity mix has been 80% coal for decades and this passes without comment, but what really enrages some people is a few nuclear power plants in Germany being mostly swapped out with solar and wind energy. Doesnt seem like environmentalism is really the core issue driving this.

reducesuffering 4y ago
Poland's coal use is also a huge problem. However, they don't receive as much comment because Germany is richer, so more able to afford cleaner energy sources, and Poland wasn't ignorant and short-sighted about using Russian natural gas.
- cbmuser 4y ago
  Poland is actually going to build nuclear power plants soon. In ten years, Poland‘s electricity mix will be much cleaner than Germany‘s.
  - robocat 4y ago
    EXPORTS In 2021, Poland exported $926M in Electricity. The main destination of Electricity exports from Poland are: Lithuania ($430M), Slovakia ($388M), Czechia ($56.5M), Germany ($28.8M), and Sweden ($23M). IMPORTS In 2021, Poland imported $1.45B in Electricity. Poland imports Electricity primarily from: Germany ($911M), Sweden ($299M), Lithuania ($131M), Ukraine ($63.4M), and Czechia ($43.5M).
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      A lot of Russian gas went straight to the gas turbines of electricity generating plants, which considerably skews these figures.
cbmuser 4y ago
> They werent that many to begin with they growing increasingly expensive to run, were coming to the end of their lifespan and Fukushima was a risk that was hard to ignore. That’s simply untrue. Nuclear reactors are permanently maintained and improved, especially in Germany because of §19a Atomgesetz. Nuclear power plants can run 60 years and longer. The nuclear reactor in Beznau went first online 1969 and it’s still operational. The reactors Germany is shutting down now went online in 1988 and 1989. See also: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-re...
- crote 4y ago
  Of course you can. Just like you can drive a car for a million miles. Those reactors were never designed to operate this long. As time goes on, you'll run into increasingly rare failures which weren't even considered during their design. Getting replacement parts is going to become increasingly difficult, as you're now looking for a replacement for a one-off part which was created decades ago by a company which doesn't even exist anymore. And you're missing out on six decades of innovation - including safety improvements. Running reactors well beyond their original design lifespan is irresponsible. We are already seeing this in practice in France: in 2022 28 out of 56 reactors were offline due to technical issues or maintenance. 2023 saw a repeat of this, with 32 out of 56 offline at the same time. If you want a stable supply of power using nuclear reactors, you're going to have to build new ones sooner rather than later.
  - cultureswitch 4y ago
    If you close down the old ones before building new ones, you choke the industry. Most of our nuclear energy experts are already 50+. New generations are told that the industry is shrinking (unless you move to the forward-thinking PRC). Also, it's better to be down for maintenance even for small issues than to play fast and loose. Nuclear safety regulations and agencies are generally well respected, and those frequent maintenance downtimes are a sign of that.
    - 4y ago
belorn 4y ago
People generally present Germany strategy as a major role model for the best and most effective way to combat climate change. As such this strategy raises a lot of criticism when they start to burn coal. If people were presenting Poland as the model for environmentalism then that strategy would likely raise even harsher criticism.
- pydry 4y ago
  >As such this strategy raises a lot of criticism when they start to burn coal. Except they didnt. Unlike Poland they reduced the amount of coal they used by rather a lot. While US media is extremely critical of Germany for "not reducing its use of coal fast enough" it is apparently entirely unbothered by Poland not reducing it at all. This is the American media feigning environmental concern because Germany was less obedient than Poland in following American foreign policy goals.
nonethewiser 4y ago
> It's interesting how Poland's electricity mix has been 80% coal for decades and this passes without comment Well to be fair, this comment chain was explicitly about Germany. There are lots of bad energy policies.
- pydry 4y ago
  Kind of my point. Germany's energy policy has gotten a disproportionate amount of attention and criticism in the US media for "not reducing its coal usage fast enough" for about a decade and this filters through to hacker news which discusses Germany's electricity system a lot and Poland's almost not at all.
amadeuspagel 4y ago
> They werent that many to begin with they growing increasingly expensive to run, were coming to the end of their lifespan and Fukushima was a risk that was hard to ignore. Not for Japan[1]. The truth is that after Fukushima, the pro-nuclear parties lost a few state elections, which caused them to panic and give up on nuclear. Today, even Japan is over it, but in germany no one wants to admit that mistake. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Post-Fukushima_nuclear_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Post-Fu...
- pydry 4y ago
  Japan isnt really over it but theyve become increasingly focused on nuclear weapons potential after North Korea got nukes and started lobbing missiles over their heads. Their trust in the US nuclear umbrella isnt unlimited. It's the same reason Iran, Sweden and South Korea maintain a nuclear industry despite it not being particularly economic for any of them. They all have geopolitical concerns that drive them to want to be able to manufacture a nuke at short notice. Unlike with Sweden, South Korea and Japan we are told to believe that Iran is pursuing nuclear power as a means of being able to acquire weapons.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
yodelshady 4y ago
Poland isn't a rich country LARPing as environmental saviour whilst increasing its coal consumption in 2022, after decades of being warned about reliance on Russian gas. Germany does not get on iota of good faith on that. They knew.
concordDance 4y ago
> Fukushima was a risk that was hard to ignore. Politically hard to ignore? Yes. Practicaly hard to ignore? No. Germany doesn't get any tsunamis and even if it did, the consequences of a fukushima level accident every few decades are less bad than the direct pollution effects of coal, even ignoring the CO2.
- pydry 4y ago
  Practically too. The $800 billion clean up bill also comes on top of the already gargantuan cost of building and maintaining nuclear power stations. It's a roll of the dice. The next nuclear catastrophe probably won't look like Fukushima or Chernobyl but I imagine it will happen partly as a result of skimped/badly done maintenance on a plant whose operating life has been extended a bit too far.
  - adhesive_wombat 4y ago
    > whose operating life has been extended a bit too far. That's pretty much Fukushima. It was an old plant, older than Chernobyl by 6 years by date of commissioning. It was supposed to shut down in early 2011, but was granted an eleventh-hour 10-year extension in February that year. The earthquake and tsunami happened a month later, in March. Granted, it probably wouldn't actually have made any difference as it would have been operating that specific month, but it was still a bit of a "he was only 2 weeks from retirement" moment. Unless actions like moving the backup generators uphill would have been done beforehand if it was known the plant was going to keep going until 2021.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Uh... We've seen that the cost of building, maintaining and decomissioning a 70s plant is around $6 billion ($4B + $1B + $1B approx) because this is something we've actually done. Separately, that $800B cleanup cost is something some dude pulled out of his arse. The actual latest government estimate was $200B. Which is almost entirely due to the radiation panic. For example the permanent evacuation (and subsequent need to compensate everyone driven out of their homes) was almost entirely of people in areas were they had aless that 1% extra risk of cancer. And the managers of the decontamination do things like spend years dithering over whether to just release a bunch of contaminated water which would increase locals yearly radiation exposure by under 0.04%. But lets take those costs as a given. The developed world has around a hundred commercial nuclear reactors and has done so for more around 50 years. The vast majority of disaster cleanup is Fukushima. An extra $2B factored into the cost of each plant to deal with accident chance chance isn't going to break the bank given these things produce around 500B kWh during their life time, which sells on the electricity market for around $50B.
cultureswitch 4y ago
Nuclear isn't being swapped out for renewables in Germany, it's being replaced by gas (in the best cases). I think what enrages people is that unlike Poland, Germany is actively going in the wrong direction. They are stopping all nuclear power, not just closing old plants. All scientific evidence points to this being a terrible decision. There's an expectation that Germany has the means and governance able enough to avoid taking disastrous decisions when it comes to fields which are almost entirely technical and non-political. So it was a shocking development, especially coming from a conservative majority that most people would assume would be generally pro nuclear.

by pydry 4y ago

reducesuffering 4y ago

Poland's coal use is also a huge problem. However, they don't receive as much comment because Germany is richer, so more able to afford cleaner energy sources, and Poland wasn't ignorant and short-sighted about using Russian natural gas.

cbmuser 4y ago
Poland is actually going to build nuclear power plants soon. In ten years, Poland‘s electricity mix will be much cleaner than Germany‘s.
- robocat 4y ago
  EXPORTS In 2021, Poland exported $926M in Electricity. The main destination of Electricity exports from Poland are: Lithuania ($430M), Slovakia ($388M), Czechia ($56.5M), Germany ($28.8M), and Sweden ($23M). IMPORTS In 2021, Poland imported $1.45B in Electricity. Poland imports Electricity primarily from: Germany ($911M), Sweden ($299M), Lithuania ($131M), Ukraine ($63.4M), and Czechia ($43.5M).
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    A lot of Russian gas went straight to the gas turbines of electricity generating plants, which considerably skews these figures.

cbmuser 4y ago

> They werent that many to begin with they growing increasingly expensive to run, were coming to the end of their lifespan and Fukushima was a risk that was hard to ignore. That’s simply untrue. Nuclear reactors are permanently maintained and improved, especially in Germany because of §19a Atomgesetz. Nuclear power plants can run 60 years and longer. The nuclear reactor in Beznau went first online 1969 and it’s still operational. The reactors Germany is shutting down now went online in 1988 and 1989. See also: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-re...

crote 4y ago
Of course you can. Just like you can drive a car for a million miles. Those reactors were never designed to operate this long. As time goes on, you'll run into increasingly rare failures which weren't even considered during their design. Getting replacement parts is going to become increasingly difficult, as you're now looking for a replacement for a one-off part which was created decades ago by a company which doesn't even exist anymore. And you're missing out on six decades of innovation - including safety improvements. Running reactors well beyond their original design lifespan is irresponsible. We are already seeing this in practice in France: in 2022 28 out of 56 reactors were offline due to technical issues or maintenance. 2023 saw a repeat of this, with 32 out of 56 offline at the same time. If you want a stable supply of power using nuclear reactors, you're going to have to build new ones sooner rather than later.
- cultureswitch 4y ago
  If you close down the old ones before building new ones, you choke the industry. Most of our nuclear energy experts are already 50+. New generations are told that the industry is shrinking (unless you move to the forward-thinking PRC). Also, it's better to be down for maintenance even for small issues than to play fast and loose. Nuclear safety regulations and agencies are generally well respected, and those frequent maintenance downtimes are a sign of that.
  - 4y ago

belorn 4y ago

People generally present Germany strategy as a major role model for the best and most effective way to combat climate change. As such this strategy raises a lot of criticism when they start to burn coal. If people were presenting Poland as the model for environmentalism then that strategy would likely raise even harsher criticism.

pydry 4y ago
>As such this strategy raises a lot of criticism when they start to burn coal. Except they didnt. Unlike Poland they reduced the amount of coal they used by rather a lot. While US media is extremely critical of Germany for "not reducing its use of coal fast enough" it is apparently entirely unbothered by Poland not reducing it at all. This is the American media feigning environmental concern because Germany was less obedient than Poland in following American foreign policy goals.

nonethewiser 4y ago

> It's interesting how Poland's electricity mix has been 80% coal for decades and this passes without comment Well to be fair, this comment chain was explicitly about Germany. There are lots of bad energy policies.

pydry 4y ago
Kind of my point. Germany's energy policy has gotten a disproportionate amount of attention and criticism in the US media for "not reducing its coal usage fast enough" for about a decade and this filters through to hacker news which discusses Germany's electricity system a lot and Poland's almost not at all.

amadeuspagel 4y ago

> They werent that many to begin with they growing increasingly expensive to run, were coming to the end of their lifespan and Fukushima was a risk that was hard to ignore. Not for Japan[1]. The truth is that after Fukushima, the pro-nuclear parties lost a few state elections, which caused them to panic and give up on nuclear. Today, even Japan is over it, but in germany no one wants to admit that mistake. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Post-Fukushima_nuclear_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Post-Fu...

pydry 4y ago
Japan isnt really over it but theyve become increasingly focused on nuclear weapons potential after North Korea got nukes and started lobbing missiles over their heads. Their trust in the US nuclear umbrella isnt unlimited. It's the same reason Iran, Sweden and South Korea maintain a nuclear industry despite it not being particularly economic for any of them. They all have geopolitical concerns that drive them to want to be able to manufacture a nuke at short notice. Unlike with Sweden, South Korea and Japan we are told to believe that Iran is pursuing nuclear power as a means of being able to acquire weapons.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

yodelshady 4y ago

Poland isn't a rich country LARPing as environmental saviour whilst increasing its coal consumption in 2022, after decades of being warned about reliance on Russian gas. Germany does not get on iota of good faith on that. They knew.

concordDance 4y ago

> Fukushima was a risk that was hard to ignore. Politically hard to ignore? Yes. Practicaly hard to ignore? No. Germany doesn't get any tsunamis and even if it did, the consequences of a fukushima level accident every few decades are less bad than the direct pollution effects of coal, even ignoring the CO2.

pydry 4y ago
Practically too. The $800 billion clean up bill also comes on top of the already gargantuan cost of building and maintaining nuclear power stations. It's a roll of the dice. The next nuclear catastrophe probably won't look like Fukushima or Chernobyl but I imagine it will happen partly as a result of skimped/badly done maintenance on a plant whose operating life has been extended a bit too far.
- adhesive_wombat 4y ago
  > whose operating life has been extended a bit too far. That's pretty much Fukushima. It was an old plant, older than Chernobyl by 6 years by date of commissioning. It was supposed to shut down in early 2011, but was granted an eleventh-hour 10-year extension in February that year. The earthquake and tsunami happened a month later, in March. Granted, it probably wouldn't actually have made any difference as it would have been operating that specific month, but it was still a bit of a "he was only 2 weeks from retirement" moment. Unless actions like moving the backup generators uphill would have been done beforehand if it was known the plant was going to keep going until 2021.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Uh... We've seen that the cost of building, maintaining and decomissioning a 70s plant is around $6 billion ($4B + $1B + $1B approx) because this is something we've actually done. Separately, that $800B cleanup cost is something some dude pulled out of his arse. The actual latest government estimate was $200B. Which is almost entirely due to the radiation panic. For example the permanent evacuation (and subsequent need to compensate everyone driven out of their homes) was almost entirely of people in areas were they had aless that 1% extra risk of cancer. And the managers of the decontamination do things like spend years dithering over whether to just release a bunch of contaminated water which would increase locals yearly radiation exposure by under 0.04%. But lets take those costs as a given. The developed world has around a hundred commercial nuclear reactors and has done so for more around 50 years. The vast majority of disaster cleanup is Fukushima. An extra $2B factored into the cost of each plant to deal with accident chance chance isn't going to break the bank given these things produce around 500B kWh during their life time, which sells on the electricity market for around $50B.

cultureswitch 4y ago

Nuclear isn't being swapped out for renewables in Germany, it's being replaced by gas (in the best cases). I think what enrages people is that unlike Poland, Germany is actively going in the wrong direction. They are stopping all nuclear power, not just closing old plants. All scientific evidence points to this being a terrible decision. There's an expectation that Germany has the means and governance able enough to avoid taking disastrous decisions when it comes to fields which are almost entirely technical and non-political. So it was a shocking development, especially coming from a conservative majority that most people would assume would be generally pro nuclear.